A U. S. national survey of teenagers released in January conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project reports that more than half (55%) of all of online American youths ages 12-17 use online social networking sites. (view Pdf) The report concludes that kids connecting online has rocketed from a niche activity into a phenomenon engaging tens of millions of internet users.
The net generation (millennials, generation y) views online communities as normative. "Today's youth are different from any generation before them. They are exposed to digital technology in virtually all facets of their day-to-day existence." (The Net Generation)
Similarly, online support groups that are created around a shared need are increasingly popular across a widening set of demographic strata. The commonality of sharing an interest, experience or need with a, sometimes large, handful of others is a compelling force online. Whether it consists of a single blog, a blog ring, participation in a virtual world, or membership in an official social networking site, online communities are beginning to gain real world credibility. The pre-internet counterparts might be a class, club or faith community.
Last year, my sister created amazing blog traffic quite by accident by publishing a diary of the journey she would take to adopt her daughter from China. Originally, joining a Yahoo group seemed like a convenient way to share information and self-educate. Putting up a blog was a spontaneous attempt at creating a photo journal archive of the trip for the group. She had no desire to share her story beyond her circle of friends nor was she aware of any strategic measures to enhance her site (Google analytics, Technorati rankings, SEO, etc.) visits.
But before the trip even began, "traffic" began to materialize. These were the uncollected, other adopting parents searching online for support / information and looking for a place to congregate. When a site was created that met their need, they came unsolicited and in good numbers. With very little commitment and even less strategy, the blog received about 100,000 visits in it's first 12 months. And the readers got a lot of cross-pollination by participating in a group with a common interest.
The traffic on her blog came from the readers' high need for information about an experience they are all sharing. The most significant aspect, however, came not from them coming together at a single instance in time. But, rather from them staying together. They have remained a moderately cohesive unit and often inherit newcomers. They participate in common experiences, have a shared history, have a well-developed set of known participants including nicknames for each other, celebrate together when one has a victory, provide support for each other when needed, exchange ideas, insights, and information, etc. They are a network, by all accounts a community, a kind of technology tribe.
One of the many advantages of a corporate church experience is that individuals get to share aspects of their lives that reflect commonality and relevancy. As the church embraces new ways of delivering the gospel to the next generation, it seems important that we understand who they are, a net-savvy cohort, a group who understands the world in terms of it digitization. Thus, they relate significantly to hypertexting systems that bypass linear restraints and they respect the harnessing of collective intelligence and insight. Rather than publishing, they believe in participating. Rather than responding to lectures, they collaborate and comment.
The impact of the diffusion of the new media both challenges the traditional status quo of institutional church and simultaneously offers opportunity for new reforms. It is seemly quite possible that the church of the future may hold within it both a real world assembly and a collection of technological tribes accessible online. The priesthood of every believer (I Peter 2:9) may find its newest expression on the internet in interactive congregations. The value of new media technologies for tomorrow's church may be that they provide a forum for hypermedia-facilitated, participatory Christianity.
You know, this sort of raises a question for me that has been at the back of my mind for some time…
Does this, could this, should this virtual – you call it “interactive congregations” – replace physical fellowship for some folks? What do you think could be the possible negative impact on the global church if we become too reliant on media driven resources and less involved in person-to-person fellowship and participation?
I’d be interested in your thoughts on this. Thanks!
Carol, your line of questioning is shared by many of us.
The concepts surrounding interactive online congregations are so new and uncharted that social scientists are just developing research agendas that explore their purpose, function, viability, etc. One such researcher, Dr. Heidi Campbell, has already written an article about online spiritual pilgrimage and is currently conducting more research.
I have discovered, quite by accident, some situations where online church has been invaluable (one example being for the people that are too ill to participate in physical church). Unfortunately, another possible situation that may drive individuals online to experience church might be a large scale catastrophe such as a pandemic.
There are many caveats and warnings that apply to online relationships of any kind, obviously, and yet our use and even dependence on them is constantly growing. As a global society we are only on the cusp of exploring what the overall impact of web technologies will mean to the church of the future.
My personal conviction is that online interaction will only augment (not replace) physical fellowship. I’ve written about this previously.
I can also recommend an excellent author, Dr. Quentin J. Schultze, who can be found in my Research sidebar and often focuses on the impacts of technology used in churches.
I have had this thought for a while, but do not think that online interactions will ever completely replace person-to-person interactions. While each subsequent generation will be comfy with being online, there is that human-touch/see/smell aspect that is just something not to be missed.
That all being said, we really are getting close to not needing as much of a building anymore, and that isn’t a bad thing considering how we are called to go out, not necessarily to bring people in.
Good to hear from you Antoine. Yes, throughout this blog and throughout the ’sphere it’s pretty well understood that real world Christianity depends on human touch far more than virtual touch.
Maybe we got too focused on buildings at some point and forgot how mobile (there’s a word you love) tents and tabernacles can be. There is no doubt assemblies are forming online. They will likely have limitations that are just now emerging.