A couple of implications stem from this. First we can say that the ideal relationship is not just carried by verbal communication. The apostle John knew this, as evidenced by this personal touch in 2 John 12:
Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face, so that our joy may be complete.
There are times when verbal communication is the only means of maintaining a relationship, but it’s hardly the ideal situation to be in, nor is it how we were meant to pursue relationships. And it’s interesting that for John, the joy brought by such a relationship was seen as being incomplete.
Secondly we should also be wary of the temptation to let our online interactions take over from our physical lives. Sociologically speaking, we could view the phenomenon of online worlds like Second Life as a product of a growing dissatisfaction with life in the real world; a form of escapism where unfulfilled dreams are met and secret longings pursued. An understanding of the physical aspects of human existence means that we should chase after life within its full embodied form, not settling for the shadow which is life spent in front of a LCD screen. While the internet can be seen as a tool for living, it’s not a replacement for it.
Pastorally speaking there are some simple things we can do to help break a dependence upon online forms of interacting. One friend of mine has recognised that some of those she is mentoring in the faith are more likely to open up online than in person. While it’s good that they feel safe to open up after logging on, my friend recognises the need to help her friends move beyond the digital world and so she makes a point of asking them about their specific issues the next time she sees them in person. This act reminds all involved that life is a holistic affair, and it also means that the issue is not left behind in the ether (which is a further reason why anonymity is a problem when interacting online – see last post).
So while the increasing phenomena of digital interaction throws up some challenges, there are ways in which we can start to care for those we have pastoral responsibility for. I’ve come to realise that this discussion has really only been the tip of the iceberg, and that there are many other questions which are thrown up by the many and varied methods of online interaction:
What scope is there for evangelism within a program like Second Life?
Is an online church really viable?
What about the ethics of allowing a site like Second Life in the first instance?
This is a big deal, so I’d like to hear any thoughts that others might have…
10 points for the London park in which the above race was held.
8 comments:
lifechurch.tv
and
xxxchurch.com
have both set up camp in second life.
(check my blog for links - about a week ago)
second life - it exists now... the Christian can respond in at least 3 ways
1) they can campaign to have it shut down (if they think it has super-ethical probs)
2) they can ignore in it
3) they can see it as an opportunity to engage with their culture and share the gospel of Jesus by building virtual relationships.
i like 3.
lifechurch.tv have a whole bunch of campuses - one is an internet campus... they have paid staff that leader the online gathering...
i don't think this is ideal... but could be a good way of tapping into people who live on their computers...
but i think that lifechurch.tv (and any others who do similar stuff) ought to encourage people they meet in 2nd life to hook up with a physical group of people to do church rather than just in their virtual world.
i'm going to stop so this doesn't become longer than the post!!
10 points - Park Street Park?
mate, no commment yet on your detail. I reckon the park is Hyde Park - I think I recognise the spot.
Martin, I think you are setting up an unhelpful dichotomy between online life and embodied life, and then trying to bridge the gap, while continually subordinating the importance of online life.
I've been thinking about this, and my train of thought is going down more of a 'digital life as an extension of embodied life' line. I need to do more thinking though.
Seumas
Dave M:
Agreed. Second Life does present an opportunity for evangelism, but it also requires a salvation not only from sin but from the digital world also...and this is for a number of reasons, not the least being that we are saved as whole beings, cognitive and physical. I've written a paper on evangelism in SL for college...I might post some of it later on. I've checked out your links and the thing I like about lifechurch.tv is that they do meet in a physical sense (at least it seems that way), so they seem aware that online congregating doesn't cut it on its own.
Dave O: 10 points. It was taken on NY’s day near the rotunda.
Seumas:
My issue is that online applications tend to over separate the elements of human existence. If it seems that online life is subordinated, then perhaps it's because I'm reacting against what I see as a neglecting of physical life and the pastoral issues associated with such a move.
Often when we try and restore the balance we can be seen to tip over the other way, but I would have thought my insistence that what you do online matters (post 3) indicates a valuing of what we do when logged on.
In the end it's not that I think the digital and physical are incompatible, but I am concerned that they are increasingly seen as being separable. This is an unhelpful move.
hey marty
i have to say i've been reading your last couple of posts with great interest. oh the irony therefore of relating to someones ideas in this form rather than in the physical. but i think that it proves (as you have mentioned) that there is a viable engagement of ideas/people/personalities in this forum that, for whatever reason, has it's limitations outside the digital arena (ie it's physically impossible to go around seeing and talking with all the people whose ideas we can engage with over the internet).
i definitely agree that its disconcerting when those 'living' in the digital environment relate solely through the internet - actually it's just downright scary when someone comes to me, feeling that they 'know' me from blog reading when we haven't even met! i think we need to be working really hard to understand that only a facet of a person will be represented online and that, esp as Christians, we need to make sure that what we do portray is done with the same sort of integrity that we would expect from a face to face interaction.
in terms of opportunities for evangelism though - it never ceases to amaze (and humble) me that non Christians will read something that i've blogged about and then want to spend time talking about it or thinking it through further. I do think we need to be working through that ways in which the blog world helpfully provides an opportunity for some (in particular those of the 'reflector' personalities) to be challenged by an aspect of theology in a way that would perhaps be to confronting for them otherwise.
coincidentally, i'm doing a seminar on this topic for Credo's Easter convention next week - are you happy for me to repeat (with due credit!) some of the thoughts and ideas that you've written here? i'd also be pretty curious to read that SL paper you wrote for college - if you're happy to, maybe you could email it to me sometime?
yikes! sorry - didn't realise i wrote so much.
I for one will ignore 2nd life. Why? Well for one it is still largely a fringe activity. I am glad there is a church there, but by joining it you will not as a pastor be helping the majority of your congregation. The one or two people who are on it will probably be better served by talking to them IRL(in real life). (Heck if you wanted to jump on an online world where say most of your youth were you'd jump onto World of Warcraft, an online RPG game where people play and chat all day/night.)
Far better to spend time interacting in the ways that most of your congregation interact - whether that is email or msn. Most people still use online communication to mostly enhance their real life relationships.
I guess what i am saying is that not all online communication is equal nor do people always use it for the same reasons. So any analysis has to be tempered with the question, who is participating in this? or perhaps, what kind of person is participating in this activity?
Post a Comment