Can community be online?

[Chris Hoskins]

Over the last few months I've been wrestling with the question: 'can community exist online?' Specifically in a Christian context.
With the rise in the last few years in social networking technology more and more people are referring to their online community. I do it, I'm sure many of you have at somepoint as well. But how often do we stop and think about what we mean by community?
To start, let me post the Oxford English dictionary definition of community:

• noun (pl. communities) 1 a group of people living together in one place. 2 (the community) the people of an area or country considered collectively; society. 3 a group of people with a common religion, race, or profession: the scientific community. 4 the holding of certain attitudes and interests in common. 5 a group of interdependent plants or animals growing or living together or occupying a specified habitat.

— ORIGIN Old French comunete, from Latin communis ‘common’.

I think that all 5 of these definitions of community can be useful for informing this discussion. Also informing my side of the discussion are chapter sin the following 3 books:
Postmodern Youth Ministry; Tony Jones
eMinistry; Andrew Carega
rewired; Peggy Kendall
To make things easy, i'll take each chapter in turn, starting with rewired:
basically, in her section on virtual community, Peggy talks specifically about online community and the issues it raises, there seems to be no discussion or questioning of the presence of online community. her focus is on the lack of 'responsilbe' adults within teenage online communities, which could and does then lead to a lack of adult accountability amongst teenagers. no credit is given to peer accountability on the teenagers part, she seems quite resigned to the idea that without adult supervision and authority all teenagers will resort to swearing and sexual innuendo. An idea that may have some basis in reality, but I don't think is a fair judgement on all teenagers. not that I'm supporting mono-generational communities!

What about Carega?
Carega also seems to go with the assumption that communities do exist online, then spends his chapter wondering why? He asks why more and more people are seeking to experience online community. What does it offer that people aren't finding in 'real life' is his main question. He also spends some time acknowledging and thinking about those that argue point blank against the viability of online community. But ends up concluding that their definition of community is all about geography and physicality. Perhaps they are right? Who's to say that community can only have one definition?

So what about Jones? i like jones approach, because he isn't approaching the idea of community from a purely online context he isn't hampered by what examples and inspirations he can call on. He doesn't have to trawl the web for examples of online community that works, he just has to call on his and his peers experiences of good and bad community. He talks about community being a place of support and relationship, Jones is more concerned with community being authentic and honest than where it happens and what group of people are involved.

Obviously the 3 'reviews' above are not extensive about the relevant chapters, for a fuller picture of what each says I would recomend looking up the book, i just wanted to give you and idea of what I've been reading while pndering this question. As I write this blog, I've asked my twitter buddies if the think community can exist online, If there are any responses before I finish this post, I'll include them at the bottom. if you use twitter and want to follow me search for Chris_Hoskins

what about me? This is my blog, what do i think?
Bascially: yes, I do believe community can exist online. i don't believe it will be as mutually beneficial as community which exists in the physical locale, but I still belive it can exist. All we need to do is respond to the notion of online community with a re-evaluated notion of what community is and can be. If we revisit the oxford english definitions again; 3/5 definitions rely on locale. 2/5 rely only on holding an attitude/belief/interest in common. And I'm quite happy to hold belief in all 5 definitions of community and accept that no community is likely to ever fit all 5.

I've found over the last 3 years that it is those whom I converse with online rather than in person that I've found to be most supportive in hard times. Does this count as community? Apart from my wife, most of the people I would consider my closest friends live at least 60 miles away from me, some even on a seperate continent. Yet I would still consider them to be part of my community, why shouldn't I? how could i recieve support from and give support to my friends in Canada, none of whom I've had any physical interaction with for 5 years, and not consider myself in some sort of community with them?
Another case in point would be #twurch. A twitter 'community' that I was intorduced to through Stewart Cutler twurch is basically a group on twitter who both twitter and are Christian. I'll include a twitter quote at this point, from tobite, a fellow twitterer who I've started talking to through twurch. He answered this to my twitter question: tobite @Chris_Hoskins yes - #twurch being a good example of this. I have met new people and am forming new bonds and friendships

I've just recieved a corker of a tweet from headphonaught, another twurch friend, he says: headphonaught@Chris_Hoskins community isn't a physical thing anymore. its a collective ideal. its the sharing of & participating in something beyond us
I love that notion of community. Even more so now that it supports what i said earlier about changing our definition of community in light of new experiences and revelations. It's also, i think, a pretty good definition of church, no?

I hope this is all fitting together and making sense, I've not planned it, just sat down and let it come out!I wasn't looking to write an academic text, just letting some stuff out of my head!

I think I'll finish there for the time being, please comment and add to this discussion, i may come back and add more at somepoint.

Peace out

Chris

[Emma Boyd]

Sorry, didn't hyperlink...

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2009/02/the_social_netw.html

[Emma Boyd]

Wanted to weigh in with a link to this post, which I think makes some interesting points: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2009/02/the_social_netw.html

Like you all, I wrestle back & forth with online community... I have grown up with it and am very much immersed in it. It enriches my life in amazing ways; some of the friendships I now have, many of whom I have met in person also. But I also question the effect it is having on my day-to-day interactions. I see myself become more reticent, preferring to talk to a friend in LA via ichat rather than walking down the street to speak face-to-face with someone from the church I attend.

Haven't got any answers, but am hoping that at least by acknowledging the tensions there I wont ignore them!

[Stewart Cutler]

That's an interesting question! I guess the root of it is 'Can online community exist on its own without a face-to-face element? I'm torn. Part of me wants to say that your right about incarnational relationships but part of me wants to ask how does that work if the people we meet are in Second Life or chatting through the day with some 'friends' on twitter who need prayer and support? Are we being incarnational there in a way which is less real? I don't think so but I wouldn't want that to replace real life. What always makes me smile is that all this online stuff works around communication with should be about building and enhancing relationships over distance. I'm not saying that's not problematic but there are huge posibilities for good in that because WE are in that. We don't stop being Christian when we go online do we? If we don't then that's where Jesus is in all of this, in us, just the same as in 'real life'.

[Jonathan Fraser]

Very good. Can't argue with that... you know me: more orthodox than is good for me.
However, I think my question - and this is the question that troubles me every time I think of you thesis - is about Jesus specifically. However community might be defined in secular contexts (where it can perhaps exist on-line), Christianity - if it takes the Incarnation seriosuly - cannot think community in anyway other than as fundamentally embodied. Christ became flesh and the church (which I think, theologically, is the only community (or better communion) that counts) is called to be his body: body of Christ. Now, the body of Christ can not be understood - if you're thinking orthodoxly - in any way other that in a tangible, embodied (flesh and blood and bones) way!
So whilst I cannot help but agree with your Trinitarian thinking (how can we think God in any other way, after all) I think I genuinely meant to say: where is the second person of the Tirnity in all of this, because, in a very genuine, brother-in-law,spirit of constructive questioning way, I think that's a question that your thesis has to tackle head on.

[Chris Hoskins]

As I said, this wasn't a finished piece when I posted it, just some thoughts that splurged out.
But why ask just where Jesus is? why not the whole trinity?
When bringing God into any thoughts on community I would want to talk about Father, Son and Holy Spirit and not stop at Son.

[Jonathan Fraser]

Without sounding arrogant or pious... where's Jesus in all of this? He isn't even mentioned once, and that troubles me when thinking theological thoughts.