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.