Jones,Elizabeth:Pixilated Stained Glass: A Fantasy Theme Analysis of Online and Face-to-Face...
-
Upload
digitalstorytelling -
Category
Documents
-
view
36 -
download
0
Transcript of Jones,Elizabeth:Pixilated Stained Glass: A Fantasy Theme Analysis of Online and Face-to-Face...
PIXILATED STAINED GLASS: A FANTASY THEME ANALYSIS OF ONLINE
AND FACE-TO-FACE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
MASTER OF ARTS
BY
ELIZABETH B. JONES
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
ADVISOR: DR. JAMES CHESEBRO
MUNCIE, INDIANA
JULY 2007
Acknowledgements
Thanks first and foremost go to my thesis committee: to Dr. James Chesebro, for his
patience, encouragement, and uncanny ability to connect people (like me!) with exactly
the ideas and resources they need; to Dr. Joseph Misiewicz for his insightful questions
that sparked my creativity; and to Dr. Beth Messner for her attention to detail and
commitment to excellence. This paper was enriched considerably because of the
contributions of each of these individuals.
My thanks also go my professors at Grove City College, especially Dr. Daniel Brown.
These individuals first inspired my love for the study of communication, beginning with
Communication Theory 101 my freshman year. They also encouraged me to see all
communication as a gift emanating from the Logos.
Another thank you must go to my parents, David and Kyle Thompson, who tirelessly
supported me in not only my academic pursuits, but in all other areas of my life as well.
It was my parents who first instilled in me the inherent value of learning and education.
Last, a major debt of gratitude goes to my husband Jeff, who has encouraged me in
words and actions throughout the writing process, even when he bore the brunt of my
frustrations. I thank Jeff for always supporting me in fulfilling my dreams.
ABSTRACT THESIS: Pixilated Stained Glass: A Fantasy Theme Analysis of Online and Face- to-Face Christian Community STUDENT: Elizabeth B. Jones DEGREE: Master of Arts COLLEGE: Communication, Information, and Media DATE: July 2007 PAGES: 90 This thesis investigates how two Christian communities – differentiated primarily by
their medium of communication – characterize and cast Christian community. The
method of fantasy theme analysis was used to explore this thesis’s central research
question; namely, are content differences present in the ways in which face-to-face and
digital communication systems characterize and cast the Christian sense of community?
After an analysis of St. Pixels Church of the Internet (digital communication) and St.
Luke’s United Methodist Church (face-to-face communication) it was found that the
online community demonstrated a rhetorical vision of koinonia, while the face-to-face
community demonstrated a rhetorical vision of ekklesia.
Table of Contents
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 The Significance of Studying Online Christian Communities ........................... 2 Definition of Terms ............................................................................................. 5 Community ............................................................................................. 5 Religious Community ............................................................................. 8 Christian Community .............................................................................. 8 Unique Aspects of Online Cyberchurch Christian Community ......................... 9 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 10 Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................. 13 Technological Determinism .............................................................................. 13 Community as a Communication Concept ....................................................... 15 Online Christian Community ............................................................................ 18 Summary and the Need for Further Research ................................................... 21 Chapter Three: Method ................................................................................................. 23 Communities Being Studied ............................................................................. 23 St. Pixels Church of the Internet ........................................................... 23 St. Luke’s United Methodist Church ................................................... 28 St. Pixels and St. Luke’s as Analogous Christian Communities ...................... 29 Religion ................................................................................................. 29 Denominational Affiliation ................................................................... 30 Social Rituals ........................................................................................ 31 Christian Community Artifacts ............................................................. 32 Text Analysis .................................................................................................... 34 Ethics ..................................................................................................... 34 Fantasy Theme Analysis ................................................................................... 35 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 39
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................. 41 Protocol ............................................................................................................. 42 Table 2 .............................................................................................................. 44 Rhetorical Visions ............................................................................................. 46 Koinonia ................................................................................................ 46 St. Pixels Fantasy Types ....................................................................... 48 The Internet as Sacred Space .................................................... 48 Unity in Diversity ..................................................................... 50 Ekklesia ................................................................................................. 51 St. Luke’s Fantasy Types ...................................................................... 53 Gathering Together for Growth ................................................ 53 Collaboration; Serving Side-by-Side ........................................ 54 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 55 Chapter Five: Major Findings, Limitations, and Suggestions for Future Research ...... 57 Major Findings .................................................................................................. 57 Limitations ................................................................................................... 58 Implications ................................................................................................... 61 Research Question One ......................................................................... 61 Research Question Two ........................................................................ 63 How the Christian Understanding of “Social” Affects Community ..... 63 Suggestions for Future Research ...................................................................... 64 Implications in Practice ..................................................................................... 65 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 66 Reference List ................................................................................................... 67 Appendixes ................................................................................................... 74 A ................................................................................................... 74 B ................................................................................................... 75 C ................................................................................................... 76 D ................................................................................................... 86 E ................................................................................................... 88
Chapter 1: Introduction
Internet technology has enabled individuals to practice religion in ways previously
unimagined. Geographically disparate individuals, each sitting alone behind his or her
computer screen, can now navigate to an online Christian cyberchurch to experience
worship, fellowship, and support. Hewitt (1998) defines a cyberchurch as a “church
without walls in which people literally gather together via the Internet.” Campbell (2005)
notes that cyberchurches have no offline equivalent, thus differentiating them from the
many websites that correspond to a particular geographically-bound church.
Can a cyberchurch provide the same sense of community as a church service
characterized by face-to-face communication? In more general terms, does the Internet
provide a new social context for the expression of Christian community? Or is the new
social context of the Internet antithetical to the sacred understanding and enactment of
Christian community?
Arguing that community is a seminal and unifying theme that can make religion a
dynamic force in the lives of individuals, this thesis seeks to compare and contrast two
predominately equivalent Christian communities, differing only in their means of
communication. One will be an online cyberchurch community, while the other will be a
face-to-face geographically-bound congregation. This comparison will be instrumental in
developing a more complete understanding of how the medium of the Internet shapes
religious understanding and practice.
Four objectives are undertaken in this chapter: 1) to provide evidence of why the study
of Christian community in an online context is an especially timely subject matter; 2) to
offer criteria for identifying when social amalgamations can be labeled as
“communities”; 3) to discusses unique features of cyberchurch communities; and 4) to
present conclusions culminating with resulting questions for research. Accordingly, we
first consider the rationale and evidence for the study of Christian community in an online
context.
The Significance of Studying Online Christian Communities
A study of online Christian community is significant on three levels: 1) a social level;
2) a sacred level; and 3) a societal level. The first two levels argue for an inherent
significance in the study of Christian community, while the third addresses the larger
societal ramifications of cyberchurch communities.
On the social level, religion plays an important role in our understanding of ourselves
as social beings and is also foundational in forming the communities with which we
identify. Sociologist Margot Kempers (2002) notes that: “Religion responds to a human
need to belong and encapsulates individuals in communities that become essential parts
of those individuals’ identities” (p. 41).
Christian community, however, is more than the byproduct of identification within a
religious community; it is a religious imperative rooted in the sacred. In Christianity,
believers are explicitly instructed to form social relationships with each other. Jesus
Christ commanded: “As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men
will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:34b, 35).
Cyberchurch communities in particular merit study because of the ways they may be
influencing – on a societal level – how Christians enact the sacred command to build
community.
The Internet is becoming an increasingly important feature of the religious landscape.
Over the past two decades the number of online religious communities has increased
steadily (Campbell, 2004, p. 87). Although not directly a study of online religious
communities, a report by Hoover, Clark, and Rainie (2004) indicates the scope of the use
of the Internet for religious purposes. According to their findings, 64 percent of “wired
Americans” have used the Internet for a spiritual or religious reason at least once
(Hoover, Clark, & Rainie, 2004).
These and other reports of increased use of the Internet for religious purposes are
located within the milieu of two larger societal trends: 1) a shift from the formal to the
informal in contemporary religious culture; and 2) the emergence of online communities
– from large social networks such as MySpace and Facebook to smaller niche
communities covering a myriad of interests – which are reshaping a traditional
conception of community.
The trend from the formal to the informal in contemporary religious culture suggests a
shift from institution-focused faith to a more individualistic spirituality. It is argued in
this thesis that although individuals may no longer be attending a geographically bound
church, they still, in most cases, seek some kind of sense of Christian community. This is
illustrated by the counterpoint between the decline in traditional church attendance and
the dramatic increase in the attendance of home church meetings – religious services held
in someone’s home or some other place that is not associated with a local, congregational
type of church (Barna Research Group, 2000; Barna Research Group, 2006). These
findings suggest that believers now crave community based on common ideological and
relational bonds, rather than institutional membership.
A more anecdotal example is present in a Muncie Star Press article entitled “Some
Young People Redefining What Religion Means to Them”. The piece discusses how
many Ball State University and Anderson University students view the term “religion”
negatively. One of the students mentioned in the article states, “I don’t like to say
‘religion’ … I prefer saying I have a faith.” Anderson University religion professor Dr.
Fred Shively notes, “20-somethings have a great interest in the spiritual aspect of religion
but not a great interest in the institutions.” This example illustrates a trend away from the
organizational structures associated with religion toward a belief that is more personal in
focus.
Coexisting with this shift in contemporary religious culture is a proliferation of online
communities that reshape traditional conceptions of community. Focusing on the social
consequences of Internet technologies, Kempers (2002) notes, “…[C]omputers and
computer-mediated communication (CMC)1, arguably the most significant new
technology since the start of the Industrial Revolution, appear to be introducing dramatic,
unprecedented changes in our personal lives and social relationships” (p. 118). The
social relationships forming over networks have challenged the concept of community as
1 Communication between two or more people who interact and/or influence each other through separate computers via the Internet.
primarily a geographical construct, and have instigated studies from CMC scholars in
areas such as the communication of social information, group meanings and identities,
forms of relationship, and social negotiation (Campbell, 2005, 45).
In sum, the study of Christian community in an online context is useful for more fully
understanding the unique characteristics of online communities, better comprehending
the societal trend from the formal to the informal in contemporary religious culture, more
accurately perceiving how the medium of the Internet shapes religious practice and
understanding, investigating how the Internet is used to celebrate and disseminate values
and ideologies, and – perhaps most important – judging if the social context of the
Internet is antithetical to a sacred understanding and enactment of Christian community.
Definition of Terms
In order to compare geographically bound Christian communities and online Christian
communities, it is first crucial to understand what elements bond people into a
community. When does a social amalgamation become a community?
Community.
For the purposes of this thesis, community is understood to be a psychological concept
that can be revealed in the communication system employed by people. Often, the
communication system itself may be the most tangible ‘sense of community’ that exists
among a particular group of people. In this way, community manifests itself in the
selective use of symbols and terminologies that denote a degree of social cohesion among
one subgroup, but not others. Four distinctive criteria for ascertaining when a social
amalgamation is indeed a community have been extracted and condensed from the often-
contradictory academic discourse on the topic in order to: 1) Community is social; 2)
Community is constructed; 3) Community is divisive; and 4) Community is
strengthened by identification.
First, community is a social phenomenon. Communities are formed because of the
strong need of human beings to bond together and to form meaningful relationships.
Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers (1998) believe that people have a “great need for one
another” (p. 9). This trait seems to be essential to the human condition. African author
and elder Malidoma Some notes that humanity has “an instinct of community” (as cited
in Kellner-Rogers, 1998, p. 9). People innately crave and create community.
Second, community is constructed. Communities are united by a dynamic shared
understanding of reality. This does not preclude group members from having divergent
viewpoints; instead it suggests that, at the core of the community, members possess a
“deeply shared purpose” (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1998, p. 16). This shared
perception is not static; instead, it is constantly co-constructed by community members
(Griffin, 2000, p. 43). As Kempers (2002) notes, “community constantly evolves,
emerging out of the thoughts and actions of members” (p. 8). Communities are
influenced by factors such as the fears and goals of members and outside influence, as
well as by the community’s particular social context (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). Over
time, communities develop behavioral norms. These norms cause members to “gauge
their actions according to what other community members expect of them” (Allen &
Dillman, 1994, p. xvi).
Third, community is divisive. While this statement may seem paradoxical, it is
important to note that the shared purposes, behavioral norms, and ideologies that unite
members of one community necessarily alienate non-members who do not share this
worldview. However, the very exclusion from one group may be the impetus to form a
new community. For example, persons defined by a past of exclusion and hardship –
such as those with HIV/AIDS – build supportive communities around a common history
of rejection (Kempers, 2002, pg. 10).
Fourth, community is strengthened by identification. Burke’s concept of
identification provides a critical framework for extracting community-building
interactions from discourse. To Burke, identification is a process that is fundamental
both to being human and to communicating. Because the human condition inevitably
implies separateness, persons seek ways to identify with others through communication
(Quigley, 1999). As Burke posits, “[We are] both joined and separate, at once a distinct
substance and consubstantial with another” (1969, p. 21). Quigley recognizes: “[T]o
overcome our division and our guilt, we look for ways in which our interests, attitudes,
values, experiences, perceptions, and material properties are shared with others, or could
appear to be shared” (1999, para. 3).
As previously stated in the initial definition of community, shared communication and
symbols which are meaningful to one group but not necessarily another are often the
most manifest measure of community. Shared rituals and symbols (cross, holy water,
etc.) are often a tangible demonstration of group cohesion, and some are trying to
replicate such rituals and symbols online. Community, therefore, describes a condition in
which human beings are joined together in a communicative relationship based on
common bonds. Next, the concept of religious community will be explored. This thesis
holds that religious community satisfies each of the criteria already discussed; however,
its particular focus in on the sacred2.
Religious Community.
The bond that joins members of a religious community is shared belief in a common
mythology. ‘Myth’ has been defined as:
A narrative that effects identification within the community that takes it seriously,
endorsing shared interests and confirming the given notion of order, while at the
same time gesturing toward a more comprehensive identification—that among
humanity, the earth, and the universe” (Coupe, 2000, p. 6).
It is important to note that ‘myth’ is not tantamount to ‘false’. Instead, myths are
profoundly true stories within the worldview of a believer.
While legitimate communities may be built around a common interest in, say, knitting,
or in the history of Napoleonic naval battles, the focus of religious communities pinpoints
the sacred. As Campbell (2005) echoes, “[Religious] community is a manifestation of
God in the world, a picture on Earth of a divine relationship” (30).
Next, the concept of Christian community – a particular manifestation of religious
community – will be explored.
Christian Community.
Christian community is formed around a particular myth, which C.S. Lewis, literary
critic and Christian theologian, specifically recognizes: “The heart of Christianity is a
2 For the purposes of this thesis, the term ‘sacred’ is used to encompass a range of connotations dealing with the veneration of the divine. Merriam Webster offers some helpful working definitions: “dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity,” “devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose),” “worthy of religious veneration,” “entitled to reverence and respect,” “of or relating to religion: not secular or profane.”
myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth,
comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history” (p. 66).
Lewis sets forth two relevant insights: first, the archetypal myth of the ‘Dying God,’
which has provided a basis for meaning, purpose, and community for millions of
individuals throughout history; second, the uniquely Christian belief that the Dying God
Himself desires community with His people and is therefore actively involved in the
events of history. As this thesis has already touched upon, in the Christian tradition, God
desires for Christians to commune with Him and with each other – Christian community
is a religious imperative. The Christian gathering, therefore, represents a meeting place
of two communities, one divine and the other human.
Is it possible, however, to fully realize this religious imperative in the social context of
the Internet? The next section will outline some of the unique aspects of Online
Religious Communities.
Unique Aspects of Online Cyberchurch Christian Community
For the purposes of this thesis, online Christian social amalgamations which meet the
four criteria given may be labeled a community. However, whether or not these online
communities can fulfill the sacred understanding and enactment of Christian community
is yet to be discovered (see Appendix A for some examples of cyberchurch
communities).
Most online Christian communities fall into one of three categories – cyberchurches,
e-vangelism, or group discussions, which typically center on a particular faith topic
(Campbell, 2005, p. 61-65). This thesis focuses on the communities that gather and
interact in a cyberchurch virtual environment. Individuals meeting at a cyberchurch often
can interact with each other through channels such as online bulletin boards, prayer
circles, corporate worship events, chat rooms, and email, among other methods of
communication. Some religious leaders, however, worry that these synchronous and
asynchronous forms of online communication are severely impoverished when compared
to a more traditional face-to-face model (Dawson, 2004, p. 80). McGillion (2000) sums
up these concerns well: “The Internet encourages people to opt out of the kind of flesh-
and-blood relationships that are the indispensable condition of shared religious
meanings” (n.p.). However, despite such misgivings – or perhaps because of them –
cyberchurches are an important feature of the religious landscape that deserve study and
attention.
Conclusion
Although cyberchurch communities are challenging a traditional view of Christian
community with possible far-reaching societal implications, few studies have yet been
conducted in this area (Dawson, 2004, p. 79). Several overarching questions have been
raised in this Introduction in regards to online cyberchurch communities. Moving from
the general to the specific: Does technology shape how religion is understood and
enacted? Do face-to-face communication systems and online communication systems
affect how Christianity is understood and experienced? Are content differences present
in the ways in which face-to-face and digital communication systems characterize and
cast the Christian sense of community?
This thesis attempts to answer the final question posited, and – by doing this – hopes
to shed light on the more general questions raised as well. This endeavor will be
accomplished by first presenting a review of the relevant literature in chapter two; next
outlining the methodology of Fantasy Theme Analysis in chapter three, and applying this
method to two foundational documents belonging to an online Christian community and a
Christian community characterized by face-to-face communication in chapter four.
Finally, in Chapter Five, a discussion of my findings, the limitations of my research and
suggestions and questions for further study are provided.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The proliferation of online social groups in the mid 1990s directed a significant
amount of academic attention to the topic of online community. CMC scholars
investigated topics such as identity (Turkle, 1995), forms of relationships (Blanchard &
Markus, 2004), and social functioning within groups (Kollock & Smith, 1994). Some
advocates of online community (Rheingold, 1993; Weise, 1996) argued that group
members possessed strong emotional attachments to one another, while other scholars
(Kraut et al., 1998) were more critical, suggesting that online communities may have
deleterious social consequences.
Interest in online religious communities emerged in the late 1990s as media pundits
became concerned about the potential effects technology was having on the culture of
religion (Campbell, 2004). However, the study of religion online is still considered
nascent. Few online Christian communities have undergone direct academic study
(Dawson, 2004). As Dawson recognizes, “We lack either detailed ethnographies of
established communities or survey research into who is using the Internet in this way and
how” (Dawson, 2004, p. 78).
Only two studies directly investigating Christian communities were found. Before
the studies of Christian community are addressed, therefore, some theoretical groundwork
is laid. Marshall McLuhan’s technological determinism is briefly examined to ascertain
if – and how – the medium of the Internet shapes perceptions of reality. In addition,
research into the idea of community as a communication concept is provided. Next, the
two studies conducted thus far that directly explore online Christian community hereto
are discussed, followed by summary statements detailing a need to grow this area of
research.
Technological Determinism
Does the medium of the internet reshape religious understanding and practice? If so,
is this reshaping positive or negative? Some religious leaders / cultural critics are
concerned that online interpersonal connections are severely impoverished compared to
face-to-face interactions. George (2006) articulates this concern:
One key philosophical issue [in the study of the relationship between religion and
the Internet] is that of technological determinism: the idea that society is driven
by technology; that humanity is somehow being led by technology rapidly going
out of control. (para. 1)
Bill Easum (2005), a popular emerging church leader, echoes this concern (directed
toward Christian clergy/laypeople seeking to employ cyberchurch communities to reach
out to the unchurched/nonChristian), stating, “What ways can you think of to capitalize
on the strengths of the Internet without the medium becoming the message?” (p. 46).
The father of technological determinism Marshall McLuhan, however, would
probably argue that trying to keep the medium from becoming the message is an exercise
in futility. While Marx deemed that changes in forms of production determine history’s
course, McLuhan argued that changes in modes of communication shape human
existence. These changes influence the way people think, feel, and act (Griffin, 2001, p.
315).
Although McLuhan died in 1980, he predicted some of the ways that computer and
Internet technology would change society. Seeing every medium as an extension of some
human facility (i.e., the oral medium exaggerates the sense of sound; the print medium
exaggerates the sense of sight, etc.), McLuhan (1969) concluded that the senses of sound
and touch would become most important in the electronic society of the future. He
(1969) insisted that the instant communication made possible by the internet would
‘retribalize’ the human race, building a new ‘global village’ in which concepts of
individualism and privacy would be replaced by an “over-all-awareness of a mosaic
world in which space and time are overcome…a simultaneous, ‘all-at-once’ world in
which everything resonates with everything else as in a total electrical field” (p. 70). In
this ‘all-at-once’ world, McLuhan argued that what an individual feels will become more
important than the linear logic so central to the Print Age (Griffin, 2001, p. 318-319).
Although specifics of McLuhan’s theory are typically questioned today, his general
thesis has received widespread acceptance (Littlejohn, 2002). Many other scholars also
have argued that the Internet is not a values-neutral medium, and that it shapes society’s
concept of reality (e.g., Postman, 1985; Campbell, 2005; Lorne and Cowan, 2004).
In a related vein, Chesebro (2006) has asserted that a paradigm shift, nourished primarily
by the digital media, is underway in human communication. This shift is from a narrative
model of communication to a more emotionally-driven system.
How the unique characteristics of the Internet as a medium will reshape (if they will at
all) the concept and enactment of Christian community is yet to be seen. Next, a review
of literature on the topic of community as a communication concept will be undertaken.
Community as a Communication Concept
Several recent studies suggest that “community” is a powerful concept in numerous
popular social networking sites that are created through CMC (e.g., MySpace; Facebook).
According to Lenhart and Madden (2007), “[I]n the past five years, such sites have
rocketed from a niche activity into a phenomenon that engages tens of millions of internet
users” (p. 1). On such sites, individuals communicate with each other through interactive
channels such as personal profiles, blogs, music, videos, and a user-generated network of
friends. Research suggests that this communication seems to be developing – at least in
many cases – genuine social connections.
In a phone survey of a nationally representative callback sample of 935 teens aged 12-
17, Lenhart and Madden (2007) found that teens used social networking sites to help
manage their friendships. Ninety-one percent of the teens surveyed said that they used
the social networking sites to help keep in touch with friends they saw often, while 82
percent used the site to stay connected with friends they seldom see (p. 2). Fourty-nine
percent of respondents said they used a social networking site to make new friends (p. 2).
However, some argue that social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook are
too broad in scope to truly foster a community based on common interests. As New York
Times columnist Brad Stone (2007) noted, “These big websites [such as MySpace and
Facebook] attract masses of people who have dissimilar interests and, ultimately, little in
common” (para. 4). Stone also noted a growing trend in the area of social networking –
the trend toward smaller, more specialized online communities. Such communities are
often sponsored by a corporate client, such as Joga.com, an online soccer community
sponsored by Nike. Stone goes on to state that “[T]he new social networking players,
which include Cisco [www.cisco.com] and a multitude of start-ups like Ning
[www.ning.com]…say that social networks will soon be as ubiquitous as regular Web
sites” (para. 5). This trend is of particular relevance to a study of online Christian
community. Although this trend is in part driven by corporate demands, it also may
suggest users’ desire to connect with those who share similar perceptions of reality
through smaller online communities based on common interests. Online Christian
communities – as defined in Chapter One – are not focused on, say, soccer, but instead on
deeper, ideological common ground. How does this focus on common values, ideologies,
and beliefs distinguish online Christian communities from other social networking sites?
This is one of the questions that this thesis explores.
This thesis argues that communication forms community. However, another
important variable must be introduced: how does the cognitive concept of “social” affect
a community’s cohesion? In other words, does the way the community understands and
explains its unique social structures and norms influence the way in which the
community exists? Recent research in this area is helpful in addressing these questions.
Hackworth and Brannon (2006) examined “the impact of social intelligence
(measured in terms of discriminative facility) upon the breadth of social influence
strategy choice” (p. 173). They found that individuals who had high social intelligence
(discriminative facility)3 were the most willing to adopt flexible and varied social
strategies to achieve goals. For example, one of the scenarios presented to subjects was
that of a student asking a professor to be let into a closed section of a class. The subject
was then presented with a list of eight persuasion tactics/strategies: direct request,
ingratiation, compromise, negative manipulation of feelings, rationality, coercion,
referent appeal, and avoidance (p. 174). The subject was then asked to rate each tactic on
a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). For example, if the subject felt he or
she would use a certain persuasive tactic/strategy in one area, he or she would answer
with a “1”. Those with the highest social intelligence were willing to consider a wide
range of possible tactics for each situation. This study seems to suggest that a person’s
social intelligence influences the way they choose to act in a particular situation.
Along similar lines, Goleman (2006) investigated social intelligence, but shifts the
focus of study slightly away from more traditional definitions in that discipline. For
example, Thorndike (1920) defined social intelligence as “the ability to understand and
manage men and women” (qtd. in Goleman, p. 11). However, as Goleman notes, “…that
definition by itself also allows pure manipulation to be considered a mark of
interpersonal talent” (11). Goleman, therefore, extends the discussion of social
intelligence to an investigation of what happens when a person engages in any kind of
relationship. In this way, this expanded view “leads us to consider within the scope of
social intelligence capacities that enrich personal relationships, like empathy and
concern” (Goleman, 2006, p. 12).
3 “The individual’s sensitivity to subtle cues about the psychological meaning of the situation” (Chiu et. al., 1995, p. 49)
This quotation allows a smooth segue into the discussion of online Christian
community. Although important research is being conducted in the field of social
intelligence – which demonstrates that knowledge of “social” influences behavior, and
can even influence behavior positively, as Goleman suggests above – this topic has not
yet been examined within the context of Christian community. How does the sacred,
religious imperative to form Christian community influence the way Christian
communities – both online and offline – understand and enact their social dimension?
Following our examination of technological determinism and community as a
communication concept, a review of the two studies that specifically examine online
Christian community is now presented.
Online Christian Community
Groundbreaking work in online Christian community was performed by Heidi
Campbell (2005). Using ethnographic tools, Campbell investigated the unique qualities
that online communication offers to Internet users, the ways in which online community
members describe and interact with their online community, and the perceived and actual
relationships between online and offline community. Information about the beliefs,
patterns, and practices of three groups – The Community of Prophecy, The Online
Church, and The Anglican Communion Online – was gathered over a four-year period
through online participant-observation, email questionnaires, and face-to-face interviews
with selected members (Campbell, 2005). These online communities were selected
because they shared common online practices and/or structures; however, they
represented denominationally diverse groups.
Campbell’s work revealed several findings. First, the online Christian communities
studied functioned as social networks that employed the Internet to build and sustain
relationships. Second, Campbell noted that each community was unified by some
defining narrative structure shared by the entire group. Specifically, each community
presented a “unique narrative rooted in a particular religious and social purpose, used to
bring a cohesive identity to the community and a sense of worth or place to its members”
(p. 175). Third, Campbell noted that while the anonymous nature of the Internet allowed
greater freedom of communication and a greater sense of community for more introverted
or socially shunned individuals, that same anonymity – positive in some contexts – also
could foster antisocial behaviors such as deception, flaming, and spamming. Fourth,
some individuals participating in an online Christian community desired greater personal
contact than the Internet allows. To try to ameliorate this deficiency, community
members resorted to techniques such as emoticons and cyberhugs to simulate face-to-face
communication. Fifth, in investigating the relationship between online and offline
communities, Campbell found that in some cases, relationships between online
community members went offline as group members set up phone conversations or face-
to-face meetings. These interactions occasionally resulted in reaching out to help in the
offline world (e.g., donating money to a community member in need). Finally, Campbell
found that online Christian communities often mirrored the structures of geographically-
bound churches that were similar in their theological position and ministry focus.
In sum, Campbell derived six characteristics she believes online community members
seek from an online Christian community: relationship, care, value, connection, intimate
communication, and shared faith. These characteristics may be useful as local churches
seek to utilize the medium of the Internet to create meaningful Christian experiences
online. However, Campbell did not directly determine whether online Christian
community can fulfill all of the roles performed in a Christian community characterized
by face-to-face communication.
Schroeder, Heather, and Lee (1998) conducted another useful study of online
Christian community4. The researchers examined the social interaction among
participants in a unique kind of cyberchurch community – a church service in an online
multi-user virtual reality (VR) environment. The researchers describe the setting of this
“E-church” in the following way:
In terms of appearance, the E-Church world does not look especially remarkable
in comparison with the other virtual worlds in the networked VR [virtual reality]
system of which it is a part; it contains a church and various other buildings, some
large crosses, advertising containing prayers and notices, and other elements of a
suburban landscape. (para. 6)
The church service of the E-Church meets once a week in its fixed local, and typically
consists of 5-10 avatars, controlled by various users in the offline world, at each prayer
meeting. Schroeder, Heather, and Lee found that the structure of the church service
itself, some of the content, and many of the roles played by community members
mirrored what would be considered a “typical” church service characterized by face-to-
face communication. However, differences prompted by the technology also emerged.
4 Schroeder, Heather, and Lee (1998) used passive participant observation when studying the ‘E-Church’ (the name of the church was changed to protect the anonymity of those participating in the services observed). Text transcripts, logged by the second author, were then analyzed. The authors used their analyses of three prayer meetings to draw conclusions of how the technology of a virtual world affects a common offline activity (attending a church service) in an online environment.
On the negative side, the researchers stated that verbal exchanges were shorter, emotional
bonds between community members seemed weaker, and services were less orderly than
in a traditional church service. On the positive side, the researchers felt that the
anonymity of the virtual environment allowed participants to be more candid with each
other, those who may not typically feel comfortable attending a local church were able to
participate in a religious setting, and that more experimentation was possible in a virtual
environment than in the real world. While these insights are useful, perhaps an actual
observation of an offline church would have been helpful in validating some of the
researchers’ claims. Little evidence, for example, was provided for how the researchers
came to the conclusion that the emotional cohesion among those in the virtual church
setting is less than can be found in a traditional church setting.
Summary and the Need for Further Research
Campbell – as well as Schroeder, Heather, and Lee – attempt to investigate how
online Christian communities function; however, neither of them adequately answer the
questions posed in chapter one: Does the Internet provide a new social context for the
expression of Christian community? Or is the new social context of the Internet
antithetical to the sacred understanding and enactment of Christian community?
This study uses the critical lens of fantasy theme analysis to examine the manifest
content differences present in the rhetoric casting and characterizing Christian community
of both an online group and a congregation distinguished by face-to-face communication.
This examination will directly address this thesis’s central research question, and may
yield insights into the how the unique Christian understanding of “social” influences the
way Christian communities describe community, how the medium of the Internet
reshapes the understanding and enactment of Christian community, and how the Internet
shapes religious understanding and practice. As discussed in Chapter One, these
questions need to be answered for several reasons, including the intrinsic importance of
the sacred in the lives of individuals.
Although finding answers to these questions is admittedly difficult due to the complex
interrelationships among the Internet, a changing postmodern society, and shifts in
religious culture (Dawson, 2000), this thesis argues that a comparative study of two
predominately equivalent Christian communities – differing primarily in their means of
communication – will be useful in gaining further understanding. Chapter three outlines
the methodology that is used to explore online Christian community.
Chapter 3: Method
This thesis employs fantasy theme analysis to examine the concept of Christian
community in two congregations: an online cyberchurch and a geographically-bound
church characterized by face-to-face communication. For the purposes of this thesis, the
application focuses on how these two Christian congregations characterize and cast
Christian community. An examination of this nature seeks to answer this thesis’s primary
research question: Are content differences present in the ways in which face-to-face and
digital communication systems characterize and cast the Christian sense of community?
In addition, heuristic value stemming from this application may shed light on the other
two questions presented: 1) Does technology shape how religion is understood and
enacted? and 2) Do face-to-face communication systems and online communication
systems affect how Christianity is understood and experienced?
This chapter has two overarching goals: 1) to describe the two communities being
studied, and the criteria used for extracting the artifacts to be analyzed; and 2) to define
and describe fantasy theme analysis, while providing justification for its use in this
particular study.
Communities Being Studied
St. Pixels Church of the Internet.
When an individual navigates to www.stpixels.com, he or she is greeted with the
following welcome:
Imagine church with no cobwebs, wooden pews, hymn books, overhead projector,
leaking roof, organ fund – or even church building. That’s where you are right
now. Welcome to St Pixels, the online church where you can meet others, talk
about serious and not-so-serious stuff, discuss what you do and don’t believe, go
to regular services, and join a pioneering worldwide community.
(www.stpixels.com)
St. Pixels Church of the Internet (St. Pixels from this point) is a cyberchurch
community with no offline counterpart. Labeling itself an “experiment in community”
(“St. Pixels In One Page,” 2006), St. Pixels is a compelling object of study for several
reasons.
First, this online Christian community has a history of innovation. The community
was created when the leaders of the Ship of Fools webzine recognized a trend in society
away from institutionalized religion (see Chapter One) and intentionally developed an
alternative form of Christian community to fulfill what they considered to be unmet
spiritual needs. The community that would eventually become St. Pixels began in May
2004 with a 3D church experiment launched by Ship of Fools (“The St. Pixels
Community,” 2006). The Ship of Fools editor Simon Jenkins sums up the publication’s
philosophy:
We're here for people who prefer disorganized religion to the organized
kind … From a position of commitment, we try to look objectively at
religious trends in an accessible rather than cynical way. We commend as
well as debunk. But we are not a campaign, we're a conversation.
This original 3D experiment ran until September of 2004, and, according to the St.
Pixel’s site, “In this initial period the core community that was to become the Church of
Fools (later St Pixels) began to take shape” (“The St. Pixels Community,” 2006). Those
involved in the experiment began to realize that the community forming in this 3D church
had a distinctive flavor, and a website separate from the Ship of Fools was constructed.
Participants in this online community – called Church of Fools – enjoyed the benefits of
a 3-D, synchronous church environment (see Appendix B for an illustration of this virtual
worship “space”). However, the original software solution was not considered suitable
for further development for several reasons. As St. Pixels’ website points out, “a
community is bigger than its software, and things didn't stop there” (“The St. Pixels
Community,” 2006). The Church of Fools community next entered a “2-D” phase, in
which members interacted primarily though bulletin boards and chat rooms. Although
members missed the 3-D environment, they discovered that this more disembodied form
of community was not without benefits. The website states,
…It was during this time that we reflected on our experience and became much
more of a stable, welcoming community. We learned to learn from each other and
our different backgrounds, in bible study and general discussion - which did
sometimes get heated. We began to care and pray for each other. We found
authentic ways of worshipping in our regular chat room prayer services. Some of
us even began to meet occasionally and discover how unimportant our
appearances can be. (“The St. Pixels Community,” 2006)
The Church of Fools evolved into what is now St. Pixels. The Methodist Church of
Great Britain is currently providing “key sponsorship, advice and support in the
development of this project” (“St. Pixels in One Page,” 2006). St. Pixels itself is run by
volunteers in the community, who constitute a management team. In the future, the
management of St. Pixels hopes to reintroduce a newly-designed 3D worship experience
for participants. However, in the interim, the website has been redesigned to include
even more methods of interaction between members, such as blogs, a “café” meeting
space, and a “bouncy castle” (fun and games).
These methods of interaction bring us to the second reason why St. Pixels presents
itself as a compelling object of study – St. Pixels is intentionally designed to foster
community through communication. This is accomplished through providing a large
“buffet” of interactive options from which community members can select to connect to
fellow believers. Some suggest that this level of interactivity among individuals may be
a unique feature of online communities. For example, Easum (2005) notes, “One of the
reasons for the popularity of the cyberchurch is its interactivity … Whether it’s a simple
poll, a bulletin board, or an opportunity to chat, interactivity is a requirement for today’s
online community” (p. 44). A brief “click-by-click” progression through the site is next
provided to give a sense of the many opportunities community members have to connect
with one another.
Upon first navigating to St. Pixels (www.stpixels.com), the cotton-candy colored
navigation bar across the top of the screen invites congregants to “Discover,” “Interact,”
“Blog,” “Discuss,” “Reflect,” “Worship,” and “Support Us.” Under each of these
headings, more options exist. The “Discover” area of the site provides seminal
information about the St. Pixels community, such as “Our Core Values,” “Management
Announcements,” “Online Safety,” and “Using the Site,” among others. Areas such as
“Our Core Values” provide ideological statements that shape and guide the overarching
worldview of the community. The “Interact” tab allows members to write notes to each
other on a virtual “Fridge Door” message board, jest with each other through fun and
games threads in “The Bouncy Castle,” and even arrange face-to-face meetings in the
offline world. The “Worship” section allows for real-time worship services hosted
through a chat mechanism, as well as interactive discussions on Bible readings, Lent, etc.
These interactive options are all suggested/generated by community members. (see
Appendix C for site plan).
Third, St. Pixels is a compelling object of study because it has garnered the attention
of the media. Although St. Pixel’s itself does not attract thousands of congregants to its
site each week5, it has attracted a loyal following of the faithful, and may become a
model for more cyberchurch communities of the future. As a BBC news article (2004)
suggested:
The Church of Fools [the forerunner of St. Pixels] could be an indication of how
churches could develop. For instance, the diocese of Oxford is currently recruiting
a “web pastor” to establish its own virtual church – “i-Church” - which will be
considered a parish church in its own right. Its intention is to appeal to people
who cannot get to church, people who do not want to go to a church building, or
those for whom going to church on a Sunday is not enough. (para.10 & 11)
Newsweek (2004) also noted when discussing the Church of Fools, “…with church
5 the number runs closer to several hundred per month, according to a counter on the website.
attendance so low – only 7 percent of Brits regularly show up for services – church
leaders hope the Internet will help interest young people in organized religion”.
For these reasons, St. Pixels seems to present itself naturally as an appropriate
Christian community for study.
Next, it is appropriate to consider the counterpart of St. Pixels that will be examined in
this study (i.e., the Christian community characterized by face-to-face communication).
St. Luke’s United Methodist Church.
St. Luke’s United Methodist Church (St. Luke’s from this point) is a large,
geographically-bound congregation located in Indianapolis, Indiana. This church
services over 8000 congregants (“Get Involved,” 2002). As detailed shortly, the church
offers many opportunities for community members6 to be enriched spiritually, socially,
physically, and emotionally. In addition, numerous opportunities for church participants
to serve others – both locally and globally – are available. From the church’s public
communication, St. Luke’s appears willing to adapt its ministry strategies to be most
effective in contemporary society. For example, the church offers 12 worship services in
a variety of formats, at various times, and in several geographically-bound satellite
locations to accommodate a broad a range of individuals7. The church’s mission
statement reflects its desire to reach out to a broad demographic with a message of
6 For the purposes of this thesis, “community membership” refers to the psychological joining together of individuals, expressed through communication and symbols (further delineated in chapter one), instead of the more narrow definition of church “membership” that involves a formal commitment to a local church body and often includes some kind of public ceremony or a letter of recognition to acknowledge this decision. 7 “Each week, twelve different worship services are presented from which people can choose to experience God through three traditional Sunday morning services, four non-traditional ‘Garden’ services at two great locations, and two Later@St. Luke's services, an alternative Sunday worship experience that is a blend of contemporary Christian music and a casual atmosphere. In addition, children and youth worship services are presented on a regular basis” (http://www.stlukesumc.com/worship/worship.htm).
Christian love:
Mission: St. Luke's is an open community of Christians gathering to seek,
celebrate, live and share the love of God for all creation. (“About Our Church,”
2006).
In short, St. Luke’s strives to remain relevant within its cultural context. Although it may
seem counterintuitive at first glance, St. Pixel’s and St. Luke’s present themselves as
roughly analogous congregations with one crucial difference – their respective mediums
of communication. A discussion of the levels of analysis used to reach this conclusion is
next presented.
St. Pixel’s and St. Luke’s as Analogous Christian Communities
Religion.
On a meta-level, St. Pixel’s and St. Luke’s are social amalgamations that belong to the
same faith tradition/religion. Although this point may seem almost too obvious, its
importance cannot be overlooked. As suggested in Chapter Two’s literature review, the
cognitive variable of “social” that is unique to the Christian faith may play an important
role in how a Christian community functions. Clearly, for the purposes of this study,
contrasting different religions – each with its own understanding of its social dimension –
would not allow this concept to be probed. As Ward (1999) reinforced, “Each faith
tradition has a unique perspective on the idea of community” (qtd. in Campbell, 2005, p.
30). Campbell (2005) further argues:
In Judaism it is the image of the land, eretz Yisrael. In Islam it is the umma, a
meeting around the law. For Buddhists it is the gathered living place of disciples,
the sangha, and Hindus describe it as sampradaya, the teaching community.
A comparison of two Christian communities, therefore, must be present for accurate
analysis. However, even within the umbrella of Christianity, widely divergent concepts
of the “ideal” community exist.
Denominational affiliation.
For the purposes of this study, two congregations with similar denominational
affiliations were chosen. Although perfect consistency in beliefs could not be
guaranteed, this step helped assure more similarities in philosophical, ideological, and
theological views of community.
While St. Pixels describes itself as “an ecumenical and international community that is
part of the Body of Christ” (“Guided Tour,” 2006), the website also states that “the
Methodist Church of Great Britain has provided key sponsorship, advice and support in
the development of this project” (“Info in One Page”, 2006). It seems possible that St.
Pixels may be at least sympathetic to a Methodist point of view. In a similar manner, St.
Luke’s is affiliated with the United Methodist church (headquartered in the United
States). Although the two denominations are distinct, both continue to reflect the
founding influence of John Wesley, and have similar stances on core theological beliefs
as well as a strong dedication to works of service (Religion and Ethics, 2004; Umc.org).
Religion and social network researcher Heidi Campbell (2005) also demonstrated the
importance of selecting Christian communities of similar denominational status for the
sake of comparison by utilizing this criterion herself in her own influential ethnographic
studies.
However, the way in which those similar doctrinal stances are lived out in actuality
could vary dramatically. For the sake of example, perhaps one congregation met together
often to sing hymns and pray, while another group of believers met for donuts, coffee,
and an informal encouragement system. It is imaginable that these two communities
would have marked differences. For this reason, it was important to also compare two
communities with similar social rituals.
Social rituals.
St. Pixel’s and St. Luke’s share many key social and spiritual rituals. One particularly
striking example involves the kinds of worship experiences each group offers to its
members.
First, each group acknowledges that worship is a key component of its respective
community. St. Luke’s website explicitly stated, “Worship provides the core of St.
Luke's community” (“Worship,” 2004), while St. Pixel’s pointed out that, “One of the
most important functions of this site is to provide opportunities and resources for
worship” (“Worship at St. Pixels,” 2006).
Both groups acknowledge the primacy of worship in the Christian community. Many
of the worship strategies utilized to fulfill this important mission are also similar. As
previously mentioned, St. Luke’s offers a large number of services to meet the needs of a
wide range of individuals, including a Taizé8 style service and services in languages other
than English. St. Pixels also offers a Taizé service and informs members that, “You will
be able to interact with others there [in the virtual worship space], offer up prayer
requests and join in the Lord’s Prayer, where you might see it rendered by someone else
in Welsh, French, Spanish, or even Hebrew” (Worship at St. Pixels, 2006).
8 “Taizé, pronounced (Teh-ZAY), is an ecumenical, peaceful way to pray, using (easy to learn) musical chants, silent meditation, and scripture readings... a meditative, common prayer” (retrieved from http://www.stlukesumc.com/worship/taize/taize.htm on March 8, 2007).
Another example of similar social rituals can be seen in the discussion groups offered
to community members. Group members can chat about topics ranging from Lent
practices to a theological tome. The difference that exists in this area is that St. Pixel’s
members discuss given topics via bulletin boards or chats, while St. Luke’s congregants
physically gather for their conversations.
Recognizing the similarities between St. Pixels and St. Luke’s in religious,
denominational, and social ritual dimensions, the last comparison that needs to be made
is between the artifacts that this study interprets.
Christian community artifacts
As has been illustrated, every effort was made to select two roughly analogous
Christian communities that differ primarily in their medium of communication. This will
enable the researcher to observe how the medium of the Internet shapes the sacred
understanding and enactment of Christian community.
After these communities were selected, two master documents (artifacts) were
compiled – one for each community – summarizing that group’s public discourse on the
Christian concept of community. Paragraphs that explicitly discussed how the group
consciously characterizes and casts itself as a Christian community were extracted from
the St. Pixels website and the St. Luke’s publication entitled “Experience St. Luke’s” (see
Appendix D for St. Pixel’s Artifact; see Appendix E for St. Luke’s Artifact). For
example, paragraphs containing statements such as, “St Pixels is about exploring online
Christian community to test the boundaries of what exactly church is and needs to be to
‘be church’” (“St. Pixels”, 2006) would be included in this document because it reveals
the St. Pixels’ conscious expression of its perception of itself as a Christian community.
Being a cyberchurch Christian community, the St. Pixels website presented itself as a
logical starting point for compiling an artifact. The artifact was compiled by placing the
extracted paragraphs (11 in total) in the order that they were encountered when clicking
through the website in a purposeful manner. This process began at the left side of the
navigation bar with the “Discover” tab (7 major tabs total). The content in each of this
grouping’s sub navigation areas was investigated. This procedure was followed with
each subsequent navigation tab.
While it was slightly more challenging to discern the appropriate source for the St.
Luke’s artifact, the “Experiencing St. Luke’s” publication ultimately chosen seemed an
appropriate for several reasons. Primarily, this document presents potential church
visitors or current community members with critical information like mission and vision
statements, staff information, church history, worship service information, Christian
education offerings, and many other programming and missions opportunities. The
publication is located on the St. Luke’s website, which – to distinguish it from a
cyberchurch community – is strictly informational. The paragraph’s extracted from
“Experiencing St. Luke’s” (18 in total) were compiled in the order in which they were
encountered when reading through the document from beginning to end, starting at page
one.
Next, a rationale for the use of text analysis in the study of Christian community is
presented, followed by a description of the critical framework employed in this study –
fantasy theme analysis.
Text Analysis
A thematic analysis of the texts produced by the management teams of St. Pixel’s and
St. Luke’s regarding Christian community allows us an in-depth look into each group’s
understanding of this key concept. Griffin (2000) defines “text” as “any intentional
symbolic expression…” and points out that “rhetorical criticism is the most common
form of textual analysis” (p. 16). This thesis employs the rhetorical tool of fantasy theme
analysis as its method of choice, because of the insights it offers into the “shared
worldview of groups” (Foss, 2004, p. 109). Through this study, it can be ascertained if
these two communities – differing primarily in their medium of communication –
emphasize different aspects of the sacred imperative to “love one another.” This method
is outlined after a discussion of study ethics.
ethics.
Because of the necessity of ethical research, every attempt was made to do no harm in
the course of this study. This textual analysis provides a mean of unobtrusive research.
Thus, gaining permission from either St. Pixels or St. Luke’s was not deemed necessary.
All data (i.e., the two artifacts constructed) were taken strictly from documents published
on the Internet easily available to anyone who wishes to view them. Furthermore, to
respect and preserve the privacy of all those in the St. Pixels community, no member
comments were included in the artifact (such as from a blog, message board, or prayer
request). Only the words of the management officially published on the website were
incorporated. No deception occurred; this was eradicated due to the fact that the
researcher did not need to interact with community members at either church to ascertain
their position on Christian community. An exploration of fantasy theme analysis follows.
Fantasy Theme Analysis
Bormann postulated symbolic convergence theory, and its resultant method of fantasy
theme analysis, in 1972 (pp. 396-407). Influenced by the small-group research of
psychologist Robert Bales, Bormann (1980, 1982, 1983, 1985) came to recognize that
“the sharing of group fantasies creates symbolic convergence” (1990, p. 122). Bormann,
Cragan, and Shields (1994) argue that symbolic convergence theory is a general theory
that applies to all human communication.
Symbolic convergence theory has two axioms: 1) communication creates reality, and
2) group members create a shared reality when their "private symbolic worlds incline
toward each other, come more closely together, or even overlap…" (Bormann, 1983, p.
102). These shared realities occur as “private symbolic worlds” cluster around a common
theme. Some themes seem to catch fire in a group, while others fall flat. As common
themes emerge in groups, symbolic convergence is said to occur.
Fantasy theme analysis is the attendant method of symbolic convergence theory, and
is used to identify particular themes within group discourse. To more fully understand
how fantasy theme analysis is useful in the study of Christian community, this section
delineates how a fantasy theme analysis is conducted as well as some applications of this
method.
The first level of a fantasy theme analysis involves defining the fantasy themes present
in a group’s discourse. As rhetorical critic Sonja Foss (2004) describes, “The term
fantasy is designed to capture the constructed nature of the theme. Fantasy themes tell a
story about a group’s experience that constitutes a constructed reality for the participants”
(p. 111). When fantasy themes develop, individuals “share a common consciousness and
have the basis for communicating with one another to create community, to discuss their
common experience, and to achieve mutual understanding” (Bormann qtd. in Foss, 2004,
p. 104).
These fantasy themes consist of different dramatizing agents, which indicate fantasy is
taking place (Bormann, 1994): dramatis personae, setting, action, saga, and rhetorical
community. These terms are next briefly elucidated.
Dramatis personae do not describe the fixed personality of an individual, but instead
the constructed persona of a main character in a dramatistic statement. A setting theme
refers to the setting detailed within the context of the drama. An action theme refers to
the “plot” being played out within the setting by the dramatis personae. A saga occurs
when a community achievement is celebrated in the drama (Littlejohn, 2002). Last, a
rhetorical community emerges when group members share a common rhetorical vision
(Bormann, 1985). Shields and Preston (1985) elaborated on the process of extracting
dramatistic elements from discourse:
As people begin to share and extend fantasy explanation’s of people’s actions,
things, objects, and events, they build up a composite dramatistic explanation of
reality that is filled with heroes, villains, plotlines, scenic description and
sanctioning agents for maintaining and promulgating the rhetorical vision
[emphasis added]. (pp. 103-104).
The next level of analysis in fantasy theme analysis involves the investigation of
fantasy types. As Bormann (1985) described, “When a particular number of similar
scenarios or outlines of the plot of the fantasies, including particulars of the scenes,
characters, and situations have been shared by members of a group or larger community,
they form a fantasy type” (p. 7). Littlejohn (2002) detailed fantasy types as “stock
situations told over and over again in a group” (p. 158). These “stock situations” are
archetypal in nature and can be used to assimilate alien ideas into a group’s shared reality
(Bormann, 1985; Foss, 2004). For example, a group that is opposes the current war in
Iraq may cast any other military endeavor in a negative light by calling it a “new Iraq.”
When a fantasy type is evidenced, a community has become so familiar with a
particular drama that the specifics (character, action, setting) of that drama do not have to
be detailed to illicit the emotional reaction implicit to the composite drama. Instead, all
that is needed is some kind of symbolic cue that alerts group members to the presence of
that type. As Bormann (1985) described, “When a group of people have shared a fantasy
theme, they have charged their emotional and memory banks with meanings and
emotions that can be set off by a commonly agreed upon cryptic symbolic cue” (p. 6).
The quintessential example of a symbolic cue is the inside joke, in which one word or
term sends all those who understand into hysterics and leaves all those who don’t
completely perplexed.
The third level of analysis in fantasy theme analysis involves discerning a group’s
overarching rhetorical vision, which emerges from that group’s fantasy themes and types.
Bormann (1985) described rhetorical visions as the “unified putting together of the
various scripts that gives the participants a broader view of things" (p. 133). A rhetorical
vision is therefore, “a unified putting together of the various shared fantasies…to provide
a particular interpretation of reality” (Foss 112). Rhetorical visions – often indexed by a
key slogan or label (e.g., “Black Power,” “The Personal is Political,” etc.) – provide not
just the details of a fantasy theme or fantasy type, but instead give a coherent view of one
aspect of social reality. Those who ascribe to a particular rhetorical vision form a
rhetorical community.
Some rhetorical visions are so compelling that they permeate all aspects of an
individual’s social reality (Bormann, 1985, p. 8). This particular kind of rhetorical vision
is called a lifestyle rhetorical vision. Many religious and social movement rhetorical
visions can be classified in this vein. For example, after an individual converts to
Christianity, she may claim she can never again be the same woman she was pre-
conversion. All areas of her life – relationships, finances, recreation – are affected by her
vision of reality.
The method of fantasy theme analysis has been applied to a wide variety of artifacts.
Although originally observed in a small group communication setting, subsequent studies
supported the notion that fantasy theme analysis could be used to elucidate mass
communication as well. As Bormann (1985) notes:
Mulling over the materials for my book in the history of religious and reform
speaking at the same time as I was caught up in these exciting new developments in
small group communication resulted in one of those exhilarating moments of
illumination when it seemed clear to me that the force of fantasy is just as strong in
mass communication as it is in small group interaction. (p. ix)
A few areas of research include studies of political campaigns and incidents (Bormann,
1973, 1982), social movements (Shields and Preston, 1985), religious movements
(Bormann, 1985; Smith, 2004), political cartoons (Benoit, Klyukovski, McHale, & Airne,
2001), television programming (Foss & Littlejohn, 1986), and the coverage of celebrities
in the media (Bishop, 2003). While this list is far from exhaustive, it does seek to
demonstrate the versatility of this method.
Given the many nuances of fantasy theme analysis, and its myriad diverse
applications, this thesis focuses on three of the method’s seminal “building blocks” –
fantasy themes, fantasy types, and rhetorical vision(s) – to crystallize the differing ways
in which online cyberchurch groups and congregations defined by face-to-face
communication characterize and cast Christian community. Table 1 (below) provides the
basic structure for the interpretation elaborated on in Chapter Four.
Table 1. Structure for Comparison of Online and Face-to-Face Christian Communities
Online Communication (St. Pixels Church of the
Internet)
Face-to-Face Communication (St. Luke’s United Methodist
Church)
Fantasy Themes
Fantasy Types
Rhetorical Vision(s)
Conclusion
In conclusion, fantasy theme analysis – which investigates the shared worldview of
groups – is a suitable vehicle for the study of Christian community. Specifically, this
method reveals how two communities differing primarily in their medium of
communication characterize and cast Christian community in their rhetoric. Chapter Four
first compares and contrasts the rhetorical visions that bind together each community,
then investigates the fantasy types and fantasy themes present in the artifacts of study that
combine to create each community’s rhetorical vision(s).
Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter employs fantasy theme analysis to examine this thesis’s primary research
question: are content differences present in the ways in which digital and face-to-face
communication systems characterize and cast the Christian sense of community?
Although one might assume that two analogous congregations (i.e., St. Pixels and St.
Luke’s) would characterize and cast Christian community in a similar manner, after an
examination of the two rhetorical artifacts, differing fantasy themes emerged.
As detailed in chapter three, fantasy themes – the “basic unit of fantasy-theme
criticism” (Foss, 1989, p. 290) – consist of “characters, real or fictitious, playing out a
dramatic situation in a setting removed in time and space from the here-and-now
transactions of the group” (Bormann, 1972, p. 397). These fantasy themes tell a story
that “accounts for the group’s experience and that is the reality of the participants” (Foss,
1989, p. 290). In short, a fantasy theme consists of a dramatistic statement that suggests a
character, setting, or action theme. This thesis argues that the examination of the fantasy
themes, fantasy types, and rhetorical visions present in each group’s rhetoric on Christian
community provides valuable insight into how the medium of the Internet shapes
religious understanding and practice.
Table 2 illustrates the fantasy themes, fantasy types, and rhetorical visions located
within each of the artifacts studied. The fantasy themes identified are taken directly from
the two documents described in Chapter Three (see Appendix D for St. Pixels’
document; Appendix E for St. Luke’s document). When multiple fantasy themes
suggested a larger, recurring meaning/drama, the researcher assigned them to the
category of “fantasy type.” These fantasy types all then contribute to a larger rhetorical
vision, which guides how each of the groups studied understands and enacts Christian
community.
Before the presentation of Table 2, the protocol used to extract these structures is
illustrated. After the table, each of the rhetorical forms listed is Table 2 is elaborated
upon. This process begins with an examination of the overarching rhetorical vision of
each community and then works backward, next exploring fantasy types, and, last,
fantasy themes.
Protocol
Each artifact was coded for fantasy themes, described by Cragan and Shields (1981)
as a “complete scenario or dramatistic statement” (p. 6). For the purposes of this thesis,
the themes are not broken down into the categories of action, setting, and character
themes. This level of categorization would obscure the overarching goal of ascertaining
the larger similarities and differences between the two congregations in their perception
of Christian community. Instead, more complete dramas – incorporating action, setting,
and character themes – are appropriated. An example of extracting a fantasy theme
follows.
A section of the first paragraph of the St. Pixel’s document states:
… St Pixels is about exploring online Christian community to test the boundaries
of what exactly church is and needs to be to "be church.” We aim to provide a
sacred space on the internet where people from all walks of life are welcome to
come and explore God and get to know each other in a general Christian context.
In this paragraph, the management of St. Pixels (i.e., the group responsible for writing the
words above) paint themselves as explorers, pioneering the as-to-now uncharted territory
of the Internet and its resultant new directions for the practice of Christianity, the
definition of “church”, and the dynamic of human relationships bonded by the spiritual.
This drama portrays those who participate in the St. Pixels community as able to
participate in something (in the group’s opinion, at least) novel, implicitly significant,
and new.
Each artifact was examined for such fantasy themes. When fantasy themes – which
themselves result from shared individual’s fantasies – were repeated several times, they
were labeled as fantasy types. Bormann (1985) notes that fantasy types occur when “a
number of similar scenarios or outlines of the plot of the fantasies, including particulars
of the scenes, characters, and situations have been shared by members of a group or
larger community” (p. 7). From these recurring, shared fantasy types, rhetorical visions
emerge. These rhetorical visions are “essentially a view of how things have been, are, or
will be” (Littlejohn, 2002, p. 157). Table 2 follows (next page).
Table 2. Comparison of Online and Face-to-Face Christian Communities
Online Communication (St. Pixels Church of the Internet)
Face-to-Face Communication (St. Luke’s United Methodist Church)
Fantasy Themes (With textual
examples)
a. Joint Exploration • “[St. Pixels is] An experiment in online
Christian community.” • “What is a church or a Christian
community? … What are the minimum requirements to ‘be church’?”
• “St. Pixels is about exploring online Christian community to test the boundaries of what exactly church is and needs to be to ‘be church’.”
• “We aim to provide a sacred space on the Internet where people from all walks of life are welcome to come and explore God and get to know each other in a general Christian context.”
b. The Reflection of God’s Love to a Lost World • “We aim to create sacred space on the
Internet where we can seek God together, enjoy each other’s company and reflect God’s love for the world.”
• “Our vision is to proclaim Christ through the use of the Internet and related technologies.”
• “To do this we will build an ecumenical and international St. Pixels community that is part of the Body of Christ.”
c. Compromise Unifies • “St. Pixels is a diverse community; Christian
and agnostic, traditional and radical, conservative, young and old.”
• “Those of any belief or none are welcome to take part in our activities …”
• “Labels…cannot do the community…justice.”
• “The community aims for diversity, which is neither uniformity nor division.”
• “We have bust ups, disagree and misunderstand each other. Without these things we couldn’t really be a community.”
• “We pray together, worship together, support each other … we stand in solidarity and sheer one another on.”
• “At St. Pixels we are intentionally ‘vague’ due to our consistent desire to be an inclusive community.”
a. Life Together • “We are an open community of Christians,
gathering to seek, celebrate, live and share…”
b. Embodied Adoration • “Worship is the core of who we are as a
church.” • “It is in worship that we come together as a
community to praise and thank God for God’s abundant blessing.”
c. The Reflection of God’s Love to a Lost World • “The Garden [a non-traditional worship
service] epitomizes how St. Luke’s is fulfilling its mission of sharing God’s love with all people.”
• “We are an open community of Christians, gathering to…share the LOVE OF GOD with all creation.”
• “We envision being transformed by God and transforming the world into a compassionate, just, inclusive, Christ-like community.”
• “Community ministries includes a number of opportunities for St. Luke’s UMC members to make a difference in the Indianapolis community.”
• “We believe in the Church as the fellowship, for worship and for service, of all who are united to the living Lord.”
• “We feel that God is calling St. Luke’s to be a truly transforming presence in the world and are ready to step outside the church doors and to take God’s love to our neighbors everywhere.”
• “Our success as Christians who believe in the commandment that Jesus has given will be measured not by how many people come into the church, but by how many go out into the world ready to work together in transforming the lives of others.”
d. Group Growth • “Providing a healthy spirit, healthy mind,
and healthy body for life is an important ministry at St. Luke’s.”
• “St. Luke’s Spiritual Life Center exists to provide a safe place, creative leadership and innovative programming to nurture individual and community spiritual growth.”
d. Cunning Community
• “The trust we show in each other (of necessity) can be abused or tested by people.
• “In relating to each other we need to be as innocent as doves and as cunning as snakes.”
e. Initiation into the Community
• “Through strategic Membership Development programs, new members are offered classes that define…”
• “Each new member is then connected with a group at St. Luke’s that shares that passion, becoming an integral part of the larger faith community.”
Fantasy Types
Linked to Community
(The fantasy
themes drawn from the text are unified by the persuasive objective of each fantasy
type)
1. The Internet as Sacred Space
• a. Joint Exploration • b. The Reflection of God’s Love to a
Lost World The St. Pixel’s community attempts to claim a “chunk” of the Internet for Jesus by exploring the religious uses of the Internet and employing the Internet as a tool to reflect God’s love. 2. Unity in Diversity
• c. Compromise Unifies • d. Cunning Community
The St. Pixels’ community celebrates the seeming paradox of ‘unity in diversity,’ but must exclude those who do not respect this seeming oxymoron.
1. Gathering Together for Growth
• a. Life Together • b. Embodied Adoration • d. Group Growth
The St. Luke’s community celebrates nourishing all aspects of its community (spiritual, emotional, mental, physical, social) in the context of daily life. 2. Collaboration; Serving Side-by-Side
• c. The Reflection of God’s Love to a Lost World
• e. Initiation into the Community The St. Luke’s community considers itself most effective when initiated congregants serve side-by-side to reflect God’s love to the world.
Continued on following page
Rhetorical Visions
Koinonia – “A Greek word used in the New Testament to mean ‘communion, or
fellowship’.”
Ekklesia – “A Greek word used in the New Testament to mean ‘organizing for a purpose, or gathering together for a
meeting’.”
Rhetorical Visions
The comparison of how each community characterizes and casts Christian community
commences with an examination of each groups’ rhetorical vision. The melding of the
fantasies created a particular interpretation of reality for each of the communities studied.
A group’s shared interpretation of reality provides an impetus for action, which those
outside the rhetorical vision find difficult to understand. St. Pixels’ rhetorical vision of
koinonia and St. Luke’s rhetorical vision of ekklesia shape each community’s
understanding of what Christian community is and should be. The rhetorical vision of
koinonia is first examined.
Koinonia
A rhetorical vision that celebrates the concept of koinonia is present in the rhetoric of
St. Pixels. Koinonia is a Greek word used in the New Testament to mean “communion,
or fellowship” (Campbell, 2005, p. 30). The idea of koinonia is one component of the
Biblical understanding of Christian community. As Campbell (2005) elaborates: “A
distinction is made in the Bible about the human community as either being the
worshiping community or the gathered people of God, the ‘church’” (p. 30). The
“worshipping community” is described as koinonia while the “gathered people of God”
are described by the term ekklessia (meaning ‘assembly’ or ‘congregation’). Campbell
(2005) further unpacks this idea:
Koinonia highlights a relational focus, referring to a community of believers who
experience communion with God through their fellowship with one another. It is
a community of communion, where Christian believers are meant to share in each
other’s lives in order to experience God within each other (p. 31).
Koinonia stresses intimacy and communion in human relationships, patterned on the
intimacy Christ shares with believers. Brumme simarly elaborates along the same lines,
“Koinonia involves intimacy, joint participation, communion and intercourse …” (para.
18). Examples of koinonia are present throughout Scripture. For example, 1 John
discusses the intimate relationship shared between God, man, and one another, stating:
That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may
have koinonia with us; and indeed our koinonia is with the Father and with his
Son Jesus Christ…if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have koinonia
with one another. (1John 1:3,7)
St. Pixels possesses a rhetorical vision that emphasizes the relational, communal
aspects of community so central to the concept of koinonia. Simultaneously influenced
by and influencing the group’s understanding of reality, this vision enables group
members to strive to know each other on a deeper, more intimate level than one’s
superficial appearance. In fact, as the community acknowledges, its technology does not
even allow for judgments to be made based on physical appearances. Instead,
community members are left to get to know each other on a more spiritual level. This is
accomplished through shared discussion, worship, and other interactions. Such
“blindness” allows for St. Pixels to better mirror the Kingdom of God, in the
community’s opinion. This community recognizes that all believers throughout time and
space are a precious part of the whole. The ultimate goal of this koinonia community
seems to be a universal utopia in which all are connected on a deep, spiritual level.
A discussion of the fantasy types and themes that combine to form this rhetorical
vision, is next provided.
St. Pixels’ fantasy types.
Foss (1989) defines fantasy types, stating:
When similar scenarios involving the same scenes, characters, and settings have
been shared by members of a community, they form a fantasy type. A fantasy
type is a stock scenario that appears repeatedly in the rhetoric of a group. (p. 292)
Two central fantasy types present themselves from the St. Pixels rhetoric being studied.
These types are built upon commonly recurring fantasy themes and are: 1) the Internet as
a Sacred Space; and 2) Unity in Diversity.
The internet as ‘sacred space’.
St. Pixels repeatedly paints itself as carving out a “sacred space” on the Internet. This
metaphor encourages readers to picture the Internet – in reality a collection of networked
computers – in almost geographical terms. It suggests a lone explorer setting sail in
search of a haven for true Christian community in an otherwise debauched globe. St.
Pixels offers that same haven for koinonia Christian community in a digital wasteland.
This metaphor is compelling for several reasons. First, it encourages community
members to participate in technology, not seeing it as inherently evil, but instead, in need
of domestication. Other Christians grappling with how to use the Internet for good have
echoed this sentiment. Veith and Stamper (2000) noted:
In a medium in which we are deluged with unfiltered information, so that truth is
all mixed up with urban legends, gossip, hoaxes, lunacy, and lies, the danger
becomes information overload, disorientation from an indiscriminate sensory and
intellectual assault. (p. 126)
St. Pixels provided a refuge from this mêlée. In addition, the idea of “sacred space”
emphasizes the spiritual, relational aspects of the St. Pixels community. Although they
are not physically gathered, community members are spiritually connected and
communing in a “placeless space.” This concept challenges and expands the traditional
notion of what it means to “be church.”
Two distinct but similar fantasy themes comprise this fantasy type: 1) “joint
exploration,” and 2) “reflection of God’s love to a lost world.” Each of these will be
briefly elaborated upon.
As has already been discussed, St. Pixels portrays itself as a pioneering community
exploring previously uncharted spiritual territory. The community is actively and self-
consciously working to explore what it means to be a church, and members are asking
relevant questions. For example, they ask, “Must individuals be physically gathered?
Must there be laws and by-laws in some written church constitution? Must all members
agree on the same theological issues? As a community dedicated to respect and intimacy,
the members of St. Pixels engage in open dialog about such queries.
St. Pixels also describes itself as a place “where people from all walks of life are
welcome to come and explore God…” (Appendix D, para. 1). St. Pixels does not claim
to provide community members with all of the answers; instead, joint exploration must
occur – even into the nature of God.
As a component of creating “sacred space” on the Internet, St. Pixels paints itself as a
community that “reflect[s] God’s love for the world” in this technological environment.
The choice of the word “reflect” is particularly intriguing. While both St. Pixels and St.
Luke’s strive to “reflect God’s love to the world,” each community does this in decidedly
distinct ways. As will be elaborated upon in Chapter Five, St. Pixels does encourage
community members to engage locally and globally in works of service. However, the
community itself is dedicated to a more passive reflection of God’s love (as evidenced by
the intimate human relationships patterned on a believer’s intimate connection with
Christ) than an active manifestation of God’s love through physical acts of charity.
Unity in diversity.
Another fantasy type that can be observed is the rallying cry of “unity in diversity.”
St. Pixel’s encourages community members to celebrate this seeming paradox. All
believers – regardless of many characteristics such as race, gender, age, denominational
affiliation, country of origin, etc. – are united through a shared belief in Christ, and his
command to form community. Two primary fantasy themes comprise the
community’s discourse on this topic: 1) “compromise unifies”; and 2) “cunning
community.”
As evidence of “compromise unifies,” St. Pixels as a community welcomes all, with a
few stipulations. As the artifact states, “Those of any belief or none are welcome to take
part in our activities, given they accept the Christian focus of our community and respect
our participants” (Appendix D, para. 4). As long as participants honor the koinonia
community, they are welcome to join in the sacred fellowship.
In addition, St. Pixels claims that the connection possessed by its community members
is so deep, it defies pigeonholing. Instead, the relationships provided are welcoming and
inclusive. Describing their inclusive nature, St. Pixels notes:
St. Pixel’s is a diverse community; Christian and agnostic, traditional and radical,
conservative and liberal, young and old. Some come for serious discussion,
others for prayer, others for a laugh. Labels such as these cannot do the
community (or the people concerned) justice. The community aims for diversity,
which is neither uniformity nor division. Instead, it is loving, respectful
relationship. (Appendix D, para. 5)
This loving, respectful relationship is strong enough to conquer interpersonal
conflicts. Although community members may have “bust ups, disagree, and
misunderstand each other,” they also “pray together, worship together, and support each
other” (Appendix D, para. 6). Also, they “stand in solidarity and cheer one another on”
(Appendix D, para. 5). In St. Pixels’ worldview, cultivating a koinonia community is
worth working through “trivial” disputes.
However, this intimate, diverse community can easily be taken advantage of, as the
second fantasy theme – “cunning community” – attests. As the management notes, “The
trust we show in each other (out of necessity) can be abused or tested by people”
(Appendix D, para. 10). The management then appropriates Biblical imagery to detail
how the community must behave in order to counter such abuse: “In relating to each
other we need to be as innocent as doves but as cunning as snakes” (Appendix D, para.
10). Therefore, although St. Pixels in theory welcomes all, it cannot welcome those who
do not share the same foundational respect for the concepts of koinonia community that
are so crucial to the life of the group.
Next, the rhetorical vision, fantasy types, and fantasy themes that emerged from St.
Luke’s rhetoric on community are examined.
Ekklesia
While St. Pixels’ community members participate in a constructed rhetorical vision of
koinonia Christian community, St. Luke’s emphasizes a different but interrelated aspect
of Christian fellowship – ekklesia. As previously mentioned, koinonia is closely
associated with the idea of spiritual community, while ekklesia is typically linked to the
word “church.” The term suggests the idea of being organized for a purpose or gathering
together for a meeting. (Campbell, 2005, p. 30). Along similar lines, Campbell (2005)
notes that: “Ekklesia has a particular form with distinct boundaries. Church denotes a
living structure, having global connections while maintaining a local focus” (p. 30).
The New Testament often uses the word ekklesia to describe a specific congregation,
such as the ekklesia of Ephesus described in Revelations 2:1. As Brumme notes,
“Throughout the New Testament, 115 occurrences of ekklesia … refer either to specific
groupings of Christians, or all Christians everywhere” (para. 5).
In its rhetoric on community, St. Luke’s provides dramas that elevate the idea of a
group of specific people (a subset of the larger church universal), dedicated to the same
cause, working side-by-side to advance the Kingdom of God. For example, the St.
Luke’s artifact discusses an alternative-style of worship service (called “The Garden) the
church provides to reach the primarily “unchurched.” The discussion of what goes into
this worship service demonstrates the emphasis that is placed on embodied action:
Messages are brief and designed to connect with those who may never have heard
the good news of the unconditional love of God…Coffee, juice, donuts and bagels
are served each week. Four dozen volunteers make up the Leadership Team,
Worship Team, Music Team, Technical Team, Education Team, Hospitality
Team, Loading Team, Marketing Team, Development Team, Outreach Team and
Video Team. The Garden epitomizes how St. Luke’s is fulfilling its mission of
sharing God’s love with all people (Appendix E, para. 4).
Such stories encourage members to participate in and simultaneously construct a view of
Christian community that emphasizes ekklesia. The fantasy types that form to create this
rhetorical vision are next discussed: 1) “Gathering together for growth,” and 2)
“Collaboration; Serving Side-by-Side.”
St. Luke’s fantasy types
Gathering together for growth.
The first fantasy type discussed is “Gathering together for growth.” St. Luke’s
proposes a future vision in which believers are physically joined together to fellowship,
worship, and to draw nearer to God and each other. Several fantasy themes combine to
create this type, including “Life Together,” “Embodied Adoration,” and “Group Growth.”
In the St. Luke’s shared worldview of community, it is important to gather together to
“seek, celebrate, live, and share” (Appendix E, para. 1). In this community’s perception,
it is not enough to be somehow mystically and spiritually connected to another believer;
Christians instead should show their love for one another by being actively involved in
each other’s “real” lives.
In addition, St. Luke’s emphasizes the importance of “Embodied Adoration,” i.e.,
gathering for worship and engaging in the experience in a face-to-face communication
style. For example, the St. Luke’s artifact states:
Worship is the core of who we are as a church. It is in worship that we come
together as a community to praise and thank God for God’s abundant blessing. It
is in worship that we speak to God and listen to God as a whole community. It is
in worship that we dedicate our tithes and our lives to God’s work in our
community and around the world. (Appendix E, para. 3)
From this community’s perspective, a worship experience that could not fulfill all of
these roles would be considered severely impoverished.
Last in the St. Luke’s “Gathering Together for Growth” fantasy type is the theme of
“group growth” – that is, the coming together as a community for enrichment in a variety
of areas, including spiritual, physical, emotional, and social dimensions. This
commitment is demonstrated by the plethora of programming offered by St. Luke’s to its
congregants9. Clearly, St. Luke’s uphold a view of Christian community that pictures
ministering to the entire person (mind, body, and spirit) as the ultimate goal.
Collaboration; serving side-by-side.
While St. Luke’s tells a story of itself as a community that gathers together to minister
to the entire person enmeshed in the daily routine of his or her real life, the rhetoric
9 Visit http://www.stlukesumc.com/main_index/catalog.pdf (appropriately entitled “Offerings,” to view a complete list of opportunities for congregant enrichment.
studied also tells a story of St. Luke’s as community that bands together to help those
outside its immediate circle of congregants. Several fantasy themes contribute to this
type: 1) “Initiation into the community,” and “The Reflection of God’s Love to a Lost
World.”
First, “initiation into the community” (i.e., formal church membership) should ideally
occur to create the ideal atmosphere for then sharing the love of God with the larger local
and global community. Although not required to enjoy the life of the Christian
community, formal church membership provides individuals with a “sanctioned” means
to demonstrate their commitment to the principles of the group and become a fully
participating member. Bormann (1985) suggests that fantasies involving who is an
“insider” and an “outsider” in a group “aid in the group’s self-awareness and are crucial
to the emergence of its consciousness” (p. 12). After this differentiation is accomplished,
“… the members have clear rhetorical and symbolic boundaries to serve as guidelines for
terminating rituals to force members out and for initiation and acceptance rituals for
recruits” (Bormann, 1985, p. 12). St. Luke’s paints a picture of formal church
membership as the ultimate way for community participants to serve together.
After the rite of membership has occurred, community members are then able to truly
band together to collaborate and serve corporately. As mentioned when discussing St.
Pixels’ rhetoric, both of these communities desire to reflect God’s love to a world which
is lost without Him. While St. Pixels does this primarily through a relational focus, St.
Luke’s rhetoric concentrates more on ministering to the multidimensional needs of an
individual. Demonstrations of God’s love by St. Luke’s often consist of mission
endeavors. These ventures usually seek to help meet spiritual, physical, mental, and
emotional needs for others. St. Luke’s paints a picture of itself as a community that
actively enriches the lives of those not directly involved in the community.
Conclusion
Both Christian communities seek to live out the sacred imperative to “love one
another”. However, each group’s rhetoric reveals two different perceptions on how this
goal can/should be fulfilled. St. Pixels – characterized by digital communication –
celebrates koinonia Christian community, while St. Luke’s – characterized by face-to-
face communication – envisions an ekklesia Christian community. What do these
symbolically constructed content differences suggest? A discussion of these findings
commences in Chapter Five.
Chapter 5: Major Findings, Limitations,
and Suggestions for Future Research
Major Findings
Chapter one presented the following question: Are content differences present in the
ways in which face-to-face and digital communication systems characterize and cast the
Christian sense of community? An analysis of each congregation’s rhetoric on Christian
community revealed that the answer to this question is “yes.” St. Pixels – functioning via
digital communication – discussed Christian community in terms that glorified the ideal
of koinonia. St. Luke’s – defined by face-to-face communication – described Christian
community in terms of the perfect ekklesia.
Although these findings directly answer the first research question of this thesis, they
may at first glance seem insignificant given the potentially chasmal scope of an
investigation of the relationship between Christian community – with its social, sacred,
and societal dimensions – and the medium of the Internet. While it is true that more
studies need to be conducted in many diverse sub areas under the larger umbrella of
‘religion and the Internet,’ the koinonia/ekklesia distinction provides valuable heuristic
insight. This chapter will delve into these insights, relating them to this thesis’s other two
research questions (moving from specific to general):
1) Do face-to-face communication systems and online communication systems
affect how Christianity is understood and experienced?
2) Does technology shape how religion is understood and enacted?
The discussion of these two questions in light of this thesis’s findings occurs after an
acknowledgement of the limitations of this study, and is followed by directions for future
research and some practical implications for the future of Christian communities
grappling with the possibilities and problems of new technology.
Limitations
I expect that comparisons of online and face-to-face Christian community will emerge
in the future, and perhaps constitute a core of significant scholarly research. However, at
this time, this area of research is still in its infancy. As Chapter Two attested, there are
relatively few studies that have been done in this area. Therefore, this analysis is likely to
encounter the same limitations that face every area of scholarly interest when it first
emerges.
One limitation of this analysis arises from the fact that only two Christian
communities were compared. This sample issue involves questions regarding both
validity and reliability. A larger sample size is needed to determine if the findings of this
study can be generalized to all online Christian communities. Additionally, issues of
validity are also possible because only two Christian communities were examined in this
study. Because of the necessity of selecting two analogous Christian communities,
random selection of a sample (the best way to generalize from a sample to a population)
was not possible. Johnson (1997) notes, however, that this is not unheard of in
qualitative research:
…the people and settings examined in qualitative research are rarely randomly
selected, and … random selection is the best way to generalize from a sample to a
population. As a result, qualitative research is virtually always weak in the form
of population validity focused on “generalizing to populations.” (p. 1)
In other words, more studies need to be carried out to better understand if the
koinonia/ekklesia rhetorical vision emerges from other Christian communities
characterized by digital and face-to-face communication, respectively.
Another limitation of this study is tied to the validity issue and deals with this
analysis’ ability to determine cause and effect relationships. Although content
differences regarding Christian community manifested themselves in the two analogous
communities’ discourse, this does not mandate that the Internet caused those differences.
It is possible that the medium of the Internet played no role in shaping these different
understandings of ‘community’. This rhetorical analysis did not systematically take into
account other possible explanations for the phenomena observed, as is necessary when
attempting to isolate a cause and effect relationship with qualitative research (Johnson,
1997, p. 3). For example, a possible alternate explanation may be that those who ‘gather
together’ via the Internet to worship could be labeled as “anti-social.” Perhaps these
individuals are predisposed to seek a form of spiritual edification that requires few “real
world” ties, and this unique mix of individuals (not solely the medium of the Internet)
creates a koinonia community. While this thesis makes no claims to rule out any
alternative explanations, researchers (Campbell, 1979; Johnson, 1997; Strauss, 1995)
have also emphasized the valuable use of qualitative studies for heuristic purposes and
preliminary hypothesis formation, as this thesis utilizes the findings of its rhetorical
analysis.
A third possible limitation of this analysis resides in the theoretical vehicle chosen for
this study. Fantasy theme analysis allowed for an exploration of the rhetoric used by St.
Pixel’s management and St. Luke’s leaders to describe their own communities.
However, ethnographic probably should be carried out to explore the ways in which
community members themselves discuss Christian community. Does a disconnect exist
between the ‘official’ stance of the management and the actual discussions of
participants? This rhetorical analysis was not able to delve into this topic.
Finally, one last limitation of this study can be mentioned here. Specifically, it is
conceivable that the study of online Christian community is still nascent (Dawson, 2004;
Campbell, 2005). It may still be too early to ascertain the full implications of how the
medium of the Internet will affect the understanding and enactment of Christian
community. Brasher (2001) notes along these line that we must wait and see how
technology will shape religion, saying “Given new technology’s proven ability to
influence religion, the enormous success of computer-mediated communication
guarantees that it will have a transformative impact on religion, although which of its
characteristics will prove most influential only time will reveal” (p. 14). Some
researchers (Henderson, 1997; Veith & Stamper, 2000; Brasher, 2001) have drawn
comparisons between the impact of printing press on the history of religion and the
possible impact the Internet may have in the same area. The full implications of the
printing press technology took many years to unfold, and these researchers feel that the
Internet will most likely prove to be the same way.
Given these limitations, however, what if the medium of communication and the
resultant form of Christian community interface on a more powerful and directly
influential level? This possibility is next probed in relation to research questions one and
two.
Implications
Research question 1.
This question asked: Do face-to-face communication systems and online
communication systems affect how Christianity is understood and experienced? While
the rhetorical analysis conducted is interpretive in nature and makes no claims to
establish any kind of causal relationships, the findings suggest that the communication
systems employed do affect how Christianity is understood and experienced, at least in
terms of how Christian community (the focus of this investigation) is understood and
experienced. The discussion of how each medium of communication may affect the
understanding and enactment of Christian community is provided, primarily for heuristic
purposes.
The characteristics of a koinonia Christian community seem particularly (perhaps
ideally) suited to a digital form of communication. In the same vein, the ekklesia
Christian community appears to function best (perhaps ideally) in a face-to-face
communication context. Although further studies need to be conducted in this area, it is
possible that the strengths and limitations of each communication system foster these
emphases. Relating this observation back to the research question, the fundamental
characteristics of each medium of communication seem to make that particular medium
better suited to practice and promulgate distinct dimensions of Christian community.
The digital communication studied in this endeavor was a form of disembodied
communication. Participants in the St. Pixels community get to know each other based
primarily on the text that each contributes to a discussion, worship service, etc. Campbell
(2005) elaborates on this concept:
Online people interact with a ‘world-body construct,’ where people become
characterized as texts…Texts lack key nonverbal nuances important for
communicating emotion. In order to visualize the invisible online, people
construct their texts in unique ways that attempt to bridge this gap. (p. 115)
Some of the methods online community members may use to display these emotions
include emoticons and “cyberhugs.” Although digital communication may force
participants to work harder to express emotion, other characteristics of digital
communication quickly encourage a sense of intimacy. Brasher (2001) notes along these
lines, “Cyberspace also powerfully compresses time. It is not uncommon for a virtual
acquaintance met a few weeks ago to seem like an old friend” (p.47). The disembodied
nature of digital communication seems to force cyberchurch community members to get
past the “physical” to the “heart” of the person. In other words, topics that might take
years to emerge between casual friends engaging in small talk at a local church present
themselves more quickly when those physical masks and social norms are stripped away.
Also, community members no longer have to be located in near geographic proximity to
communicate – digital technology allows them to meet and commune based solely on a
shared spiritual faith. The networked, social, disembodied nature of digital
communication seems to mirror the properties of koinonia – which is spiritual and
relational in focus.
The properties of face-to-face communication, as represented by St. Luke’s,
encourage a different emphasis on Christian community – ekklesia. The name of this
communication system – ‘face-to-face’ – reveals the primary reason St. Luke’s has a
different Christian community emphasis than St. Pixels. Congregants gathered face-to-
face and actually see an individual’s real-life persona. Physically gathered together, they
are able to engage corporately in worship and acts of service. Although a spiritual
connection may (or may not be) present, a locally gathered church is able to physically
enact God’s commandment to “love one another”.
A discussion of research question two follows.
Research question 2.
The most general question presented in this thesis asked: Does technology shape how
religion is understood and enacted? Extrapolating from the discussion of research
question one (in sum, each medium of communication may be ideally suited for a
particular understanding and expression of Christian community) it seems possible to
suggest that the Internet may reshape how religion in general is understood and enacted.
Scholars (see Brasher, 2001; Campbell, 2004, 2005; Katz & Rice, 2002; Ong, 1981) have
probed this link, with both positive and negative outlooks on the Internet’s impact on
religion.
How the Christian Understanding of “Social” Affects Community
Another finding of this rhetorical evaluation shed light on a question which – although
not a central research question – pervaded this thesis: how does the unique Christian
understanding of “social” affect religious community in both online and offline contexts?
As stated in chapter one, a key component of Christian community is the underlying
understanding that forming community is a sacred imperative; the result of Christ’s
command to “love one another.”
Throughout both communities’ rhetoric, each emphasized the God-given call to form
community; in fact, one fantasy theme (“reflecting God’s love to a lost world”) occurred
in both texts. However, the ways in which each community went about realizing that
fantasy theme varied significantly. While this analysis presents no definite conclusions,
it may suggest that both communities continue to live out the sacred understanding of
Christian community; however, the way that understanding is enacted may vary.
Suggestions for Future Research
Possibilities for the future research of online Christian community abound. One
direct extension of this analysis would be to perform the same kind of rhetorical analysis
on a much larger number of digital and face-to-face Christian communities to observe if
the koinonia/ekklesia paradigm continues to hold.
Also, ethnographic studies – in a similar vein as the work performed by Campbell
(2005) – of a variety of different online Christian communities need to be performed to
continue investigating group identity, norms, and functioning. Do general patterns
among a broad range of online Christian communities begin to emerge? Do group
members’ discourse on community mirror or subvert management discussion of the
topic?
On an emotional/social level, research could be conducted on what kind of
predispositions individuals who utilize online vs. face-to-face Christian community
exhibit. What (if any) differences are present between those who use online cyberchurch
community, face-to-face Christian community, or some combination of both?
Last, comparisons of online Christian community between sects within Christianity
can help reveal how each sect’s specific cognitive and religious understanding of “social”
affects that community. As Dawson (2000) notes along these lines, “In fact, attention
must be paid more specifically to how different kinds of religious foci (i.e., different
beliefs and practices) affect the formation and operation of virtual communities”. As
Dawson suggests, the focus of such an endeavor could be enlarged from comparing sects
within a religion to comparing entire religious belief systems.
Implications in Practice
Do the findings of this analysis hold pragmatic value for Christian communities – both
online and offline – seeking to provide a relevant context for spiritually-charged social
communion? If these findings are supported by future evidence, Christian communities
will need to be aware that different communication contexts may provide different
emphases for Christian community. Neither of these emphases is inherently “good” or
“bad” – Campbell (2005) points out that koinonia and ekklesia are “two sides” of the
“Christian community coin” – however, one without the other may (or may not be)
deleterious.
One forecast which seems fairly certain, however, is the prediction that Christian
communities will have to grapple with questions of religion and the Internet in order to
stay current and relevant in our technology-driven culture. As Mello (1998) notes,
“Religious groups that remain outside [the internet communication revolution] will
become ghettos…” (p. ). Easum discusses the refusal of today’s faithful to simply sit and
listen passively: “One of the reasons for the popularity of the cyberchurch is its
interactivity…Today’s generation is less willing to sit and be lectured to” (p. 44). It
appears that many changes are in store for Christian community as it grapples with
technology and its influence.
Conclusions
Although written primarily for heuristic value, this thesis attempts to explore online
Christian community by examining the rhetoric of two analogous Christian communities
– differing only in their medium of communication. A fantasy theme analysis of both
artifacts revealed that St. Pixels Church of the Internet (digital communication) possessed
a rhetorical vision of a koinonia Christian community, while St. Luke’s United Methodist
Church (face-to-face communication) possessed a rhetorical vision of an ekklesia
Christian community. Both communities emphasized Christianity’s unique
understanding of the “social” (as a sacred imperative to form community), but enacted
that understanding in very different ways. Although the medium of the Internet may
have had no effect on these findings, it seems possible that unique characteristics of each
medium of communication may foster each expression of Christian community. More
research is needed into the relationship between the Internet, religion, and Christian
community, as these topics are deeply significant on a social, sacred, and societal level.
References
Allan, J.C. & D.A. Dillman. (1994). Against all odds: Rural community in the
information age. Boulder, Co: Westview.
Barna Research Group. (2000). Teenagers embrace religion but are not excited about
Christianity. Retrieved from www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?
PressReleaseID=57&Reference=B, November 2006.
Barna Research Group. (2006). State of the church. Downloaded from
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=ResourceArea&ResourceAreaID=22 on
March 2, 2007.
Benoit, W.L., A. A. Klyukovski, J. P. McHale & D. Airne. (2001). A fantasy theme
analysis of political cartoons on the Clinton-Lewinsky-Starr affair. Critical Studies in
Media Communication, 18, 377-394.
Blanchard, A. & M.L. Markus. (2004). The experienced ‘sense’ of a virtual community:
Characteristics and processes. ACM, 35.1: 64-79.
Bishop, R. (2003). The world's nicest grown-up: A fantasy theme analysis of news media
coverage of Fred Rogers. Journal of Communication
Bormann, E.G. (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical
criticism of social reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58, 396-407.
Bormann, E.G. (1973). The Eagleton affair: A fantasy theme analysis. Quarterly Journal
of Speech, 59, 143-159.
Bormann, E.G. (1982). A fantasy theme analysis of the television coverage of the hostage
release and the Reagan Inaugural. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68, 133-145.
Bormann, E.G. (1983). Symbolic convergence: Organizational communication and
culture. In Putnam, L.L. & M.E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations:
An interpretive approach. Newbury Park: Sage.
Bormann, E.G. (1985). The force of fantasy: Restoring the American dream. Carbondale
and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Bormann, E.G. (1990). Small group communication: Theory and practice (3rd
ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Bormann, E.G., J.F. Cragan, & D.C. Shields. (1994). In defense of symbolic
convergence theory: A look at the theory and its criticism after two decades.
Communication Theory, 4, 259-294.
Brasher, B.E. (2001). Give me that online religion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brumme, Andrew. (n.d.). What is the church? Accessed from
http://www.brumme.com/articles/EEuyuFEFFZmaqxQiVe.shtml on March 18, 2007.
Burke, Kenneth. (1969). A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Campbell, D.T. (1979). Degrees of freedom and the case study, In T. D. Cook & C.S.
Reichardt (Eds.) Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research, (pp. 49-
67). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Campbell, Heidi. (2004). Challenges created by online religious networks. [electronic
version] Journal of Media & Religion 3: 81-99.
Campbell, Heidi. (2005). Exploring religious community online: We are one in the
network. New York: Peter Lang.
Chesebro, James. (2006, November). Media effects research: The transformation from a
rational-systems-narrative scheme to emotions. Paper presented at the meeting of the
National Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.
Coupe, Laurence. (2005). Kenneth Burke on myth: An introduction. New York and
London: Routledge.
Dawson, L.L. (2000). Researching religion in cyberspace: issues and strategies. In
Hadden, J.K., & D. Cowan (Eds.), Religion on the internet. Greenwich, CT:
Elsevier Press.
Dawson, L.L. (2004). Religion and the quest for virtual community. In L.L. Dawson & D.E.
Cowan (Eds.), Religion online: Finding faith on the internet (pp. 75-89). New York:
Routledge.
Easum, Bill. (2005). Under the radar. Nashville, TN: Abington Press.
Experience St. Luke’s. Retrieved from www.stlukesumc.com on March 2, 2007.
Foss, K.A. & S.W. Littlejohn. (1986). The Day After: Rhetorical vision in an ironic
frame. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 3, 317-336.
Foss, Sonja. (2004). Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice (3rd ed.). Long
Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
George, S.E. (2006). Religion and technology in the 21st century. Information Science
Publishing. Preface retrieved February 23, 2007 from
http://www.ideagroup.com/books/additional.asp?id=5833&title=
Preface&col=preface.
Glimpse inside the virtual church. (2004, April 13). BBC News Article, para. 10 & 11.
Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3623525.stm on February
15, 2007.
Goleman, Daniel. (2006). Social intelligence: The new science of human relationships.
New York: Bantam Dell.
Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communication theory (4th ed.). USA: McGraw-Hill.
Hackworth, C.A., & L. A. Brannon. (2006). Understanding and managing others: The impact
of social intelligence upon social influence. Communication Research Reports 23: 171-178.
Henderson, Charles. (March 1997). The emerging faith communities of cyberspace.
Computer Mediated Communication. Retrieved from
www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/mar/hend.html.
Hewitt, Steven. (10 September,1998). Can there be a REAL internet church? Christian
Computing Magazine. www.gospelcom.net/ccmag/articles/cov0998.shtml. No longer
available online.
Hoover, S., L.S. Clark, & L. Rainie. (2004). Faith Online. Pew Internet and American
Life Project Report. Retrieved from www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/
PIP_Faith_Online_2004.pdf on January 2, 2007.
Jenkins, S. (2005). Ship of Fools website. Retrieved from
www.shipoffools.com/Below/index.html on February 27, 2007.
Johnson, R.B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Retrieved
from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_199701/ai_n8754064
/pg_8 on March 18, 2007.
Katz, J. & R. Rice. (2002). Social consequences of internet use: Access, involvement and
interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kempers, Margot. (2002). Community matters: An exploration of theory and practice.
Chicago: Burnham.
Kollock, P. & M. Smith. (1994). Managing the virtual commons: Cooperation and
conflict in computer communities. Retrieved from
www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/kollock/papers/vcommons.htm. on March 21, 2007.
Kraut, R. et al. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement
and psychological well-being? [electronic version] American Psychologist 53: 1011-1031.
Lenhart, A., & M. Madden. (2007). Social networking websites and teens. Report from Pew
Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_SNS_Data_Memo_Jan_2007.pdf, March 1, 2007.
Lewis, C.S. (1970). Myth became fact. In Hooper, W. (Ed.) God in the dock, (pp. 63-68).
Littlejohn, S. W. (2002). Theories of human communication (7th ed.). Albuquerque, NM:
Wadsworth.
McGillion, C. (2000, December 23). Web of disbelief: Religion has staked a big claim in
cyberspace, but has it done a Faustian deal? Sydney Morning Herald.
Ong, W.J. (1981). The presence of the word: Some prolegomena for cultural and
religious history. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Playboy interview: Marshall McLuhan. (March, 1969). Playboy: 26-27, 45, 55-56, 61, 63.
Postman, Neil. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show
business. New York: Viking Penguin.
Quigley, B. (1999). Forms of identification evident in public response to Princess
Diana's death. Paper presented at the Southern States Communication Association
Convention, San Antonio, TX.
Radcliffe, L. (2004, May 31). Log on for salvation. Newsweek, 143, 22.
Religion and ethics: Christianity. (2004, November 1). BBC News Article.
Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/
christianity/subdivisions/methodist_3.shtml on March 2, 2007.
Rheingold, Howard. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic
frontier. USA: Addison Wesley.
Schroeder, R., N. Heather, & R.M. Lee. (1998). The sacred and the virtual: Religion in multi-
user virtual reality. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 4 (2). Retrieved from
www.ascusc.org/jcmc, March 1, 2007.
Shields, D.C. & C.T. Preston, Jr. (1985). Fantasy theme analysis in competitive rhetorical
criticism. National Forensic Journal, III, 102-115.
Smith, M.R. (2004). Fantasy theme analysis in the interplay of Charles M. Sheldon's In
His Steps and his Jesus Newspaper. Journal of Media and Religion, 3, 57-72.
Some young people redefining what religion means to them. (2006, December 17).
Muncie Star Press, p. 6D.
St. Luke’s United Methodist Church Website. Retrieved from www.stlukesumc.com on
March 3, 2007.
St. Pixels Church of the Internet Website. Retrieved from www.stpixels.com on March
3, 2007.
Stone, Brad. Social networking’s next phase. (2007, March 3). The New York Times.
Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/technology/03social.html, March 3,
2007.
Strauss, A. (1995). Situational context as influence on evaluation design and use. Studies
in Educational Evaluation, 16, 231-246.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on Screen: Identity in the age of the internet. London: Phoenix
Paperbacks.
United Methodist Church Website. Retrieved from www.umc.org on March 5, 2007.
Veith, G. E., Jr. and C. L. Stamper. (2000). Christians in a .com world: Getting
connected without being consumed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
Wellman, B. & M. Gulia. (1999). Net surfers don’t ride alone: Virtual communities as
communities. In Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the Global Village, (pp. 331-36). Boulder,
Co: Westview.
Weise, E.R. (1996). A thousand aunts with modems. In L. Cherny & E.R. Weise (Eds.),
Wired women, (pp. vii-xv). Seattle: Seal.
Wheatley, M. & M. Kellner-Rogers. (1998). The Paradox and Promise of Community. In
Hesselbein, F., M. Goldsmith, R. Beckhard & F.R. Schubert (Eds.), The Community of
the Future, (pp. 9-18). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Appendix A
Examples of Cyberchurch Christian Communities
Note: This list is not intended to be exhaustive, and not all communities share all the same features as St. Pixels. This is instead intended to serve as a jumping-off point for the further investigation of various cyberchurch communities. Hundreds of variations of cyberchurch sites can be accessed by using the search term “cyberchurch.”
1. Alpha Church (http://www.alphachurch.org)
2. Cyberchurch.com (http://cyber-church.com)
3. GodWeb (www.godweb.org)
4. St. Pixels Church of the Internet (www.stpixels.com)
5. The Ooze: Conversations for the Journey (http://www.theooze.com/main.cfm)
6. Shepherd’s Care Chapel (www.findthepower.com)
7. Virtual Church of the Blind Chihuahua (http://www.dogchurch.org/index.shtml)
8. The Web Church – The WorldWide Virtual Church from Scotland (www.webchurch.org)
9. Wuzupgod.com (www.wuzupgod.com)
10. Zchurch (www.zchurch.com)
Appendix B
Screen Shot of the Church of Fools’ (http://www.churchoffools.com) Virtual Worship “Space”
Appendix C
St. Pixels’ Site Plan
Site plan Discover St Pixels
Welcome to St Pixels (5th September 2006, 20:00) St Pixels core values (23rd October 2006, 0:04) Online safety (8th March 2007, 13:14) Frequently asked questions
Frequently asked questions (15th May 2006, 10:54) Where do I go to... (21st May 2006, 18:27) Technical questions
Technical documentation (12th June 2006, 5:50) Tutorial
Overview of the tutorial section (15th May 2006, 3:09) Adding a post or reply (3rd July 2006, 10:39) Working with images (18th May 2006, 2:52) Formatting (6th August 2006, 17:30) Editing (21st May 2006, 17:42) Publishing (23rd May 2006, 1:36)
St Pixels technical reference Overview of the reference section (15th May 2006, 3:09) GDRCode reference (6th August 2006, 17:09) Smileys (15th May 2006, 10:56)
Technical FAQ (15th May 2006, 3:08) New Chatroom (13th March 2007, 9:02)
Site membership questions (29th June 2006, 4:18) St Pixels theology questions (27th June 2006, 4:40) Financial questions (11th June 2006, 13:58)
Welcome to St Pixels! St Pixels in one page (10th March 2007, 19:56) The guided tour of St Pixels
The guided tour of St Pixels (5th September 2006, 5:56) The St Pixels vision (16th December 2006, 13:12) The St Pixels community (10th March 2007, 19:48) Who runs St Pixels? (5th September 2006, 18:57) St Pixels sponsors and money (24th July 2006, 6:31) The Gadara software (18th July 2006, 7:52) How do we use online media? (21st May 2006, 16:08)
A beginners' guide to using the site (5th September 2006, 18:47) Login problems (5th September 2006, 19:57) New in Discover St Pixels in the media (14th June 2006, 17:29) Management announcements
Management announcements: intro (1st September 2006, 7:30) Researching St Pixels (31st October 2006, 12:58)
The St Pixels community at rest Making yourself at home (4th September 2006, 11:09) Live topics on this site Live topics in Interact The St Pixels fridge door
The St Pixels fridge door (4th September 2006, 10:47) The hello thread (13th August 2006, 4:43) Away from keyboard (13th August 2006, 4:38) Join me in the Cafe (19th August 2006, 20:46) List of birthdays (3rd March 2007, 15:09) March Birthdays (28th February 2007, 8:01) February Birthdays (1st February 2007, 23:43) January Birthdays (1st January 2007, 9:59) December Birthdays (29th November 2006, 8:37) Sidi's 90th birthday (12th July 2006, 12:17) A Christmas Photo Album (3rd December 2006, 10:29)
The bouncy castle Welcome to fun and games (4th September 2006, 10:38) Divided by a common language (29th July 2006, 10:55) Picture association (15th June 2006, 14:30) Career changes (31st May 2006, 13:32) World Cup 2006 (24th May 2006, 9:22) St Pixels in one sentence (24th May 2006, 4:01) Oxymorons (16th May 2006, 18:08) Misheard lyrics (16th May 2006, 18:08) Handy tips for an easier life (16th May 2006, 18:08) St Pixels' second poetry competition (12th July 2006, 12:10) St Pixels' first poetry competition (15th May 2006, 18:11) Top Ten (15th May 2006, 18:06) Mornington Crescent (15th May 2006, 18:05) Anagrams (15th May 2006, 18:05) Word games (15th May 2006, 18:06) Guess the question (15th May 2006, 18:05) Proverbs (15th May 2006, 18:06) Rosencrantz (13th August 2006, 4:35) Alphabet soup (13th August 2006, 4:35) Four-word story (13th August 2006, 4:37)
Limericks (13th August 2006, 4:36) Randomness (13th August 2006, 4:33) Just making conversation (13th August 2006, 4:33) Choices! Choices! (13th August 2006, 4:33) Remember the year? (13th August 2006, 4:41) To tell the truth (13th August 2006, 4:39) Surprisingly, Predictably (13th August 2006, 4:35) Guess the song from the lyrics (13th August 2006, 4:36) It's just a joke! (13th August 2006, 4:34) Games rules (12th June 2006, 12:40) StPixels Pet Show (9th September 2006, 10:57) Free the WooHoos (16th March 2007, 0:06) 5 Word Story (3rd October 2006, 1:02) Secret Santa (8th October 2006, 9:38) Everlasting Sentences (29th October 2006, 17:31) Win a Soccer Shirt! (13th January 2007, 17:55) Super Bowl Pool (27th January 2007, 17:23) Academy Awards (9th February 2007, 0:52) Bunny Baskets (16th February 2007, 22:53) St. Pixels Craft Fair (19th February 2007, 11:05) Craft Fair Week 1 (23rd March 2007, 23:09) Farewell To Digichat (28th February 2007, 15:30) Cricket World Cup (17th March 2007, 17:39)
Stand by me threads Introducing solidarity threads (4th September 2006, 10:50) Coursework & exams (13th August 2006, 4:42) Quitting smoking (13th August 2006, 4:42) Hurricanes (31st May 2006, 13:32) Job-related challenges (12th July 2006, 12:24) Dementia (30th September 2006, 10:10) Health and Happiness (3rd October 2006, 0:21)
Chatroom events (12th June 2006, 12:49) Real-life meetings
Real-life meetings (4th September 2006, 10:56) Morley Meet 2007 (14th June 2006, 16:59) Benedictus in the UK, probably (3rd June 2006, 9:12) Jilly in the USA (17th September 2006, 18:02) Celt in London (21st October 2006, 17:26) Huddersfield Meet - New Years (19th November 2006, 17:59) Hampton Court in the Summer (5th March 2007, 12:10) Morley Meet 2008 Date Planning (5th March 2007, 12:20)
Members' area Members' area (9th May 2006, 16:29) Members' news (25th October 2006, 13:04)
List of users A Post Easter Meet (22nd October 2006, 11:47) Feedback
Discussion topics (10th May 2006, 17:04) The first month (10th June 2006, 14:35) The software (10th May 2006, 16:43) Site content (10th May 2006, 16:45) The future (10th May 2006, 16:47)
St Pixels blogs Introducing St Pixels blogs (25th October 2006, 2:22) Latest blog entries Latest blog comments St Pixels bloggers
Discuss Discussion on St Pixels (9th September 2006, 5:24) Live topics in Debate Church life discussion board
Church life: intro (7th October 2006, 23:12) Commitment (16th March 2007, 17:51) Bums on seats (23rd February 2007, 1:35) Church shopping (13th January 2007, 23:11) The bells, the bells! (14th January 2007, 1:56) Conformity in Worship (14th October 2006, 22:14) Sermons (13th September 2006, 21:43) Archived discussions
Archived discussions: intro (18th September 2006, 4:44) Churchianity? (14th May 2006, 17:28) 1Global 12 (11th September 2006, 4:24) The Alpha Course (9th September 2006, 4:20) Labels (2nd October 2006, 4:20)
Culture Culture: intro (7th October 2006, 23:16) Disconnected generation (26th January 2007, 17:56) Archived Discussion
Archived Discussion: intro (18th September 2006, 4:44) World Trade Centre (8th October 2006, 2:21) Postmodernism (6th October 2006, 4:53) Culture and critique (12th November 2006, 2:43) Review: Borat (25th November 2006, 21:59) Globalisation (18th December 2006, 2:15)
Current affairs Current affairs: intro (7th October 2006, 23:14) Euthanasia (16th March 2007, 22:40)
Citizenship (21st January 2007, 1:57) Archived discussions
Archived discussions: intro (18th September 2006, 4:44) Forgiveness in the face of great evil (15th May 2006, 14:15) The Israel/Lebanon conflict (27th July 2006, 21:29) A child at any age? (14th May 2006, 17:30) What is it about the Da Vinci Code? (17th May 2006, 5:55) If the world should nearly end ... (24th August 2006, 3:46) What is the best response? (10th September 2006, 18:50) Media Influence (1st September 2006, 19:04) Wearing a cross (15th October 2006, 13:53) Gene testing (16th November 2006, 12:43) Everybody's going to war (19th September 2006, 4:51) Christian Unions (23rd November 2006, 19:24) Animals for the poor (2nd December 2006, 22:15) Green faith (16th December 2006, 14:45)
Everyday life discussion board Everyday life: intro (22nd November 2006, 13:29) What would Jesus drive? (19th February 2007, 2:02) Don't <bleep> swear (15th January 2007, 16:19) Archived discussions
Archived discussions: intro (18th September 2006, 4:44) Grieving (14th May 2006, 17:40) Sin, hope and reality (13th September 2006, 23:53) To pray or not to pray (1st November 2006, 4:58) Jesus and everyday life (5th November 2006, 3:07) Despair and Faith (22nd November 2006, 1:46)
Soapbox Soapbox: intro (14th January 2007, 1:57) Being orthodox (9th February 2007, 2:22) Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire (14th January 2007, 3:53) Single women and ministry (16th October 2006, 4:39)
Theology discussion board Theology: intro (7th October 2006, 23:14) Checklist for Salvation (23rd March 2007, 12:24) Religious folly (8th March 2007, 11:12) Genesis vs Darwin (26th February 2007, 2:06) Christ's death (5th March 2007, 13:05) Messiah complex (5th February 2007, 3:17) Allah vs Yahweh (3rd January 2007, 23:42) Archived discussions
Archived discussions: intro (18th September 2006, 4:44) Religion and science (14th May 2006, 17:33)
Repentance and forgiveness (4th August 2006, 3:46) A just nuclear deterrent? (13th July 2006, 8:08) Virgin Birth (12th August 2006, 8:49) The Return of Christ (19th July 2006, 6:48) Recycled salvation (14th September 2006, 5:26) Predestination and free will (18th September 2006, 5:12) Defining "christian" (22nd September 2006, 5:35) Knockin' on heaven's door (11th October 2006, 4:27) The Trinity (16th October 2006, 9:24) The lion shall lie down with the lamb... (20th October 2006, 12:38)
That book - Bible discussions That book: intro (7th October 2006, 23:14) Salt and light (Mat 5:13-16) (18th January 2007, 2:46) Extreme Mercy (Mark 5:38-40) (2nd December 2006, 20:19) Food Chain (Isaiah 11:6-8) Archived discussions
Archived discussions: intro (18th September 2006, 4:44) 1Global 12 (1Cor: 12) Sliced and Diced? (30th August 2006, 5:51) To fear or not to fear... (9th September 2006, 4:21) Knocking on heaven's door (Matt 7:14)
Chatroom events organised by the Discuss team (13th June 2006, 21:20) Submit a topic (6th October 2006, 4:55)
Theological reflection Introducing theological reflection (5th September 2006, 4:45) Live topics in Reflect Current topic: Mission-Shaped Church
Introducing Mission-Shaped Church (2nd September 2006, 23:20) Mission-Shaped Church: the report
Buying your copy of Mission-Shaped Church (9th May 2006, 18:01) Downloading Mission-Shaped Church (11th May 2006, 18:22) Praise and criticism for Mission-Shaped Church (30th May 2006, 18:34)
Guest contributors to this reflection Introducing our guest contributors (24th May 2006, 5:25) Speaker and author Brian McLaren (9th May 2006, 17:55) Steve Croft of Fresh Expressions (9th May 2006, 18:23)
A letter to friends of Emergent (20th May 2006, 12:31) Mission-shaped virtual church (20th May 2006, 6:04)
Chapter 1: Changing Contexts Ch1 Q1: Availability (12th May 2006, 15:13) Ch1 Q2: Experience (12th May 2006, 18:44) Ch1 Q3: Types of user (12th May 2006, 18:45) Ch1 Q4: Consumers (12th May 2006, 18:45) Ch1 Q5: Barriers (12th May 2006, 18:46)
Chapter 2: The story since 'Breaking new ground' Ch2 Q1: Diversity (19th May 2006, 17:13) Ch2 Q2: Better Church (19th May 2006, 17:13) Ch2 Q3: Essentials (19th May 2006, 17:14) Ch2 Q4: Strategy (19th May 2006, 17:14) Ch2 Q5: St Pixels? (19th May 2006, 17:14)
Chapter 3: Why does churchplanting matter? Ch3 Q1: How? (29th May 2006, 5:00) Ch3 Q2: Involvement (29th May 2006, 5:00) Ch3 Q3: Our parish (29th May 2006, 5:00) Ch3 Q4: Youth (29th May 2006, 5:01)
Chapter 4: Fresh expressions of church Ch4 Q1: Go! (7th June 2006, 5:29) Ch4 Q2: Expressions (7th June 2006, 5:29) Ch4 Q3: Liturgy (7th June 2006, 5:29) Ch4 Q4: Values (7th June 2006, 5:29) Ch4 Q5: Creativity (7th June 2006, 5:29)
Chapter 5: Theology for a missionary church Ch5 Q1: Why church? (16th June 2006, 3:49) Ch5 Q2: Where (16th June 2006, 3:50) Ch5 Q3: Attributes (16th June 2006, 3:49) Ch5 Q4: Critique (16th June 2006, 3:49) Ch5 Q5: Obedience (16th June 2006, 3:50)
Chapter 6: Methodologies for a missionary church Ch6 Q1: Expressions (23rd June 2006, 4:34) Ch6 Q2: Maturity (23rd June 2006, 4:34) Ch6 Q3: Events (23rd June 2006, 4:34) Ch6 Q4: Start point (23rd June 2006, 4:34) Ch6 Q5: Dimensions (23rd June 2006, 4:34)
Chapter 7: An enabling framework for a missionary church St Pixels' version of Chapter 7 (13th July 2006, 7:55) Ch7 Q1: Resourcing mission (12th July 2006, 4:37) Ch7 Q2: Lessons (12th July 2006, 4:37) Ch7 Q3: Pioneers (12th July 2006, 4:37) Ch7 Q4: Sacraments (12th July 2006, 4:37)
General questions about Mission-shaped Church Suggestions (14th May 2006, 4:53) What is mission? (12th May 2006, 15:28)
Dialogue with Brian McLaren Dialogue with Brian McLaren (1st July 2006, 15:50) Network vs location (1st July 2006, 15:45) Experimenting with church (1st July 2006, 15:45) Pre-modern forms in postmodern worship (1st July 2006, 15:45) One congregation only? (1st July 2006, 15:45) Teaching and the sacraments (1st July 2006, 15:45) Global vs local church (1st July 2006, 15:45)
Discussing the discussion (14th May 2006, 4:53) Conclusion
Mission-shaped Church: (2nd September 2006, 23:23) Mission-shaped what? (2nd September 2006, 23:21) A what-shaped church? (2nd September 2006, 23:22) Mission-shaped issues (2nd September 2006, 23:23) A mission-shaped St Pixels (3rd September 2006, 4:49)
Chatroom events organised by the Reflect team (13th June 2006, 21:20)
St Pixels worship Worship at St Pixels (28th February 2007, 10:22) Live topics in Worship Scheduled worship events (23rd March 2007, 12:55) Lent (26th February 2007, 19:51) Daily Bible reading (26th February 2007, 19:39) Bible reading discussion (26th February 2007, 19:44) March prayers (28th February 2007, 5:33) March praise (28th February 2007, 5:35) February prayers (28th January 2007, 14:37) February praise (28th January 2007, 14:26) Spiritual journeys
Spiritual journeys: intro (5th January 2007, 9:26) Chronicles of Agabus (13th August 2006, 17:29) Comments for Agabus (12th August 2006, 7:20) Life with Pam (6th September 2006, 8:10) Comments for Pam (15th August 2006, 5:04) Stumbling with TessaB (30th August 2006, 14:10) Comments for TessaB (30th August 2006, 14:13) Living in Couchland (5th September 2006, 8:48) Comments for Couchbeings (5th September 2006, 8:46) Stuavis' Adoption Adventure (4th February 2007, 11:45) Comments for Stuavis (4th February 2007, 11:44)
Church prayer texts (28th August 2006, 12:21) Study in the church (3rd March 2007, 4:37) Worship resources
Prayer resources (7th September 2006, 12:28) Taize (11th August 2006, 7:23) Iona worship (6th September 2006, 8:04)
Support St Pixels Welcome to Support Us (5th September 2006, 17:57) About Support Us (6th July 2006, 15:47) Ways to give to St Pixels
Ways to give to St Pixels (17th September 2006, 15:51) Giving by credit / debit card (under construction) Giving by cheque (30th September 2006, 17:51) Giving by standing order (13th June 2006, 5:07)
St Pixels online shop (13th September 2006, 8:28) St Pixels financial dashboard (20th September 2006, 8:29)
Appendix D
St. Pixels Church of the Internet (Excerpts from the St. Pixels website which explicitly discuss how the group characterizes and
casts itself as a Christian community) 1. An experiment in online Christian community. What is a church or a Christian community? Is there a difference? What are the minimum requirements to "be church"? In an age where technology drives so much of what we do and how we interact, where does that leave the church? This is an era when you can shop, meet, do business, communicate, invest, work and play online. When you can survive (but can you live?) without leaving home, connected only by a telephone jack and a modem. Where does church fit into that? St Pixels is about exploring online Christian community to test the boundaries of what exactly church is and needs to be to "be church". We aim to provide a sacred space on the internet where people from all walks of life are welcome to come and explore God and get to know each other in a general Christian context. 2. To enable this vision, there are some key groups behind the site. Firstly there is the community. St Pixels is a diverse community; Christian and agnostic, traditional and radical, conservative and liberal, young and old. Within this community, all kinds of people bring all kinds of talents and gifts to contribute to the continued development and growth of this community. 3. Volunteers drawn from the community work in teams to support the community and develop the site. Their work is co-ordinated by the management team. 4. The heart of the St Pixels community is stated in the Core Values: God is revealed to seekers by many different means, including creation, the Bible, the life of Jesus and the Spirit-filled witness of the Church. St Pixels is one expression of that historical, international and universal Church. We aim to create sacred space on the Internet where we can seek God together, enjoy each other's company and reflect God's love for the world. Those of any belief or none are welcome to take part in our activities, providing they accept the Christian focus of our community and respect other participants. 5. St Pixels is a diverse community; Christian and agnostic, traditional and radical, conservative and liberal, young and old. Some come for serious discussion, others for prayer, others for a laugh. Labels such as these can not do the community (or the people concerned) justice. The community aims for diversity, which is neither uniformity nor division. Instead, it is loving, respectful relationship. 6. The community is real. We have bust ups, disagree and misunderstand each other. We make mistakes. Without these things we wouldn't really be community. But we also aim for a better,
deeper community. We pray together, worship together, support each other. We celebrate the good news, commiserate in the bad, stand in solidarity and cheer one another on. 7. St Pixels is the result of a simple vision to "create a sacred space on the Internet where we can seek God together, enjoy each other's company and reflect God's love for the world." 8. Our vision is:
• to create a sacred space, a welcoming and witnessing community on the internet. • to make disciples by providing opportunities for theological reflection, discussion and
exploration • to proclaim Christ through the use of the Internet and related technologies
To do this, we will: • work to build an ecumenical and international St Pixels community that is part of the
Body of Christ • develop software and other available media that enable community to flourish • work with other Christian groups with a presence on the Internet on issues of shared
interest 9. St Pixels is an ecumenical and international community of Christians. Many of the people you'll meet here have volunteered to take responsibility for jobs like technical support, making people welcome, leading worship, and backroom administration. These teams of volunteers make St Pixels work. 10. Here at St Pixels we have a strong sense of community. This is a characteristic of which we are justifiably proud and is part of what we believe draws people to our community. However there is a downside to this. The trust we show in each other (of necessity) can be abused or tested by people. In relating to each other we need to be as innocent as doves but as cunning as snakes. 11. Can St Pixels really be described as "Christian" without firmer theological positions? Viewpoints on that will vary widely. Perhaps the best answer is "taste and see." However, to try to answer it: At St Pixels we are intentionally "vague" due to our consistent desire to be an inclusive community. To define our theology more would be to go down the line of some kind of label: liberal, orthodox, reformed, reconstructionist, evangelical, charismatic, pentecostal, fundamentalist, post-evangelical, traditional, etc. In fact we are a community seeking to embrace all of those traditions and allow people to seek God together with others.
Appendix E
St. Luke’s United Methodist Church (Excerpts from the St. Luke’s publication “Experience St. Luke’s” which explicitly discuss how
the group characterizes and casts itself as a Christian community)
1. Mission: identity We are an open community of Christians, gathering to seek, celebrate, live and share the LOVE OF GOD for all creation. 2. As we look toward the future,the people ofSt.Luke’s stand ready to continue to be transformed by God to make a difference in the world.Senior Pastor Dr.Kent Millard states,“I believe the best years of St. Luke’s lie ahead of us as we move closer to our vision of world transformation, and I thank God daily for the opportunity ofbeing a leader in this amazing congregation as we follow wherev- er God leads us into the future. 3. Worship is the core of who we are as a church. It is in worship that we come together as a community to praise and thank God for God’s abundant blessing. It is in worship that we speak to God and listen to God as a whole community. It is in worship that we dedicate our tithes and our lives to God’s work in our community and around the world. 4. Messages are brief and designed to connect with those who may never have heard the good news of the unconditional love of God. The 10:15 services are interactive and transmitted live between the two sites. Coffee, juice, donuts and bagels are served each week. Four dozen volunteers make up the Leadership Team, Worship Team, Music Team, Technical Team, Education Team, Hospitality Team, Loading Team, Marketing Team,Development Team, Outreach Team and Video Team. The Garden epitomizes how St. Luke’s is fulfilling its mission of sharing God’s love with all people. 5. United Methodist Women Over several decades St. Luke’s UMW have organized some of the church’s most successful fundraisers and helped community and global missions, all the while enjoying a community of faith, fellowship and fun. 6. Whether visiting the sick in homes or hospitals, lifting up needs in prayer, quietly being with a church member in time of personal crisis, or sharing and receiving strength with others, St. Luke’s has a dedicated group of people trained and committed to share the love of God at times of need. St. Luke’s Stephen Ministry has trained 260 St.Luke’s members. These lay ministers have provided one-on-one care for many in need from the St. Luke’s community of faith. 7. Mission:Vision
We envision being transformed by God and transforming the world into a compassionate, just, inclusive, Christ-like community. 8. Offering information and resources on health as a lifestyle of spiritual wellness, St. Luke’s Health Ministries presents seminars covering a wide range of health topics and talks by health professionals, as well as simple preventative measures such as blood pressure screening. Promoting a healthy spirit, healthy mind, and healthy body for life is an important ministry at St.Luke’s. 9. Through strategic Membership Development programs, new members of St. Luke’s are offered classes that define the basics of Christian faith, outline the origins of Methodism, and define their own personal spiritual gifts. Each new member is then connected with a group at St. Luke’s that shares that passion, becoming an integral part of the larger faith community. 10. Allowing and guiding our children to experience God’s love through education, fellowship, service and worship is one of St. Luke’s opportunities to live out its mission in the world. 11. Community Ministries includes a number of opportunities for St.Luke’s UMC members to make a difference in the Indianapolis community. All of the programs are the result of one or more members having a passion and then enrolling others. 12. Whether hoping to win at bingo, finding treasure at the Easter Egg Hunt, or making new friends at Family Camping weekend, celebrating our friendships and having fun helps build enduring relationships within the St.Luke’s community. 13. Reachout offers a variety of social activities throughout the year as well as educational classes, book studies and informational sessions aimed to address issues that impact the gay and lesbian Christian Community. 14. Most importantly, St. Luke’s Singles Ministry provides opportunities for singles to grow spiritually by attending worship with the St.Luke’s faith community, and by providing a singles Sunday school class and mid-week Bible Study for young singles. 15. St. Luke’s Spiritual Life Center exists to provide a safe place, creative leadership and innovative programming to nurture individual and community spiritual growth. 16. Serving nearly 10,000 people requires many volunteers who are willing to give of their time to serve and support one another, their community, and God. 17. We believe in the Church as the fellowship, for worship and for service, of all who are united to the living Lord. 18. We feel that God is calling St.Luke’s to be a truly transforming presence in the world and are ready to step outside the church doors and to take God’s love to our neighbors everywhere. Our success as Christians who believe in the commandment that Jesus has given will be measured not by how many people come into the church, but by how many go out into the world ready to work
together in transforming the lives of others.