word_made_virtual

The Word made virtual Kate Boardman

The Word made virtual:
some thoughts on mission and ministry in an online world

Introduction
The Church is dying.1 The 'vicar-shaped ministry' of the last half a century is no
longer a successful or sustainable model for today's priests and people. There is a
need for radical change, re-shaping, re-modelling, re-thinking, re-energising the
Church, its ministry and its existence in order to be re-born for the next generations.
To know what one doesn't know is the first step in changing for the better. The
decade of evangelism and the increase of 'fresh expressions' of church are beginning
to open up avenues for exploration in bringing God back to His people and the
people to God. Recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his support of the
need for a 'mixed economy' recognises that we are in a period where we must
explore many new possibilities for being and doing church in order to respond to the
context of our 21st century society. A period where we – remaining mindful of those
unwilling to embrace swift change – see the opportunities and rise to the challenges
posed by today’s society, and respond in faith.
This essay examines arguably the most powerful phenomenon of the modern age –
the internet – to consider the impact new technology has had on society and if it can
help or hinder the Church.

Changes in society
England's pre- and post-war society was a stable entity, where one's life could be
mapped out with a degree of certainty. Remaining in the village or town where one
was born, maintaining a 'job for life', marrying a local boy/girl, bringing up well-
disciplined children in a Christian environment, knowing the neighbours, socialising
locally with them and with family nearby, quietly respecting the teacher, doctor,
policeman and priest. Today's society could hardly be more different. In today's
global world we move around, with work, with education, away from family, from
friends, moving perhaps a number of times, creating new relationships and networks
each time, and attempting to maintain these relationships with a greater or lesser
degree of success over time. Moving around loses the groundedness of living
somewhere where everyone knows you and your history, everything about your
present and can make a good guess about your future; it loses the shared history
and experience that characterises strong community, yet facilitates the breaking free
from inherited conventions, allowing the reinvention of self as people move and
begin afresh in new places. Public and private transport provision means that people
travel as a matter of course, to work, to shop and for social intercourse. The birth of
the internet exacerbates this, enhances the number, location and type of

1 Well, ok, maybe not all of it, but some of it. Cathedral congregations are on the up and there are some types of church that
are thriving, but many in the traditional, and parish environment are not. But that wouldn’t have made quite the same impact,
so bear with me here ☺

Assessed essay submitted to the Diocese of Durham Council for Ministry, February 2008 1


communities that we belong to. Similarly it affects the number, location and type of
churches that we attend.
The Church is dying. It caters to a population who do not know their neighbour, who
work 12 hour days plus commute to work, who unthinkingly drive up to 20 miles to
see friends, who buy online and get delivery or go to out-of-town shopping outlets
for convenience and who travel remarkable distances to attend a church which suits
their preferred worship style – if they attend at all. They stay in touch with their
friends by social networking, by email and community software. The verb 'to
facebook' is catching up with 'to text' in being the medium of connection between
friends – but does little but often replace deep and meaningful relationships? The
world is available 24/7 to them, and many of them are available 24/7 to the world.
This is the congregation the traditional church wishes to bring at an inconveniently
set time to an inconveniently cold and draughty building to hear, for some, an
inconvenient truth.2 Although many may feel that the internet has done much to kill
off real community, this post modern world revolves around technology and the new
society that it offers and supports, and it behoves every organisation to learn from it.

“I dare to summon the whole Church bravely to cross this new
threshold, to put into the deep of the Net, so that now as in the
past the great engagement of the Gospel and culture may show to
the world 'the glory of God on the face of Christ' (2 Cor 4:6). May
the Lord bless all those who work for this aim.”
--Pope John Paul II, January 24, 2002

Web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 – opportunities online
Whilst in some areas one might feel that the Church of England is far from the
cutting edge of technological change, and the Catholic Church still further behind,
the as-ever perceptive comment by the last Pope reminds us that we should not and
can not disassociate our faith from the world around us or vice versa. From a small
group of researchers successfully connecting their computers together to share
results and ideas, the world wide web has become a mainstay of our daily life;
today’s younger generation does not recall a world without email.

A survey carried out in the United States in 2003 found that “64% of the nation’s 128
million Internet users have done things online that relate to religious or spiritual
matters”.3 In 2008, faced with ever declining church congregations and increasing
apathy, let us look afresh at the opportunities offered by the online: the internet,
social networking, mail lists and discussion fora and virtual worlds.

Web 1.0: the internet (static medium)
In the nineties a level of computer programming skills were need to create web
pages, not so anymore. The web as a publishing medium is vast, any group,

2 Shamelessly adapted from An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s masterpiece on how we look after God’s creation,
http://www.aninconvenienttruth.co.uk/ (2006)
3 Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2004



individual or organisation can maintain a website, publicly and globally available,
often for free. Type of use and quality of information ranges widely, but a presence
online offers easy access to many answers. At macro level, the Church of England
maintains a vast resource at http://www.cofe.anglican.org/, and a good starting
place for people enquiring into Anglicanism can be found at ‘Anglicans Online’
(http://anglicansonline.org).4 On a more local level, many softwares exist to help
communities represent themselves to their faithful and to visitors by a church
website.5 A website might simply be a provision of information which is little more
than can be found on the noticeboard in the churchyard, but which is visible to
anyone with an internet connection without walking out in the rain. But in the same
way that out-of-date, rather damp and dog-eared notices on a peeling noticeboard
give an impression of a parish pride past its prime, a website offers you the potential
to sell your community as you are. For regulars, it’s an opportunity to check times or
dates, for visitors/seekers to find out when the church is open, or what services
there are, for a young couple driving past looking for a perfect wedding opportunity
the chance to nail a sale…! The flexibility available in web publishing allows you to be
who you are. Appendix 2 offers two church websites as examples of what different
effects can be created with the same software.

Web 1.5: the internet (dynamic medium)
To successfully attract repeat visitors on a regular basis, a website needs to change,
to update. One of the most exciting developments of the web is from grey,
unformatted text to the easy inclusion of rich media. With the addition of RSS (really
simple syndication) not only can your website have changing content on it, visitors
can subscribe to directly receive updated information from it. This means that
sermons can be available online very quickly after a service (in text or in more recent
times audio format) – a rich source of information for those not yet brought into the
community, or those within who cannot attend services or wish to reflect on the
message and engage in a discussion about it which extends beyond the post-service
coffee. Appendix 3 shows two exponents of this.

Web 2.0: social networking
As it became easier to publish to the internet, a new generation of web use and web
users grew. Not only is web-publishing easier, but commonplace (not restricted to
geeks) and free, so reading and writing to the web is very much in the public domain.
the web is no longer a one way transmission of information, but a dynamic and
interactive exchange between many users. Chief among the ‘innovations’ of what is
often called ‘Web 2.0’ are a myriad of places for social networking to take place. The
web has come alive in a rich interactive community online, based around sharing –
posting, commenting, supporting, questioning, answering, nurturing, debating,
engaging… Social networking is the term given to the way that people spend hours
online making connections and developing relationships with friends they have and

4 A screenshot of their ‘Start Here’ questions page can be found as Appendix 1.
5 Church123 (http://www.church123.com) is one such software, which underpins the different websites seen in Appendix 2. In
addition to Church123 one can mention Church Director (http://www.churchdirector.com) and the Planning Center
(http://planningcenteronline.com/) for the facilitating of service teams and volunteers.



have not met in real life. Blogs (from web-log) are commonplace, anyone can share
ideas and invite comments and discussions to engage in asynchronous conversations
around the world. Two of the largest social networking sites are MySpace and
Facebook. ‘Religious Views’ is one of the standard information entries on social
networking profiles and although it invites (especially in Durham) the occasional
“excellent from my bedroom”, “yes, right over the cathedral” or “Lindisfarne’s quite
pretty”, the religious views field is present on many more profiles than perhaps the
current average congregational figures would suggest. Self-identification by groups
of people with like interests means that people can come together online through
something like Facebook in ways that might not be possible to do face-to-face, or
together in the kind of numbers that physical reality prevents. Appendix 4 shows a
Facebook profile and a glimpse at the kind of numbers of users who join faith or
faith-based groups.

Software entrepreneurs are not missing out on this either. MyChurch6, whilst
Facebook and MySpace allows to you develop relationships with people outside your
local area, encourages the same potential within a church community, allowing each
member of the community to create an individual profile with photos and personal
information as well as jointly contributing to event planning, calendars and
discussions. It may begin to recreate some of the ‘everyone knowing everything
about you’ that we feel has been lost since the post-war generation, but it may be
only a subset of the congregation who would use this type of website. On the one
hand, creating community in a Facebook scenario allows you to be some sort of
presence – salt and light – in the world, MyChurch is good for deepening the existing
ties within the local community. Instinctively one feels they may serve different
purposes, but it is entirely possible that a MySpace/Facebook style accessibility may
speak to the younger people not already in the church community. We should not
try to encourage them to leave the former for MyChurch accounts, as no doubt they
will want to keep their free choice of personal space, and indeed an aim of spreading
the Kingdom is not going to be achieved by drawing a boundary and separating
those who are ‘in’ from those who are not.

Web 2.01: online communities
A fully-fledged MyChurch space using all of its functionality, or a website which
includes rich opportunity for engaging in discussion, whether that be in forums for
general topics or life studies, or in blogs written by different members of the lay and
clerical teams which tempt and encourage reaction and reflection is becoming truly
an online community. Online communities have existed since the earliest days of the
internet (and before) and there are many well-established groups and mail lists still
going strong. Heidi Campbell gives an in-depth examination of how email community
developed in Exploring Religious Community Online.7 Although not existing separate

6 Appendix 4.3, Screen shot from MyChurch, http://www.mychurch.com.
7 Campbell, H. (2005) Exploring Religious Community Online. New York: Peter Lang Publishing



to each other, it is interesting to note Campbell defines ‘social networks’ and
‘spiritual networks’.8
Campbell’s in-depth and authoritative examination of religious communities online
provides assurance that such communities can be formed and can successfully
create close nurturing relationships; this is borne out by another Pew survey which
discovered that over 70% of internet users “engage in email exchanges with other
online group members several times a week”.9

Web 2.02: online churches
For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among
them.
--Matthew, 18:20
This essay is not the place to discuss what makes a ‘church’. But it would seem that
much of what Campbell experienced in her involvement in the Anglicans Online
discussion forums could very well be today described as online church. Perhaps to be
a church one requires some level of hierarchical organisation – some leader or
responsable above and beyond the list admin? Appendix 5 shows the different faces
of two online churches. These combine many aspects of web 1.0 and 2.0,
incorporating discussion forums and chat rooms, offering fellowship, worship and
ministry together. iChurch10 connects the virtual with reality, employing part-time
priests as ‘web pastors’, paid for by the Diocese of Oxford which backs iChurch. St
Pixels11 is interesting because they began with a 3D virtual church, but have since
changed to a discussion/chat format. St Pixels is sponsored by the Methodist Church,
so both these examples exist within and are extensions of our established church,
however they both have a wide and ecumenical community from around the
world.12 That they are both UK-based does not face us with the cultural question of
“yes, but that’s American, w/couldn’t happen here” – it can and is happening here.
(Do not fear, the Americans are doing it as well, Lifechurch.tv13 streams services
through their ‘internet campus’, where those at a physical distance can take part
online via chat rooms and pre-prepared content along with a live webcast of a choice
of pastor and worship band.)
Perhaps the difference between online Christian community and online church is
also a question of the structured delivery of worship. Worship is discussed more

8 My emphasis. Careful discussion of each/both would represent another paper, but it is interesting to keep the ‘distinction’ –
if distinction it is – whilst reading the rest of this essay. It is not quite possible to equate ‘social network’ with ‘fellowship’ and
‘spiritual network’ with ‘ministry’ or ‘worship’, nor to define here whether one can exist without the other or whether both are
needed to ‘succeed’…
9 Horrigan, John B. ‘Online communities. Networks that nurture long-distance relationships and local ties’. Pew Internet &
American Life Project. 2001. [retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/47/report_display.asp Jan 21st, 2008]
10 iChurch: http://i-church.co.uk/
11 St Pixels: http://www.stpixels.com/ Appendix 5.3 shows screenshots of the St Pixels virtual church; brief answers to some
questions can be found about the virtual church at http://www.churchoffools.com/got-questions/index.html and a more
detailed history at http://www.stpixels.com/view_page.cgi?page=discover-tour-community
12 See the iChurch map http://www.phil-wright.net/ichurch/map.jpg for where iChurch’s congregation are from.
13 http://www.lifechurch.tv/



below. Certainly it is clear that ministry is happening, virtually tangible around the
world.

Web 3.0: virtual worlds
Online church – virtual church? Online is real, people are in communion with each
other. Virtual is only the medium. What’s next? The next thing in online technology
is virtual worlds, where sophisticated virtual reality softwares construct a 3D
environment – landscapes, buildings, weather, scenery, furniture, possessions – in
which cartoon or life-like characters (avatars) interact. In ordinary computer games
there are a set of pre-defined rules within which one ‘plays’; in a virtual world there
are none such. All the world’s a stage and each avatar (or, more correctly stated,
each avatar’s human animator) plays its own part in conducting the action and
creating the ‘reality’, moving around the environment and communicating via text
chat. World of Warcraft14 is perhaps one of the best known virtual worlds, although
more specifically is a world for role-play – a massively multiplayer online role-playing
game (MMORPG), within which there are goals to achieve and rules to play by,
rather than a world simply to exist and wander about in. Previously – and still –
popular are The Sims,15 a virtual world of characters where you can truly ‘play God’
to organise how your Sims live and interact with each other. Other incarnations
include Habbo Hotel, 16 a teenage environment that the NSPCC 17 and Drugs
Awareness18 campaigns use for effective mission, but in which there are no churches
or chapels. However the most popular virtual world today is Second Life.

Web 3.01: Second Life
Virtual worlds are increasingly in use by educationalists, providing a wealth of
opportunities for students. One of the most famous creations in Second Life is for
nursing students who can enter a sim (simulated environment) which takes over
their avatar and shows you what it is like to have schizophrenia. It’s a very powerful,
not to mention disturbingly real [learning] experience.

The educational benefits of Second Life are only a tiny part of the current usage.
Twelve and a half million people log in to hang out, to go dancing, to attend talks or
visit virtual exhibitions, to explore recreated wonders of the world, world-famous
buildings or even step inside paintings (such as Van Gogh’s Starry Night). Second Life
has its seedier side too. An adults-only environment, among its highest-hitting sites
are sleazy nightclubs and strip joints. The world in microcosm, it cannot but be
considered a rich field of opportunity for mission and ministry.

Second Life is an interesting mixture of surreal accommodations and minutely
detailed replicas of real buildings,19 often located right next to each other. The

14 http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/
15 http://thesims.ea.com/
16 http://www.habbo.co.uk/
17 See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6404231.stm for more information.
18 See http://www.talktofrank.com/article.aspx?id=254 for more information.
19 See Appendix 6 for pictures of the Sistine Chapel in Second Life.



Anglican Cathedral (here is not the place to take its builder to task on the definition
of a cathedral) is a beautifully impressive gothic granite, perched atop a plateau on
an island all of its own. Not a direct copy of any cathedral in particular but similar to
many, it is this church which has become home to the Anglicans in Second Life
community.20 Here there are now 5 services and 2 bible studies each week, and a
growing community of believers from around the Anglican Communion.

As well as the copying of reality to its infinite detail, Second Life also allows the
builder to be free. Normal real life rules of engineering and gravity do not apply, it
isn’t cold and it doesn’t rain (though you can put down a beautiful layer of snow and
have sparkling snowflakes). At the Danske Folkekirke,21 the prayer room/chapel is an
airy, part open space in a magically peaceful and prayerful corner of a lush garden,
with cushions instead of pews or chairs. As important as the ‘church’, and similar to
real life, there is also a lovely space for fellowship, in this case an open air café area
with a table dispensing seasonal goodies – coffee and delicious cake in summer or
hot rum toddies in winter. New to the church island recently is a cosy room with two
big armchairs and a notice telling you if the priest is online for a chat. Pellegrina, the
priest, is a priest in real life too. The care with which this space has been created
whilst making the most of the virtual potential is incredible, and the serenity of it
very moving. 22 Here you can find out about the Danish Church, talk to the priest if
she is online, chat companionably to others, or just admire the view with a coffee.
Here though, incontestably, you feel the presence of God. The Danish Church is a
perfect place for Second Life residents, Danish or otherwise, to come and find some
peace and refreshment if they do not wish to set foot in a real life church.23 However,
Pellegrina’s increased presence at the site begins to open up more avenues for
ministry.

Identity, anonymity and ethics – problems posed online
Ubiquitous though technology may be for the younger generation, many people still
fear the internet, from ignorance, or with very good reason. The previous sections of
this essay have shown some of the ways that the web may be used; however all of
these areas have shadows to be taken into account as well. Some issues that must
be considered when using the web, social networking and virtual worlds follow.
There are, in general, no answers, it is a case of simply being mindful of them.

20 See Appendix 7 for illustrations of the Anglican Cathedral in Second Life.
21 See Appendix 8 for illustrations of the Danish Folkekirke in Second Life.
22 Second Life can have its uses for more apparently mundane yet important things. Building unconstrained means that you
can try different things out and get a feel for how they work – not just removing a roof that is impossible in real life but to
experiment with layouts, with chairs/pews/scatter-cushions, with moving virtual walls, altars, or creating small group rooms
within a larger space. The kind of mental play that a vicar wanting to renew worship in a parish may lie awake at nights
dreaming of.
23 According to Pellegrina Shepherd, the Danish priest, there is, seemingly, much disillusionment with the Church of Denmark
at present and many people have turned their back on attending.



The internet as an information medium is perfect for unchurched ‘seekers’ or
followers of another religion who are curious or studious to search for answers or
ask questions in a safe and anonymous fashion. However, whether they receive
‘right’ answers or not is a matter of judgement and evaluation: the internet is a
publishing medium open to all and a religious enquirer must use their own faculties
to distinguish between reliable information and twisted or biased content. Many
novice or inexperienced users of the internet find it difficult to judge whether a
website is a professional, reliable source of information; with the read-write web a
sense of authority has diminished. Thus alongside the excellent resources provided
by the Church of England and Anglicans Online, one finds www.demonbuster.com.24
This example demonstrates why one would probably prefer that a seeker of
information or support from faith might take their questions to a real person. One
might prefer it, but there may be a chasm of personal history, context or location
that prevents them doing so in the flesh. Is there scope for online personal contact,
ministry and/or mission to bridge this gap? What damage is done to those who find
themselves at demonbuster.com, and what can be done to un-do that damage?

With church websites, we note that first impression was everything. The church
website allows would-be visitors to gain a feel for the community they are entering,
and to perhaps feel a little more comfortable in unfamiliar surroundings and
traditions. Again, one hopes that this provision of information would lead to a real
meeting, that people will be drawn in to the community. However, the webmaster
must be on his guard, for remiss it may be not to have a site at all, what damage
does a bad site do? The consumer-driven society of today does not linger on a bad
website, but moves to another – a factor which should be taken into account. How
clear, how careful, how ‘real’ is the message sent out by your website? If a visitor
reads your website, decides your community is not for them, are they selecting on
an untrue reflection of you? Would they think differently if the website had not
existed and they had had to visit the church itself – would they have then reacted
differently? But then would they have actually visited the church itself? Does the
website draw in more than it puts off? Does the church draw in more than it puts off?
From the home pages of the two churches shown in Appendix 2, what do they say
about the tradition, the people, the community, the values, the faith expressed there?

Social networking communities have much to offer, these spaces can surely develop
bonds of community and strengthen existing networks; but they may as easily
appear as a closed group of people to an outsider as an open and welcoming group.
Might a concept of ‘too much information’ here in fact not put a seeker at ease, but
create a perception of being visibly the stranger in the group if they turned up in
person? And again, does the image projected reflect the reality of the community?
At the same time as saying it is almost unfathomable for a church not to have a web
presence, basic or interactive, context is everything:

24 No comment need realistically made beyond what one may assume from the address of this page. I would not like to spoil
the surprise waiting for an unwitting visitor, save to say that it is worth visiting to display all that is potentially harmful about
the internet… (and beware your volume levels).



“I think one of the reasons our church (HarmonyGreenville.com) is so
"2.0" is because we have to be: we're in a college town that is
progressive when it comes to technology. We have city-wide wi-fi in
the downtown area, and our university, of course, has campus-wide
wi-fi. There are macs everywhere, and everyone knows the ins and
outs of Youtube, mySpace, Facebook, and Twitter. Flickr is huge.
Last.fm is huge. In fact, I installed Flock just so I could keep up with all
the tools our people use. That being said: if I were in a different
cultural context, say rural South Dakota, I would not have to involve
technology (especially web tech) with our church on the level we do
now.”25

In social networking, as well as with online communities, there is an interesting
tension between thinking relationships are developed to a depth not necessarily
found in today’s society, and the fact that although perceived to be deep, these
relationships are also as likely to be broader but only surface deep. It is common for
close friends to think that the person portrayed in a social networking/online
environment is very much the person that they know; often this is because they do
know the person so well that they impose their knowledge of the person onto the
persona that they are portraying. Identity is the biggest uncertainty online.

Who are these people you communicate with? Are they as they seem in real life? We
reflected at the beginning of this essay that the frequency of travel and moving
creates the possibility for people to effectively re-invent themselves – are they re-
inventing themselves when they leave a small community where everyone knows
them and spread their wings – dye their hair pink, get studs/tattoos, turn Goth,
come out as gay… – or are we then seeing the real them that they have become?
How do we ever really know what is real? Do we connect with the real people via the
online medium, or do we connect with the person someone really wants to be (or
fancifully feels like being)? Do we create a persona online deliberately, or
accidentally? Or is the persona we display online simply a different reflection of our
personality anyway, just as your work colleagues might perceive you differently from
your friends. Of course we connect with real people – there is a real person typing a
forum response, acting behind an avatar. There may be the potential for people to
dispense harmful advice or information because you cannot see that they do not
wear a collar in real life – but do you ever really know who you are dealing with in
real life too? There is a good discussion in understandable language on the
psychology of cyberspace at www-usr.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/disinhibit.html
which implies that one needs to pay the greatest of attention to much existing
knowledge and research before even attempting to answer – or even consider in
depth – the questions just posed here.

One fear about providing church and community online is: is it enough? Does it fulfil
a need for some people which then stops them coming to real life church? This

25 Derek Brown, posted Nov 24, 2007 in a Facebook discussion topic entitled ‘Remembering Cultural Context When Thinking
Technology’



question should say ‘which stops them physically coming to church, or being part of
their local community? No-one proposes that online church could or should replace
meeting physically face-to-face. Services and sermons on the web let you connect
with at least some of the what you are missing, and for people who cannot or
perhaps are not yet ready or willing to come physically to church they can be a
gentle way back. Heidi Campbell found in her research that the community was very
real, but someone gave an example of where the online community fails:

“[…]recounted the story of a family she knew who lost their home
and a child in a fire. At that moment emailing words of
encouragement was not enough. “They needed people who could
physically put their arms around them and cry with them”. While
grateful people around the world were praying for them, “When
you’ve just lost a child, it’s hard to be comforted online.”26

This is a tragic and perhaps extreme example, however some comfort – support –
ministry is easily given and received online. On a social networking site like Facebook
many people regularly update their ‘status’, giving an instantly visible feed to friends
or other users. It is surprisingly easy to get a sense of the general well-being of
people, and easy to respond with a sympathetic gesture or message.

“[…]current status … a very interesting observation was that I
changed my status one day to … Really busy, leave me a message to
cheer me up …. And wow lots of people did, I got audio, text and
videos. This was really surprising it is indicates the status could be a
very subtle tool, perhaps even acting as a replacement for body
language / mood indicates. In other words the people behaving (sic)in
the virtual as they do in physical networks.”27

Is it possible to minister to someone without being face-to-face?28 Ministry can and
does clearly happen online. Some people find that unburdening themselves to a
complete stranger easier than to someone who knows something of them, or in a
situation where they cannot hear or see pity, incomprehension or judgement in their
hearer’s voice or face. Either way one should be able to expect a genuine empathy
from your listener. That you can successfully build and develop trusting and fruitful
fellowship is evidenced by the success of online churches iChurch and St Pixels. But
in general we must still be cautious about the potential harm done to vulnerable
people by engaging with someone who you do not really know, not know who or
what they are, or their own agendas. Mission can also clearly happen online through
these communities and fellowships. In exploring the potential, it is also clear that
worship happens online. Worship was not explicitly mentioned in the title of this
essay, but it is necessary to discuss it.

26 Campbell, H. (2005) Exploring Religious Community Online. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, p. 163
27 From Andy Ramsden’s blog: http://andyramsden.blogs.ilrt.org/2007/09/13/facebook-1-week-in-some-thoughts/
28 Indeed it is. Take the reference to Paul (Romans 1:11) in a sermon from the St Pixels virtual church, full text appears as
Appendix 9.



Mission, ministry and worship
This essay offers a very brief glance at many of the potential uses of the online world
in which we live. There are also many challenges, but there are challenges in all of
life and life is about weighing those risks and stepping out in faith.

This essay is entitled some thoughts on mission and ministry. It should more rightly
be entitled thoughts on mission, ministry and worship, because of the difficulty of
defining and separating them. Christopher Moody’s Eccentric Ministry29 makes it
clear that you cannot separate mission and ministry – the one does not exist without
aspects of the other. Offering pastoral care is an element of mission, even to an
already-committed Christian. Taking the Word out onto the street, into a pub is
showing, offering, sharing God’s love in ministry. This happens in many of the
examples of internet use touched on in this essay, a combination of mission and
pastoral ministry. But ministry encompasses more than pastoral care, it also implies
the performative, and it is not possible to examine potential value and challenges
online without also discussing the more public performance of ministry in worship.

Is it possible to enact worship online? In exploring this, it is clear that online
potential extends beyond social networks to spiritual networks as well. Fellowship
exists within online communities and they do come together in worship. Not in all
worship. Cultural or denominational differences begin to split people’s views. For
LifeChurch.tv, their service/worship is wholly centred on the pastor talking for 40
minutes, after a praise band opening and the collection of monies. This can be
relatively easily translated – streamed – onto the web (and indeed also Second Life).
Nothing is necessarily missed out of this worship experience, and although it may
not be entirely correct to assume the spiritual experience to be the same as being
present in a physical campus, nothing is ‘missing’ from the virtual campus.

Move to an Anglican setting, however, and the full experience can not be shared.
Here the participants gladly come to a morning prayer service or to Compline, but
there is no Eucharist. People come together virtually into the fellowship of Christ but
they simply cannot share in the one bread and one cup. Sacramental worship does
not take place at iChurch or St Pixels, nor in Second Life.30 One might expect it more
likely to be discussed about churches in Second Life, where the visual appearance
offers a quite different experience to services held through text chat windows. But
would even asking the questions out loud be just bad taste, or should scholars,
theologians, ministers, online congregations and would-be online communicants
look to wrestle with the concept?31 It is common to identify with the avatar whose
actions you direct; many people take their avatars to sit quietly in a church for a few

29 Moody, C. (1992). Eccentric Ministry. London: Darton,Longman & Todd Ltd
30 There has been a thread discussing virtual symbols and sacraments on the St Pixels website over the recent weeks. Appendix
10 brings together those comments posted particularly about online communion, from
http://www.stpixels.com/view_page.cgi?page=discuss-reflect-rtchurch-rites.
31 St Pixels have, see previous note.



minutes’ peace in a busy day, perhaps to pray, perhaps to say prayer during the day
or perhaps just for the sense of stillness that tends to come over you looking at a
screen where your avatar is peaceful.32 Is it un-theological, sinful, incomprehensible
to ask how people would feel about lining their avatars up to receive virtual
communion? Would it just be the avatars partaking, or would something more
profound happen? Is it too deep a psycho-social question of how people relate to
their avatars, or is it just deeply blasphemous and offensive, for many belittling the
sacrament? Prayerfully and sensitively done, might it in some small way offer a
powerfully poignant moment for someone who for whatever reason cannot or will
not go to a ‘real life’ church, a moment that might open a rich vein of much needed
pastoral ministry and healing? Or does it risk making physical attendance at a real
life church even at least for sacramental worship an optional factor in being a
Christian, reducing the mystery of the Eucharist to ducking in online in between
answering emails and considering that sufficient ‘duty and service that we owe’?

It may seem that we are far from such a concept as online communion, especially for
ourselves and not our avatars, and yet this is exactly what has been happening
courtesy of Revd. Gregory S. Neal since 2003.33 His articulate defence,34 grown out of
his own incapacity and attendant sense of loss in not being able to partake in
communion services is, if not wholly persuasive, at least merits discussion.35 It is a
theological discussion. How far does the grace of God reach? Must the host be under
the hands of the president at consecration (the argument of additional
chalices/plates for use at differing communion stations of a large building)? How
much of the Eucharist requires some performative involvement? Must the concept
simply be rejected out of hand depending on where you stand on transubstantiation?
Hasn’t this discussion been happening since the beginning of televised/radio
broadcast religious services – what if you bring your piece of bread near to the
TV/radio/PC? What if you have not just bread and wine but pre-consecrated and pre-
packaged wafer and wine (so-called “sip’n’dips”36)? Does this remove the question of
consecration, but still leave a bad taste in the mouth? In this case, is it not preferable
– to someone house- or hospital-bound – to be able to engage in the pretence of
partaking with a multitude of others, albeit in a different location, rather than on
one’s own? Obviously, many more questions than answers, and as the discussion at
St Pixels made clear, many many individuals with their own thoughts, beliefs and
sensitivities.

32 This may be religious, or may not. See Appendix 11 for some examples.
33 Online Communion: http://www.revneal.org/media/video/holycommunion2.ram
34 “Online Communion Theology” http://www.revneal.org/Writings/onlinecommunionremarks.html
35 Interestingly, Revd. Neal is a Methodist minister, so should perhaps refer back to A United Methodist Understanding of Holy
Communion (http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/), “Both "self-service" Communion, where people help
themselves, and "drop-in" Communion, where the elements are available over a period of time, are contrary to the communal
nature of the sacrament, which is the celebration of the gathered community of faith” at
http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/communityextends.html and further at
http://www.gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/elements.html
36 http://www.lifewaystores.com/lwstore/product.asp?isbn=0805471197



Conclusions
These last questions have brought us far from the need for a basic web page. The
range of opportunities for being and doing church – engaging in mission, ministry
and worship online is vast; almost as wide as in ‘real’ life. Indeed there are issues:
with mission, the integrity of the message; with ministry, the integrity of the
personalities (on both sides of the exchange); with worship, the integrity of the
theology, the practical working out of sacramental ministry. The ‘Fresh Expressions’
initiative37 includes many people looking to revitalise the church experience – luckily
not a few of them are engaging with being and doing church online.

Revitalising the church experience. We may still wish to live out our model of being
church by holding Sunday morning services, but what are we doing to mitigate the
inconveniently cold Truth at the inconvenient time? Frost and Hirsch make it clear
that to survive – and hopefully find how to prosper again – we must move from an
attractional model to an incarnational one.38 Instead of continuing the fading status
quo, to bring Christ back to His people, and the people back to Him, we have to take
Him to the people. To get out there and engage with the way that they live today;
the way that they work, form communities, network, organise their lives and want to
worship. We have to realign the Church of today with society of today; show that we
still exist for and with the people in the real world, even when the ‘real’ world is the
‘virtual’ one. By engaging in the asynchronous chats and social networking and
investing in the skills that can put community events direct into people’s Outlook
calendars, we can get back not just into their consciousness but into their lives too.
The attractional model of expecting them to come to us on our terms at our times
has failed. By joining the 24/7-available population, we become available 24/7 to
them in a way that Church has not been for many years. By allowing and
encouraging blogs and prayer discussions we can perhaps learn a little more about
the individuals in our communities that otherwise we might be able to, and this is no
less likely to be the ‘real’ them than they present in person. We have so many
possibilities to connect online, to move towards being truly incarnational:
• to bring Church back to the centre of a community
• to encourage sharing and deepening of relationships
• to encourage people to get to know eachother and care for their neighbours
again
• to use asynchronous means to engage more people
• to try and put the building back in common/community use
• to bring the young people back (to host bands, perhaps!39)
• to share favours/jobs/freecycling/babysitting
• to widen the community beyond the village/parish borders, by blogs (reading
and linking) and podcasts
• to keep open and available prayer boards, for all people as well as the Sunday
congregation, allowing anonymous requests

37 http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/
38 Frost, M. & Hirsch, A.. (2003). The shaping of things to come: innovation and mission for the 21st century church. Peabody
MA.: Hendrickson Publishers.
39 Reach the YouTube generation through YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OKhMSauxD4



• to open a discussion about options for being and doing church today…

We move ever forwards. The world has changed. Society has undergone
phenomenal change in the last fifty years. The Church has not kept up or kept its
place in that society. The Church as we know it is dying. The world is now an online
world. We must be a part of that. We must be salt and light in the real world, not the
world seen through the rose windows of an emptying church. To be a part of the
online world we need to be online. The Church must respond, must show that its
scripture, reason and tradition are not an inconvenient truth, but a warm and
welcoming Truth for today’s society; that it still can be a foundation for creating and
developing community, fellowship and faith into the net generation and beyond.

As we step “bravely [across] this new threshold, to put into the deep of the Net”, let
us show we can still be relevant fishers of men.

Our Father, who art in cyberspace,
Sticky be thy homepage.
Give us this day our daily web
(preferably via ADSL, although
56kb/s will do)
And forgive us our downloads,
As we forgive those who download unto us,
And lead us not into pornography,
But deliver us from spam
For thine is the mousemat,
The browser and the modem,
For ever and ever,
Amen
(anon)



Appendices



Appendix 1 Anglicans Online ‘Start Here’

Appendix 2 Church Websites
2.1 SS Peter and Paul, Kettering.



This website implies what it is, a respectable parish, a traditional church and church
community. The information provided is clear and easily accessible, the impression
given of good, solid, sensible… Nothing flash, nothing showy. I think it’s quite easy to
build a picture in your mind of the people who minister and worship here.

2.2 Queens (sic) Road Church, Wimbledon

This website implies a different community and a different style of worship; perhaps
even a more vibrant experience. The visual is bright and attracting, unconventional
and much more in keeping with professional web design around the internet.
More interestingly, the screenshot above was taken in January 2008, on revisiting
the site in February 2008, a new website design has been launched. Personally, I
prefer the old one ☺ The new one can be seen below.



Appendix 3: Sermon Feeds
3.1 Durham Cathedral

(and the main Durham Cathedral homepage):



3.2 Trinity Church Boston MA

(and the main Trinity Church homepage):



Appendix 4: Social Networking
4.1 Facebook Profile

4.2 Facebook Groups



4.3: MyChurch



Appendix 5: Online Churches
5.1: iChurch

(and an example of their prayer board):



5.2 St Pixels

5.3 St Pixels virtual church website http://www.churchoffools.com
St Pixels is a fascinating example as it started life as a 3D virtual church, a little like a
tiny crystallised location from Second Life. It was a three-month experiment by the
Methodist church, and the ‘church’ was eventually closed down in favour of the chat
room/discussion forum format after disturbances by badly-behaved users hijacking
services (existing and known as ‘griefing’ in Second Life)



5.4 St Pixels virtual church

5.5 St Pixels members



Appendix 6: Second Life Sistine Chapel

The Sistine Chapel is located on the Vassar College campus. An information board
outside the Chapel not only requests that an avatar is appropriately dressed to enter
the [religious] building, it also tells you that there is, effectively, a type of
enchantment – a script triggered as you approach the door – which in fact refuses
entry to a visitor in a bikini. This reality check continues inside, where only a few
visitors are allowed in at one time to avoid crowding, and the ‘tapestries’ are
curtained and only revealed in part for a limited time to avoid over-exposure…
Better than real though, is the ability to control your view so that you can explore at
extremely close quarters the ceiling and the upper wall paintings. It is an experience
which can only make the visitor adamant to pack their real life bags and head for
Rome.



Appendix 7: Second Life Anglican Cathedral



Appendix 8: Second Life Danske Folkekirke
8.1 Chapel at sunrise

8.2 Chapel at night



8.3 Café

8.4 ‘Samtalrum’



Appendix 9: “I long to see you”, sermon preached at St Pixels

I long to see you
26 September 2004 – Steve Goddard, co-editor of Ship of Fools, preached
during an emotional final service before Church of Fools closed. His
theme: "I long to see you".

The reading was taken from the opening chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans.Ever
noticed how Paul bearhugs readers at the start of his letters?
"I thank God in every remembrance of you," he writes to his close buddies in Philippi.
But here's the heavy deal. Even when he hasn't met the people he is writing to, in
this case the Romans, he still bigs it up. "I long to see you..." he says (Romans 1:11).
Never having met someone, not seeing them, not being physically with them,
doesn't imply lack of reality, depth and care as far as Paul is concerned.
Romans is one of the apostle's longest letters – 16 tortuous chapters – and he hasn't
even met the people he is writing to.
Ring any virtual bells?
Those clashes in the crypt with people you'll never set eyes on – from Manchester to
Minnesota, Malmo to Melbourne, maybe? Locking horns on everything from the
Pope to polygamy; offering advice to those in need; keying in the odd prayer or two
– and thinking as you log off: "I long to see those people I have never met."
Some observers have condescendingly patted us on the head. Their angle? Church of
Fools is a good effort but a poor substitute for the "real thing".
In many ways it is. An online church cannot dispense the sacraments. We can't
baptize, marry or bury our visitors – though, sometimes a tad gleefully, we can smite
them! But it offers people like Radalyn from Georgia a new, meditative window.
"COF is an oasis in my day," she admits. "I often leave my 'ghost' alone, kneeling at
prayer in the church while I work nearby." What a fascinating idea.
Meanwhile, another visitor, Mary, says: "Being anonymous allows me to be
outspoken about my faith and not judge people so quickly – something I would not
normally do." Wesley J told me yesterday: "Contact in the cyberworld has not led to
loneliness and despair. Exactly the opposite. I believe I am now more alive than I was
before."
So I believe many of us will wake up tomorrow morning and, though we have never
met each other in the flesh, will say, "We long to see you" – here again in the Church
of Fools.
And even to those who would try to wreck what we are doing... to the troll we say,
"We long to see you." To the hacker... "We long to see you." To the rager... "We long
to see you."
And to the regulars and first-timers – whether you're a distinguished grey beard, a
nerdy Ned, a carrot top, a pink slipper, or a shadowy ghost – you have built
something into all our lives through the Holy Spirit.
"We long to see you..." and thousands more like you – again. Soon.
May God grant us the means to make it happen.
http://www.churchoffools.com/read-sermons/17_goddard.html



Appendix 10: St Pixels communion discussion
For example, I would not have a problem with a St Pixels service that was based on a
Communion Service, with bread and wine, and if it was well led it wouldn’t bother
me if the leader was ordained or not. But some would have a big problem with this.
Whether it is necessary to have unanimous agreement I don’t know. There are many
real life liturgies though devised for ecumenical use, one very good source is a book
called ‘Take Bless Break and Share’ Maybe we coud use this to dip a toe in the water.

For sacraments online, I'm encouraged by this quote I found on a website: A
sacrament, administered properly in the way established by Christ and with the
proper intention, gives the grace it signifies. It is effective not by reason of the power
of intercession of priestly prayer nor on account of the worthiness of the recipient,
but solely by the power of Christ. The power of Christ lives in the sacraments. The
most positive form of sacrament I have found on St. Pixels has been, of course, the
prayer services. However, I do wish there were a healing service offered; I've found
these to be very powerful in the Episcopal Church.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of Holy Communion online, simply because I believe
so wholeheartedly in the sanctification of the bread and wine by an ordained priest. I
do not take communion in other denominational churches for this reason, but again,
that's a reason of personal preference that may not be held by others here.

For those who consider communion a sacrament celebrated only by an ordained
priest you will always make them feel uncomfortable or, worse still, deeply offend
them. At best it would be a hollow mimicry, and at worst an insensitive parody of
something that is deeply important to them.

For most of those who don't value communion as a sacrament it would be a rather
meaningless ritual.

The very nature of communion makes it something which must be shared with
others. True, it is first a communion of spirit between the believer and God, but
Jesus designed it to be shared at a time when we are with others.

I believe the emblems need to be tangible since they are to be representative of
something real. Trying to do something virtual would need to be done with the
understanding that it was only symbolic of the real thing. In other words, I don't
think it would be "sanctioned", per se

The idea of virtual communion is as bizarre and surreal as most other things here.
Would I be sharing lunch with you in a real sense if we both ate our own butties
simultaneously at the PC?

I actually think that would be fine, Mark, as long as it was understood that it was not
being done as a true partaking of the body and blood (i.e. valid ) and that it should
not be considered a substitute for the real thing -- merely a symbolic gesture being
done to promote further unity within this body of people.



Appendix 11: ‘being peaceful’
There are lots of places to sit awhile with your avatar, while you sit and pray, or think,
or rest and recuperate during your time online working or playing. Here are a few,
sacred and secular:



Selected Bibliography

Campbell, H. (2005). Exploring Religious Community Online: we are one in the
network. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Frost, M. & Hirsch A. (2003). The shaping of things to come: innovation and mission
for the 21st century church. Peabody: Hendrickson Press.
Greenwood, R. (2002). Transforming Church: liberating structures for ministry.
London: SPCK.
Moody, C. (1992). Eccentric Ministry: pastoral care and leadership in the Parish.
London: Darton, Longman & Todd.


word_made_virtual

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to word_made_virtual

More from kateboardman

Recently uploaded

word_made_virtual