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: STUDENT: DEGREE: COLLEGE: DATE: PAGES: Pixilated Stained Glass: A Fantasy Theme Analysis of Online and Faceto-Face Christian Community Elizabeth B. Jones Master of Arts Communication, Information, and Media July 2007 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 thesiss 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. Lukes 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. Lukes United Methodist Church ................................................... 28 St. Pixels and St. Lukes 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. Lukes 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 Appendixes A B C D E ................................................................................................... 67 ................................................................................................... 74 ................................................................................................... 74 ................................................................................................... 75 ................................................................................................... 76 ................................................................................................... 86 ................................................................................................... 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 someones 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 dont 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

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 oftencontradictory 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 communitys 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. Burkes 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 identificationthat 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

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 fleshand-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 McLuhans 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 historys 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 overcomea 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 McLuhans 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 societys 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 1217, 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 communitys 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 persons 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).

The individuals 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.

Campbells 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 faceto-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 geographicallybound 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-toface communication. However, differences prompted by the technology also emerged.

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 thesiss 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 thesiss 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. Thats 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 dont 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 publications 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. Pixels 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 caf 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 its a simple poll, a bulletin board, or an opportunity to chat, interactivity is a requirement for todays 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. Pixels 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. Lukes United Methodist Church. St. Lukes United Methodist Church (St. Lukes 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 churchs public communication, St. Lukes 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 churchs mission statement reflects its desire to reach out to a broad demographic with a message of

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. Lukes strives to remain relevant within its cultural context. Although it may seem counterintuitive at first glance, St. Pixels and St. Lukes 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. Pixels and St. Lukes as Analogous Christian Communities Religion. On a meta-level, St. Pixels and St. Lukes 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 Twos 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. Lukes 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. Pixels and St. Lukes 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. Lukes website explicitly stated, Worship provides the core of St. Luke's community (Worship, 2004), while St. Pixels 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. Lukes offers a large number of services to meet the needs of a wide range of individuals, including a Taiz8 style service and services in languages other than English. St. Pixels also offers a Taiz 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 Lords Prayer, where you might see it rendered by someone else in Welsh, French, Spanish, or even Hebrew (Worship at St. Pixels, 2006).
8

Taiz, 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. Pixels members discuss given topics via bulletin boards or chats, while St. Lukes congregants physically gather for their conversations. Recognizing the similarities between St. Pixels and St. Lukes 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 groups 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. Lukes publication entitled Experience St. Lukes (see Appendix D for St. Pixels Artifact; see Appendix E for St. Lukes 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 groupings 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. Lukes artifact, the Experiencing St. Lukes 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. Lukes website, which to distinguish it from a cyberchurch community is strictly informational. The paragraphs extracted from Experiencing St. Lukes (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. Pixels and

St. Lukes regarding Christian community allows us an in-depth look into each groups 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. Lukes 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 groups 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 groups 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 explanations of peoples 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 groups 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 dont completely perplexed. The third level of analysis in fantasy theme analysis involves discerning a groups overarching rhetorical vision, which emerges from that groups 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 fantasiesto 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 individuals 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 preconversion. 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 methods 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. Lukes 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 communitys rhetorical vision(s).

Chapter Four: Findings

This chapter employs fantasy theme analysis to examine this thesiss 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. Lukes) 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 groups 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 groups 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. Lukes 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. Pixels 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 groups opinion, at least) novel, implicitly significant, and new. Each artifact was examined for such fantasy themes. When fantasy themes which themselves result from shared individuals 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) 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 Gods Love to a Lost World We aim to create sacred space on the Internet where we can seek God together, enjoy each others company and reflect Gods 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 Labelscannot do the communityjustice. The community aims for diversity, which is neither uniformity nor division. We have bust ups, disagree and misunderstand each other. Without these things we couldnt 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.

Face-to-Face Communication (St. Lukes United Methodist Church)

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 Gods abundant blessing. c. The Reflection of Gods Love to a Lost World The Garden [a non-traditional worship service] epitomizes how St. Lukes is fulfilling its mission of sharing Gods love with all people. We are an open community of Christians, gathering toshare 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. Lukes 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. Lukes to be a truly transforming presence in the world and are ready to step outside the church doors and to take Gods 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. Lukes. St. Lukes 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 Continued on that passion, group at St. Lukes that sharesfollowing page 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 Gods Love to a Lost World The St. Pixels 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 Gods 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. Lukes 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 Gods Love to a Lost World e. Initiation into the Community The St. Lukes community considers itself most effective when initiated congregants serve side-by-side to reflect Gods love to the world.

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 groups 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. Lukes rhetorical vision of ekklesia shape each communitys 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 others 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 Christif 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 groups understanding of reality, this vision enables group members to strive to know each other on a deeper, more intimate level than ones 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 communitys 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 mle. 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 Gods 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 selfconsciously 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] Gods love for the world in this technological environment. The choice of the word reflect is particularly intriguing. While both St. Pixels and St. Lukes strive to reflect Gods 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 Gods love (as evidenced by the intimate human relationships patterned on a believers intimate connection with Christ) than an active manifestation of Gods 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. Pixels 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

communitys 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. 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 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. Lukes rhetoric on community are examined. Ekklesia While St. Pixels community members participate in a constructed rhetorical vision of koinonia Christian community, St. Lukes 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. Lukes 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. Lukes 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 GodCoffee, 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. Lukes is fulfilling its mission of sharing Gods 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. Lukes fantasy types Gathering together for growth. The first fantasy type discussed is Gathering together for growth. St. Lukes 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. Lukes shared worldview of community, it is important to gather together to seek, celebrate, live, and share (Appendix E, para. 1). In this communitys 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 others real lives. In addition, St. Lukes 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. Lukes 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 Gods 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 Gods work in our community and around the world. (Appendix E, para. 3) From this communitys perspective, a worship experience that could not fulfill all of these roles would be considered severely impoverished. Last in the St. Lukes 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. Lukes to its congregants9. Clearly, St. Lukes 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. Lukes 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

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. Lukes 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 Gods 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 groups 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. Lukes 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 Gods love to a world which is lost without Him. While St. Pixels does this primarily through a relational focus, St. Lukes rhetoric concentrates more on ministering to the multidimensional needs of an individual. Demonstrations of Gods love by St. Lukes often consist of mission endeavors. These ventures usually seek to help meet spiritual, physical, mental, and

emotional needs for others. St. Lukes 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 groups 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. Lukes characterized by face-toface 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 congregations 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. Lukes 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 thesiss 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 thesiss 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. Pixels management and St. Lukes 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 technologys 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 textsTexts 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. Lukes, encourage a different emphasis on Christian community ekklesia. The name of this communication system face-to-face reveals the primary reason St. Lukes has a different Christian community emphasis than St. Pixels. Congregants gathered face-toface and actually see an individuals 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 Gods 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 Internets 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 Christs command to love one another. Throughout both communities rhetoric, each emphasized the God-given call to form community; in fact, one fantasy theme (reflecting Gods 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 sects 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 todays faithful to simply sit and listen passively: One of the reasons for the popularity of the cyberchurch is its interactivityTodays 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. Lukes United Methodist Church (face-to-face communication) possessed a rhetorical vision of an ekklesia Christian community. Both communities emphasized Christianitys 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. 4967). 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 & 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. Lukes. 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. D.E.

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 of social intelligence upon social influence. Communication Research impact

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. Pew

Lenhart, A., & M. Madden. (2007). Social networking websites and teens. Report from 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, 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 63.

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. Lukes 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 networkings 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 dont 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. Shepherds 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. Lukes United Methodist Church (Excerpts from the St. Lukes publication Experience St. Lukes 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.Lukes 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. Lukes 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 Gods 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 Gods 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. Lukes is fulfilling its mission of sharing Gods love with all people. 5. United Methodist Women Over several decades St. Lukes UMW have organized some of the churchs 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. Lukes has a dedicated group of people trained and committed to share the love of God at times of need. St. Lukes Stephen Ministry has trained 260 St.Lukes members. These lay ministers have provided one-on-one care for many in need from the St. Lukes 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. Lukes 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.Lukes. 9. Through strategic Membership Development programs, new members of St. Lukes 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. Lukes that shares that passion, becoming an integral part of the larger faith community. 10. Allowing and guiding our children to experience Gods love through education, fellowship, service and worship is one of St. Lukes opportunities to live out its mission in the world. 11. Community Ministries includes a number of opportunities for St.Lukes 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.Lukes 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. Lukes Singles Ministry provides opportunities for singles to grow spiritually by attending worship with the St.Lukes faith community, and by providing a singles Sunday school class and mid-week Bible Study for young singles. 15. St. Lukes 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.Lukes to be a truly transforming presence in the world and are ready to step outside the church doors and to take Gods 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.