There was a blog on Out of Ur (which I think is owned by Christianity Today) about Virtual Church.
Apparently there were some others too
In Defense
Shane Hipps on Virtual Community
So Zach and I ramble about it for a little bit, I cut it off where I did because I thought it was a great final thought.
Tags: rambling, virtual community, zach lind
[...] out this podcast with Nick and Zach about virtual church. JC Send to FacebookRelated Ways to Take Action: Podcast Developer & [...]
I am uncomfortable with terms like loony and crazy used to depict the work that I do and the congregation that I serve. Zach, I would like to invite you to spend some intentional time at an online church getting to know the people who gather and those of us who serve such a community. Not knowing us puts one at a disadvantage in commenting on our life of worship, fellowship and study. You are invited to our little church in Second Life – Koinonia Church.
http://www.koinonia-church.org
Also, pick up this season’s issue of Yale Divinity School’s journal, Reflections, where you can read my article entitled Sacred Space in Cyberspace.
Grace and peace,
Kimberly
Kimberly-
Thanks for your response here! Would be good to connect and talk about the Second Life community. I am sure that many people didn’t even know you all gathered.
Again, thanks for the links!
Joshua
Kimberly,
I don’t presume that the work you do is crazy or loony. I’m sure the work you is valuable. What I do presume is that it’s fundamentally misleading to call what you do “Church.”
Zach
Zach,
I took issue with your dismissive language of loony and crazy which you did indeed use that i bet we can agree has been applied throughout the centuries (in some form or fashion) to many forms of church (including emergent) while being dismissed by those who claim to have the single definition of church. I assure you I have given this a great deal of thought, explored many readings including Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Leonardo Boff, prayed faithfully and sought the guidance of pastors and theologians and am quite comfortable calling what we are “doing” church. I find it perplexing and unfortunate that you persist in using negative language like “misleading” when you have not made the effort to get to know me or our community. You are indeed presuming rather than knowing. I again extend the invitation to you to come visit our community that has been gathering to worship, enjoy fellowship and engage in study for over 2.5 years.
Kimberly
Kimberly, haven’t seen you around on the blog before, thanks for stopping by. I hope we didn’t in anyway invalidate the work you have been doing. I love the idea of online community, but as we talked about I think there is a misrepresentation that can occur if we talk about online experiences being exactly the same as physical ones.
That being said, we host a podcast because we like to get to know people we may not get the chance to meet due to time and space constraints. Our listeners are even removed one more step because they can only listen and not dialogue, and where as I do believe the interviews we put up are important and form a sort of awareness between the listeners and the interviewees, I think it breaks down if we say that listening to our interview is the same as getting a beer with the people we interview. I don’t want to label one as better or worse, per se, but I would like to acknowledge the difference.
[...] So Zach Lind and I did a podcast about ‘Virtual Church’. The podcast is here. [...]
Josh, Nick, & Zach — I haven’t posted much on this blog either (although in an interview you did with Tony Jones, one of you referenced a post I wrote for Presbymergent about the Christian publishing industry), but I’ve been part of the emergent conversation for quite awhile, and have been involved with leadership in presbymergent for most of it’s existence.
As emergents, we talk a lot about what church is, isn’t, should be, shouldn’t be, etc. — but the reason you haven’t heard of Kimberly before is because she’s been busy actually *doing* emergent church. And yes, the church she pastors (in every sense of the word) is a real church in the virtual world of Second Life. I’ve participated in her community, and have learned much from her as I’ve been busily gathering together a community of Presbyterians for conversation and prayer in second life over the past few months.
I remember a time not too long ago when we, as emergents, were scoffed at, and I remember the sting of being told that emergent communities of faith were not worthy of the title “church.”
And Zach, it’s pretty bold of you to say that Kimberly is misleading people by calling what she does church…when you don’t really know what she does. I know this: to a person, everyone in her community considers themselves part of a “church” –and her community includes several who are ordained pastors, seminarians, and scholars of theology.
Of course, you’re certainly entitled (especially on your own blog) to define church however you like. But we emergents have always resisted definitions, because we know the power they have to exclude, institutionalize, and limit what God is doing. I really hope that in our newfound voice of influence and power, we haven’t become the epitome of what we were trying to break down.
Kimberly’s church is one of many, and their number is decidedly growing. When there are more virtual churches than emergent churches, will we still be having this debate? Probably, but it won’t be on two dimensional blogs or audio-bound podcasts. It will be in media-rich and relationship-rich communities of faith…Churches…in virtual worlds. Hope you’re along for the ride
Oops — just kidding about the Tony Jones / Publishing reference — that was an interview he did with Jake Bouma. Obviously, I’m getting my D-List Emergent Celebrities all mixed up…
“And yes, the church she pastors (in every sense of the word) is a real church in the virtual world of Second Life.”
So Kimberly does hospital visits, performs funeral and weddings, provides counseling all in a synthetic, virtual space?
Just to be clear, I think what Kimberly does is really fantastic. Based on my limited experience and browsing the website, the world is certainly a better place with Kimberly and her “church” than without it. The difference comes down to how we view relationships. For me the argument for a “virtual church” is a flawed as an argument for a “virtual hospital.” Physical presence for me is not a nuisance, it is the primary avenue for all that community has to offer. webmd.com is great. it provides lots of information and helps folks in great ways to make their lives better, but it is not a hospital. it can’t be. This view has nothing to do with a judgement of the folks involved. I’m sure Kimberly and the folks involved in Koinonia are fantastic human beings who are just looking for connection and to be understood.
With that said, I really do wonder why there is a need to elevate relationships that primarily take place online to “church.” What is it about the local communities that the congregants of Koinonia seem averse to committing to? Is “virtual church” a safety net for folks who just can’t find a local community they can coexist with? To me that’s the beauty of the Church. Worshiping with folks, shoulder to shoulder who you may have deep disagreements with but put them aside for the sake of the body.
I really do apologize if I offended you or anyone in your group. I don’t mean to call you or anyone else crazy or loony. I just think this debate is crazy, especially the way folks like Doug Estes and the other proponents on Out of Ur blog have articulated. It seems evident in reading your comments that you’d be a much better proponent then the louder voices.
Peace,
Zach
Zach,
By just visiting our web site you can not even begin to understand the interactive and immersive experience of our community. Until you have spent time as a avatar, walking around our house of worship, talking to the people who gather, attend a worship you have no idea what so ever of what we are about. We are far more than webmd which is primarily a one way transmission of information that people can access without actually encountering another human being in real time (much like a podcast in fact). In our community there are real people, present in real time with whom you can interact, pray, cry, laugh and play.
To your questions:
I do in fact visit real hospitals – where people who have been coming to Koinonia for years find themselves in such a room in first life with no family or community that cares to take the time to visit them. They have a family online that loves them very much, and with a laptop on the stark tray in the stark room we can come to them.
I do in fact conduct very real weddings – in fact one just this past Saturday. Two people who met initially through the ministry of Koinonia in Second Life, grew to know and love one another, began meeting in first life (they live across the US continent from one another) and last week one coast moved to the other so they could be together from this time onward. Because SL was the way they met and fell in love, and because these two people are females and there are very few states (not the one in which they live) that recognize the legality of their union they chose the most meaningful, and for them the most holy, venue to proclaim their covenantal vows before the community that has been loving them for over a year. For them was was important was the pastor that has been a part of their lives blessed their commitment – and so it was and so it will be again if the occasion arises.
Being a seminary graduate who has completed a full unit of CPE and having at least three clergy with whom I can talk about cases I do indeed counsel people who seek my care. I do a bit of triage as it were and when the case presents more than I am qualified to handle I refer them to other agencies (if they will even tell me where they live). The type of care I offer is not meant to be a replacement for the kind of care very broken lives need, but finding a person who can offer a faithful, skilled and loving ear on behalf of the church has made the difference in many lives I assure you.
For many of the people that I serve choosing a first life congregation is not an option. They have made it abundantly clear that they have been outright denied access to the Body of Christ more than a few times in more than a few brick and mortar “churches”.
And finally, this is a frontier with people living very real lives for what ever reasons – shut ins with family gone or unconcerned, living in intolerant communities if they are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. Perhaps they have turrets syndrome and have been asked to stay away from church because it “disturbs” the other worshipers. Much damage has been and is being done by “churches” out there and I understand one aspect of my calling to be a church for those who need it when all others have failed them.
Your sister in Christ,
Kimberly
Kimberly,
I think we just see it differently. Like I said, your efforts in SL are valid and valuable to an extent that I’m sure I’m not even aware of. It sounds to me like Koinonia is a kind of safety net online community for those who simply can’t find a community that accepts them or that they can accept. As a white heterosexual male, I don’t pretend to understand the hurt and frustration that any kind of minority experiences in church communities.
But I think we can agree that the couple you married are better off actually being together in first life rather than just carrying on their relationships via SL? I guess that’s my point. Our most important, transformative relationships take place in an ongoing series of embodied, face to face, first life encounters . That’s why virtual marriage seems like such a incomplete concept. In the end, I’m not going to lose sleep as a result of your calling your SL community “church,” but I wonder if you and the folks in your community are willing to concede that while there is a valuable thing happening among you in SL, you’re foster a willingness to give up on lots that first life community has to offer.
Peace,
Zach
Zach,
There is something gained and something lost even in going between a house church and a mega church. Both of those happen to share in common the “first life physicality” you might say, but I’d hate to start setting arbitrary, non-biblical criteria for what does and does not constitute the church. There are a few standards for “church” in acts that I suspect very few churches you or I have attended meet–especially physical brick and mortar ones in the US. But I’ve yet to come across a biblical criteria for church that Second Life isn’t capable of meeting.
You may not lose much sleep if we call our virtual churches as such, but I do lose some sleep when people start denying their status. I also lose sleep when Evangelicals tell my female minister friends that they aren’t “real” ministers, or when people tell my emergent friends they aren’t “real” Christians. It’s easy to make these denials carelessly when you are in a position of power–when no one questions your own church as “real.”
I’d urge to you to be careful in your public words, and while I can certainly understand expressing doubt about virtual churches, I’d at least be very hesitant to deny their validity outright and with such finality–because you might be denying God. Humility is a better posture for exploring the truth of something than arrogance.
On that note, I’ll give you this: Virtual churches are different. They certainly have their own pitfalls and challenges and weaknesses–I think you’re hitting on some of them. But all churches do, and I, for one, will try very hard not to tell you that your church isn’t a church just because it fails in some area where mine thrives.
Neal,
First, I think you’re right in that all churches contend with something lost and something gained, as you put it. We are certainly in agreement on that point. As I understand a community like Koinonia through what Kimberly has shared, I don’t have any interest in belittling the experience of those in that community. In the abstract, I still hold to my position but if I were speaking with a member of Kimberly’s community face to face and they were to describe for me their positive experience, I wouldn’t be inclined to diminish that experience. I’d be happy they found a venue that they are excited about.
But I guess I’d say this: if a virtual church is not, in the end, continually encouraging their members to eventually seek out a “first life” church community to be a part of, I’d be hard pressed to be excited about or supportive of that community calling itself a church. I recognize that for some, at certain stages of their journey, they are not ready to reenter a brick and mortar church community. A community like Koinonia provides a beautiful setting for them to feel loved by others and by God. I imagine it gives them a safe haven from the rejection and pain from previous church experiences and that is nothing but a very beautiful process. But if a virtual church becomes forever your default community and you never are able to reenter a local community, I think that has the likely potential to breed a dangerous individualism that is often difficult to reverse out of. To exclude categorically an ongoing physical presence with your church community for me is stretching not only the concept of “church” to far, but even stretching definition of “community” too far as well.
But I will certainly accept your advice and be more careful with how I discuss the topic. I’ve really appreciated this back and forth and it’s certainly helped me shape my thoughts on the matter.
Not that this has anything to do with virtual church, but this is what I watched for my daily TED this morning –
http://blog.ted.com/2009/11/how_the_interne_1.php
[...] Scot Mcknight chimed in on his blog. Nick from the Nick and Josh podcast asked me to take part in a little conversation about the matter. Bob Hyatt has provided the most thoughtful push back on this issue, raising [...]