Are the very definition of most Internet communities I’ve had the privilege of being a member of, or leading. Over time we develop a shared history; leadership, technology etc. changes and we become permanent; proximity is generated through open communication and occasional regional or national gatherings; and the internet communities have some of the strongest visions for the future.

I feel an online church will build more of a community and encourage more people to learn about Christianity.

Thank you for your service and your post!

Will

Ok as for the Incarnation we must ask ourselves why is it that God in his infinite wisdom condescended to take on human flesh in the first place. Perhaps it was because the effects of disembodied communication strategies employed in the Law and the Prophets had produced less than perfect results, and thus the New covenant demanded the real presence of Christ. I think this is at least plausible. If this is the case, its is not difficult to see the issues that could develop as a result of disembodied community.

Finally, and I don’t know how this fits, but I think it is important to understand what it meant that the early church rejected the Gnostic movement which of course, had as a major theological premise, that the Body was at least unimportant and unhelpful, and at worst evil itself. In refuting the Gnostics writters, including the author of the Johanine Epistles, were careful to stress the importance of physicality in the understanding of Christ himself. Like I said, I’m not sure how this connects exactly but certainly its something to think about.

At the end of the day I believe that the Internet can be a tool to transmit theological content, training, and information. I do not think it can ever be truly effective at building Christian Community outside of at least a semi regular physical meeting. I believe this less as a point of theological contention, as a realization that disembodied “relationships” are almost never authentic and effective relationships, and in fact in many cases are more destructive than helpful. To reduce it to an oft quoted retort “Long Distance Relationships Never Work”

http://ipiphanist.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/does-god-value-physical-presence-like-we-do/

I do agree that individual congregations did most of their interpersonal communications through talking. Their options were that or find someone who could read and write, and given how close people lived, why not just go talk in person? Letter-writing was reserved for distance.

I do want to mention one other thing you wrote: “at some time in the past Christians have shared an understanding of community that is radically at odds with what happens when people interact online. ” I think he is being nostalgic about the past, but at the same time there is a real danger in “doing community” online. There are two major things: first, that things online are easily misinterpreted, as people don’t necessarily communicate clearly, and that the internet is often dominated by the squeakiest wheel. Behavior that in real life would be unacceptable is allowed to flourish in part because those who are mainstream quickly fade into the woodworks with the first snarky comment. It would be useful to have a proactive strategy against that, whether it be involved mods or published rules.

But I think it’s worth the effort!

To clarify: in this post I’m not attempting to define “Christian community.” The scope of my argument is narrowly confined to reacting to Shane Hipp’s definition. I brought up the sociological definition of community in order to establish a baseline of how the term is commonly used. To that common understanding of the term we add the modifier “Christian” and Hipps further adds the modifiers “meaningful, missional.” I agree that a church is a specialized type of community with its own requirements beyond those of, say, a sports team.

Clif

Great post, with great questions, all worthy of attention.

Of all the important points you raise I will address only one. Contemporary discussions of the incarnation of Jesus/the gospel within the Christian community have fascinated me for the past two years. The church should somehow “enflesh” the good news about Jesus, so that people can see the claims Christians make take on flesh and blood. When the church extends care for the widow and the orphan, Jesus’ presence is made real to those extending and receiving care. When the body of Christ joins together in worship, Jesus is found in the midst of the saints. God became incarnate in Jesus, but the good news about Jesus becomes incarnate in us–not only an abstract idea, but a concrete reality made manifest in the lives of the saints.

You stated, “our knowledge of Jesus is mediated through the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit, and the Church, which is the Body of Christ in the world,” and by saying this you have stepped into the ring of a historic debate. Kierkegaard addressed this very matter in “Fear and Trembling.” In that book Kierkegaard using the story of Abraham to demonstrate that faith (or the knowledge that brings about faith) does not necessarily come through mediation, but can occur directly in a human/divine encounter. In this regard your mention of the Holy Spirit is the most compelling, though I would argue that “knowledge” of Jesus can also be attained through direct, divine revelation of Jesus as Christ. This may occur in Church or in Bible reading, but it may occur during some other religious experience.

Keep hammering away at your definition of community. Your loose definition is functional on multiple levels, but does your definition capture the type of community we are called to be as the church of Jesus Christ? That is the question.

BAS