I love social media- Twitter, Facebook, etc. I use and enjoy them, and plan to post on some of their positive uses/effects. But for now...
I was there at NPC when Shane Hipps somewhat famously declared that virtual community is "one but not the other", that is, it may be virtual but isn't real community, igniting a flurry of blog posts and comments...
So all that to say, I don't think the problem with virtual community isn't that it's not community. It is. And that's the problem. Its easy availability and breadth can, before I realize it's happening, lead to less and less depth and actually begin to harm my ability to make actual friends I can connect with even if my internet goes down... and in some ways harm my closest relationships by shortcutting them.
Bob,
I met you months (years?) before I actually met you. For a long time, I read your blog(s) and all the articles you published. That was your online ministry to me.
When we moved to Portland, I looked you up. We connected. And we started to have a real relationship. But we weren't starting from scratch. Because I had been reading all that you'd been writing, there was actually a higher level of accountability. If you weren't living out all you'd been blogging about, I would have called you on it.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Shane Hipps misses the point by making it an all-or-nothing proposition. As if relationships were either 100% virtual (and stayed that way,) or 100%, um, what's the opposite of virtual? Anyway, you know what I mean. I don't think virtual connections threaten our ability to relate personally because, more often than not, the truly meaningful and influential online relationships will translate into real, face-to-face relationships.
Social media gives us the ability to extend our social presence and reinforce our existing relationships. Virtual connections can pave the way for real and meaningful face-to-face ones. Online, you can begin a relationship by getting to know people before you meet them. Then, when you do meet, you're not starting from square one, but way down the road in terms of honesty, understanding, affinity, etc.
Realspace connections can be strengthened online. Blogs and comments (like this one) allow us to continue the conversation long after our hour-long meeting over coffee. I think that online community is real community- it just adds filters and layers to regular interaction.
It's not all like online porn. A lot of it (the useful, most important part) is like an online dating service.
Posted by: Caleb | April 17, 2009 at 03:32 PM
Ahh- but ONLY if you move the relationship into real space- then it remains that somewhat nebulous relationship of low presence, low accountability, low commitment- much more like online porn.
I haven't gotten to the good parts yet, but I will say this- one of the things that I've appreciated most about the online world is the ability to "greenhouse" relationships and see them progress much faster- because of exactly the dynamic you mention. I knew (and know) the people I'm trying to pastor much better because of the online world.
My point is that there's a balance that's needed- that at some point the online world begins to take up relational bandwidth that should be spent on people in proximity and more full-fledged relationship with you...
Posted by: bobhyatt | April 17, 2009 at 03:38 PM
I see what your saying here Bob, but something feels... missing or off center in your diagnosis. Don't know if I can put my finger on it just yet, but I do have a few questions.
Would you give the same warning to someone who was on the evergreen forum all the time?
Do you see the potential of someone, or a group of someones, lighting up the forum with conversation and comments while missing out on the community of Evergreen? Or would the activity on the forum indicate they want to be part of the flesh and blood community?
I kind of think that the natural result of virtual communities is to seek out the people we connect with on-line in real life situations. Look at the trend of tweet-ups and events like Social Media for Social Change (sm4sc).
Maybe that's just the circles I follow, I don't know. I do know that I see event notices on face book all the time (and not just for evergreen). I hear about people doing 3d-meet up's quite often, from twitter and group blogs. And, I hear allot of talk about supporting local events, economies, and people.
It just seems to me that while your warning is valid, it is in no way the norm.
edit- Caleb's comment is another thought I was having.
Posted by: Aaron Smith | April 17, 2009 at 03:43 PM
"Would you give the same warning to someone who was on the evergreen forum all the time?
Do you see the potential of someone, or a group of someones, lighting up the forum with conversation and comments while missing out on the community of Evergreen? Or would the activity on the forum indicate they want to be part of the flesh and blood community?"
Yes- I absolutely would- particularly if it were someone who hung out on the forum and NEVER showed up to something in real life- or someone from whom I got the sense that being a part of evergreen via forum only replaced involvement in a church community elsewhere...
As I said- I haven't gotten to the relationship enhancing good parts yet- this was just the potentially relationship replacing bad parts.
Posted by: bobhyatt | April 17, 2009 at 03:59 PM
Let me try to say it more succinctly- When online stuff enhances offline relationship? Good.
When it replaces it? Bad.
Posted by: bobhyatt | April 17, 2009 at 04:00 PM
"Let me try to say it more succinctly- When online stuff enhances offline relationship? Good.
When it replaces it? Bad."
I totally agree. :)
I guess I just see there being some natural safe guards against on-line life replacing off-line life. Not saying that it could never happen, but I think that only someone really bent toward anti-social behavior would... wait, that's not right at all. I just thought of the WOW phenomena.
And after thinking about it, maybe the safe guards I see are really ones I have put in place for my own health...
What you said in response to my question about the forum was really good. Got me thinking about this even more... thanks.
Posted by: Aaron Smith | April 17, 2009 at 04:16 PM
Very well put. I've been muddling through some of this myself, but not nearly with this clarity.
That said, I've been appreciating the likes of FaceBook for the contact I get with my nieces and cousins. This is a way of relationship building for me as I live pretty far away from this part of my family.
I guess, like many things, it can be a tool. When used properly, it's good; when used improperly it has destructive properties.
Posted by: sonja | April 18, 2009 at 06:07 AM
I don't know much, but your insights here really resonate with me as being true of myself and others I know or have known. At times, I have seen others (and myself) lean into social media mediums and in turn, move more and more towards isolation in flesh and blood relationships. I have seen friends distance themselves from those in their faith communities while at the same time apparently spending hours on their laptop. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I agree that social mediums have made it easier for some to engage relationally and even in meaningful conversations. I know some of these people and I am thankful that they have found a safe place to ask hard questions, connect with others, and find a voice. At the same time, we both recognize the tendency for some to spend so much time in the virtual world that they begin to disconnect from the real world.
I wonder what the implications are for those of us who are passionate about the church. Is it possible to find a balance? Can we take advantage of the accessibility and safety of online conversations and relationships without going too far? Is it possible to find healthy balance here? Or should we assume virtual relationships will take care of themselves and instead focus on encouraging those in our faith communities to "get real"?
Posted by: Aaron Loy | April 18, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Bob,
Don't know ya; met you once while playing with Paul Ramey at a Christmas Eve service while I was going to ethnos church; currently, I'm now living in Fargo, ND. (That's another conversation, and no, not like the movie.)
I was compelled to respond because I am personally very passionate about Web 2.0 and the future of social media/mediums. I plan on pursuing it academically; although, please don't expect any good thoughts from me quite yet. ;-)
Anyways, regarding the subject at hand, you should check out a guy named Michael Wesch, a digital ethnographer, who is a professor at Kansas State University. (If you haven't already...)
He has some great research and presentation of his research on Web 2.0 scattered throughout different social mediums. Here is a link to a YouTube video of his speech at the library of congress in June 2008, specifically talking about YouTube and it as an online community: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU. It's 55 minutes, but worth every bit.
Now, when talking about Hibbs' comments on community, he provides his own definitition of community right away, stating that community requires the following:
~Shared History
~Permanence
~Proximity
~Shared vision of future
SHARED HISTORY: Well, I do agree to some extent that currently Web 2.0 currently provides only a limited form of shared history, it is not quite as cynical as Hibbs' ideas pan out. I feel he negates the future beyond Web 2.0, where our networks will grow beyond the "remember that one comment, that one time" vantage to something more tangible. Wesch, mentions an idea of Networked Individualism (coined by Barry Wellman) where we are expressing ourselves as individuals, but we still value community; we are independent, but we still seek out and value relationships. All this to say, we are searching for each other and redefinign our very nature as human beings online. For as Wesch and even great media thinkers before him have stated (like Marshall McLuhan), "when media changes, we change."
The very interesting point to make out about shared history is how we build that history. Are we showing people who we really are when we go to church on sundays, or are we wearing masks? Wesch has some great examples of vlogs upon vlogs of folks who are very authentic and are experiencing a "hyper self-awareness" similar to the "Looking Glass Self." People have the freedom to experience humanity without fear. Wesch says it is like we can literally stare at people, studying them, experiencing a Joyce-ian "aesthetic arrest" when we watch and when we produce the videos. Hence, some forms of community remediated online could prove to be more authentic and transparent than the realspace, pew-sitting persons experience.
PERMANENCE: Hibbs notes that Web 2.0 is transient. I believe he is saying that one can come and go as they please without a second thought about accountability. Well, what the heck is permanent, anyways!? I personally believe that we naturally seek out those
PROXIMITY: Hibbs says we have no proximity in Web 2.0, and we are disparted. Yet, without authenticity in our realspace communities, how is that any different than the idea of being disparted by distance. What is worth more: a realspace community living disingenuously? Or a online community asking hard questions and seeking answers through dialogue? Does proximity matter? Personally, I would say ofcourse, and I would agree with Aaron that a blance of some sort is required, but Hibbs negates the idea of community being attainable online simply because of proximity.
SHARED VISION OF FUTURE: I agree with Hibbs that it can be easy to find a community that seems to have very similar ideas and passions, but the beauty of Web 2.0 allows you to truly test those facets and values to see if that community is truly living them out as well. A true Web 2.0 site will have a variety of platforms to show the world their identity, and also allow the world to comment with their ideas and share them with the world, so it isn't all utopian everyone loves each other out there--there's still drama online.
Allinall, I feel Hibbs' efforts to protect the idea of community are moot. He washes himself of the idea at the end, commenting on how he feels he just doesn't understand how to show the gospel online by actually saying, "I don't know how to do it." So why are we supposed to listen to you Hibbs?
There is definitely community online, it's just different. And just because Jesus came back incarnate, intheflesh, doesn't mean he wouldn't of enjoyed the occasional sermon on the tweet, methinks. ;-)
Ok, muchtoomuch has been spoken.
Peace.
Posted by: Chris | April 18, 2009 at 11:00 PM
The dynamics of online interpersonal relationships are going to be different than the dynamics one finds in real-world, flesh-and-blood interpersonal relationships; but I think the similarities will outweigh the differences.
I watched the video clip last night but passed on commenting while I mulled over what Shane was saying.
I think his "shared vision of the future" is probably his best point, but is this any different from years ago where people joined clubs or fraternal organizations related to vocation? Or spent many hours working together with others for some political or social cause about which they were passionate?
(The irony is that people don't have time to pursue those real-world associations now because of the time they spend online.)
I'm going to be totally transparent here: My real-world social dynamics right now are rather flat. The people I know online are much more interesting to me right now than those with whom I have geographic proximity. I feel I've gotten to know them on a deeper level; these are individuals I would really like to real-world time with if our paths crossed; couples I would love for my wife and I to meet in person.
But for now we have this. My personal boundaries are such that I'm willing to invest whatever time is needed for e-mail and blogging, but I've passed on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. That leaves margin for human interaction should something actually be on offer.
Right now, the phone is not ringing.
Posted by: Paul Wilkinson | April 20, 2009 at 03:13 PM
Hipps best argument--articulated elsewhere on outofur.com, but not in this video--is that in Jesus, the love of God is "enfleshed" and that virtual community is the exact opposite.
Chris brings up the issue of authenticity, which I think is important. Enfleshed community does allow mask-wearing, but there's no way that virtual community is better in this regard. More likely, mask-wearing becomes easier online, and this is what I understand Bob is cautioning us about.
I don't believe that studying vlogs is "experiencing humanity" because I believe full humanity is experienced in the flesh, face-to-face (even body-to-body).
I think Hipps is hyberbolic when he says it's either virtual or it's community, and we're misreading him if we take him to mean it's 100% either/or.
Posted by: Nate | April 20, 2009 at 03:27 PM
Bob,
I saw Hipps' video a while ago, and it won't get out of my head. I feel particularly connected with his message (virtually?) because my area of responsibility resides largely with the young adult population of our church. Call me an old fart (i just turned 31) but i take away their cell phones for our discussions and studies. Why? Because they're so connected with people they don't really KNOW (and I'll stick by that statement regardless of the backlash and their assurances) and refuse to connect with the people they're actually in physical proximity to.
I think you may be saying similar things to shane. Your indictment of certain kinds of interaction (the ease etc.) makes me think "lack of community" which is what shane was talking about. Sure, virtual community gives one a certain kind of community, but I think Shane's (and your) critique is that the community it gives lacks. And I think you're right on target. I have no beef with facebook (maybe more with twitter) but it's no good substitute for true, lasting, physical friendship.
of course, my .02. and i'm unashamed of it :)
mike
Posted by: Mike Swalm | April 21, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Well, except for the fact that Christ was only "enfleshed" for 30 years or so and only to a few thousand. For the other billions of us, we experience God rather differently. And arguably, rather more akin to the virtual community. To play devil's advocate to you.
Posted by: Jen W | April 21, 2009 at 01:01 PM
"Well, except for the fact that Christ was only "enfleshed" for 30 years or so and only to a few thousand."
Whoa! Watch the heresy!! :)
The point of Easter is that He's still "enfleshed"! And I think the point of the incarnation is well-taken. He didn't send a message or a likeness... He sent Himself. And now, He sends us to live "incarnationally."
Posted by: bobhyatt | April 21, 2009 at 01:44 PM
LOL I am misunderstanding the meaning of "enfleshed" I guess. I took it to mean "in a physical body."
He sent himself, yes, and the Holy Spirit as well - but I think the point stands that people for thousands of years have struggled with the disembodied presence - and often apparent absence of God.
We can live "incarnationally" yes (which I'm hoping I understand right to mean we are Christ to each other?). But we all crave the day when we see him face to face.
I think a more convincing argument (to me anyway) is that God used to walk physically in the Garden of Eden, before sin separated us. Otherwise - despite how profoundly meaningful Jesus' appearance in a body was - God's track record in history heavily favors the invisible approach, which requires faith to relate to him. Even now it requires us to contend with feelings of abandonment and talking to an inanimate wall at times when he decides to clam up. This is to be considered normal Christian experience, right?
The point is, Jesus in a body sent a very important message. But his interactions in all the rest of human history also send a message.
So, I would say it is not terribly dissimilar from the disembodied internet. Not the best thing, but certainly a good fill-in in the absence of the best, with its own merits.
In reply to the general topic, may I just add my thoughts briefly? How did you meet your wife? I met David halfway across the world, something I was able to do because of jet planes and technology. I got to know him better through a lot of internet time. And it was very clear that God wanted us physically apart at that time. Phones used to freak out worried parents, now computers do. God puts people in our lives how he chooses - I really don't think we should consider the connectivity of the net as an obstacle to God setting us up with people to be in community with (virtual or physical) - rather it is another of his tools. He might more likely have us be in proximity; then again he might not. I think we just need to be sensitive to his lead.
Posted by: Jen W | April 22, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Actually, the presence piece is very important. Why were the israelites commanded to worship in the Tabernacle/Temple? Because that's where the Presence of God was- the Glory of God manifested. The Garden is a good data point as well- but please don't miss this important but tangential point: Jesus STILL has a body. We're not big on Marcus Borg here, right. He has a body just as much as you and I have one. Very important.
Back to my original point- I met my wife on the internet, but the relationship stayed there only about three weeks or so. After that we MET.
Again, my point is this: When the internet facilitates relationships - that's good- when it replaces them, that's bad. And while there's a very fuzzy line there (I have some "friendships" that only exist on the interwebs), my point is that you have only a limited capacity for relationship and conversation (for example, I'm on vacation, ignoring my flesh and blood family to talk here on this blog- I can't do both at the same time) and if you fill that limited capacity with e-lationships, you will be poorer for having missed out on what COULD (with effort and investment) be fewer but deeper real-life relationships.
Posted by: bobhyatt | April 22, 2009 at 01:44 PM
"but please don't miss this important but tangential point: Jesus STILL has a body. We're not big on Marcus Borg here, right. He has a body just as much as you and I have one. "
Hmmm.... that's a theological view I hadn't heard before. I'm going to need to be sold on that. But not by you - go spend time with your family already! :)
Posted by: Jen W | April 22, 2009 at 07:05 PM
Say what now??? That's not a theological point- it's orthodoxy! And Bible...
"They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.""- Luke 24
Posted by: bobhyatt | April 23, 2009 at 06:33 AM
Thanks for writing this, Bob. I've been musing on this same thing ever since my brother and his fiance announced their engagement on Facebook a few weeks ago - BEFORE calling their family! We were all pretty hurt to have found out that way, but it led me to realizing that connecting to people's lives via Facebook (or other online networking) is so much the norm these days that people don't really think about it...don't think that maybe it would be better to say and hear some things face-to-face. In particular I worry about the younger generation who are growing up with Facebook etc. I have teenage sisters...watching their online interactions, it almost seems to me that they have NO idea how to have real, in-person connection...and like you said about internet porn, I worry that online connection is ruining them for the real thing, because the real thing is harder, takes more time and investment. The real thing is messy.
I've decided Facebook, blogs, Twitter, etc can open the door to a meaningful connection - but they are not themselves meaningful connection. They can also take an existing meaningful connection and continue the conversation. But if our relationships exist primarily in the virtual realm, we're missing out.
I don't have kids yet, but I'm seriously contemplating just how "old-fashioned" I can manage to be when that day comes...I want them to play kickball and Capture the Flag...play with their friends outside....not chat via IM about nothing and play video games. In this day and age, that's getting harder and harder to do.
Posted by: Heidi | April 23, 2009 at 10:21 AM
I agree with you, Bob. I have found that the time we spend connecting with people on the internet takes away from the time we have to invest in people in person. Also, it distracts from face to face communication in your own home. No, not just distracts- often it can ruin the whole days interactions with the people in your own home. ("Not right now, can't you see I'm reading a good blog")
I do see a good thing in blogging where you can write your thoughts and others can get to know you, or be inspired by you, but this should lead to conversations in person. The Bible is like God's blog, which leads us to conversations with others and with God himself. (That would be cool, a website where each book of the Bible is a blog from the author.)
Relationships with people should sharpen us. Through relationships we should see the needs of others and serve them, we should be convicted of sin in our lives, we should carry each other through hardships, we should find joy in the day to day interactions of being around one another. If we do connect to some degree through the internet, we should have enough balance in our lives, that the internet does not consume all our investments, time, dialogue, relationships, etc. We have to ask ourselves if it is an addiction. How many times a day do we need to check our e-mail and blog comments and blogs we are following. They will all still be there tomorrow. But the people next door may not be, and the children may not be, and good conversations with your spouse may not be.
We should invest our time wisely.
Posted by: xea | April 23, 2009 at 01:11 PM
OH. I see what you are saying.
Sorry, I thought you were saying Jesus' physical body was the church, using our bodies, or something like that.
Yes, the resurrection. Aha.
Posted by: Jen W | April 23, 2009 at 05:27 PM
A question:
Is a mega-church with seven physical sites (campuses) which all display the face/body of the preacher on a big screen delivering the message at the main campus a real community or a virtual "community".
I agree that online is impersonal. But where else are you going to find people who read Akkadian? Some of us don't participate using our real name. I discovered about ten years ago that it was impossible to shift my frame of reference in the forums where I had a presence using my real name because everyone thought they new me really well and they had me stuffed into a tight little box. I heard Peter Head (Tyndale House Cambridge ) comment that he sometimes participates under a pen name. So I took it one step further, I created a whole new persona , someone who is not me, and now participate under this fictional persona. Works great. Completely solved the problem of having people think they know you when the really don't. Gives you the freedom to explore a new framework without having to refute the old framework. This is a big problem in linguistics where typically a linguist will change frameworks three or four times in as many decades. Or say you are still working out some issue like feminism and the church. Say you have been a complementarian but are moving in the direction of egalitarianism. The shift might appear schizophrenic to someone who doesn't ever change thier mind.
Posted by: c. stirling bartholomew | April 24, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Well THAT makes more sense! :)
Posted by: bobhyatt | April 24, 2009 at 11:05 AM
I think you make a number of good points here. Ive been blogging myself on how Im feeling twitter and facebook encourage us to spread ourselves too thin, that Im feeling the need for more depth and that means consolidating.
Posted by: Account Deleted | May 04, 2009 at 12:24 AM