I'm focusing on the kicker to this piece about how we ought to get interested in the tough questions emerging as we explore how to be (and do) "church" in the 21st century.

We're in the thick of this conversation on Twitter as the Virtual Abbey (@virtual_abbey). Believing that spiritual life transcends boundaries of time and place, we're a trans-denominational Christian community united around praying the Daily Office.

We're discovering how many of the issues that emerge for church communities in real life (IRL) emerge in virtual communities -- same sequence, only more quickly.

As we continue to grow, we find we must increasingly explore governance issues. We avoid arguments about what counts as a sacrament by being a monastic community for the 21st century and focusing on prayer.

Full disclosure: I currently serve as the elected Abbess.

My personal, virtual, and spiritual worlds collide!

I'm a parishioner of Epiphany, though inactive of late. Must make sure this item is passed along to the Ministry Team for comment.

It may seem strange, but there are people who would never enter a church who attend prayers and Bible study at Epiphany.

If anyone wants to look me up inworld, I'm Lelani Carver there.

There's no way to deliver virtual sacraments, and it's foolish to try. As dailyoffice.org approaches a million visitors, we're glad to keep it simple, stupid. We certainly don't try to impose ancient parochial and episcopal structures onto a web-only community without boundaries or property. Nor do we suffer much in the way of disputes. Here's the Daily Office, come as you are, little or no controversy.

Indeed, the challenge is width and height and depth, reaching past denominiations and nationalities to include (an approximation of) the whole world. The Daily Office is the perfect vehicle just as it is. No one can dispute psalms, Bible readings and prayers.

Instead, interaction and community-building among the "parishioners" is increasingly important, and that's where our growth is coming from.

I wish these people well, but it's really grandiose to think you can build a cathedral out of electrons. This isn't Church 2.0, it's the Church Medieval.

If there was a virtual eucharist--Would that mean that the flesh has become word? :-)>

Glenn David

Torey, thanks for posting this update on the progress of our Second Life ministry! As a member of the cathedral leadership team, I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify a few points.

We are indeed working under the episcopal oversight of Bishop Hill in the UK, and with the support of Bishop Tom Brown, in the Diocese of Wellington, New Zealand. Bishop Hill took an early interest in our ministry, and has been a wonderful source of support and encouragement for us. Our ministry is an international one, and as there is not as of yet a method of becoming incorporated internationally, we have chosen to begin the process in the United Kingdom, with the backing of Bishop Hill. This is not with the purpose of assigning greater importance to one of the provinces of the Communion over the others, but to take advantage of the willingness of the Diocese of Guildford to work with us on this endeavor. We have actually been working on this constitutional process for over two years now.

The matter of "virtual sacraments" has indeed been raised, but at this stage only in acknowledgment that this is an issue on the horizon, and will require much prayerful thought and consideration (and no doubt, some fascinating discussion) before we will even be close to implementing it in any way. The bulk of our deliberations are on the more "meat and potatoes" issues that Torey mentions, such as administration of the treasury, ownership of the church assets and governance of the community.

The cathedral is blessed with a warm and welcoming community from around the world. We offer services of the Word daily, and there are also opportunities to join in bible study and fellowship with community members and visitors alike. You are all welcome to learn more about us on our blog at http://slangcath.wordpress.com, and visit us within Second Life at the cathedral. We look forward to welcoming you!

I am so disappointed in Mary Wanamaker's comments. Why does her website accumulate "assets" that need "governance" when the whole thing can be run by laypeople for free?

Are searchers more likely to subscribe to a chimerical "cathedral" run by a hierarchy concerned with its assets and power, or to the Daily Office all by itself, demanding nothing but suggesting everything?

If she's better at it I'll gladly go away; but I see the heavy hand of Establishment here, and everyone I know runs screaming away.

We have to, and do, wish them all luck.

Contrary to what Mary Wanamaker (aka Cady) writes, however -- "Our ministry is an international one" -- it is instead rather a Church of England ministry.

It doesn't reflect the Anglican Church of Canada or the Episcopal Church in America. I don't feel that members of those churches are prepared to zoom back four decades in time to fit in with a province of the Anglican church that is still struggling with the question of whether people such as Mary should be in leadership roles at all.

But there is no need for them to, and no need to dispute the merits of zooming back or not. Mary and her team have established a Church of England ministry that is rather fundamentalist and authoritarian in tone. I feel that we need to work towards the establishment of an alternative, more inclusive Cathedral to offer a choice, one that reflects the more progressive provinces that have moved on, and are prepared to, as the ACC said in Trinidad in 1976 about women priests at the time, "face squarely what is happening within Anglicanism.... and to work from that reality.”

That doesn't mean the two cathedrals can't be in communion. Canadian Bishop Ann Elizabeth Tottenham, still sadly unrecognized as such by Bishop Hill or the Church of England, writes: "The vast majority of Canadian Anglicans want to continue to journey on with those with whom they disagree. There is a creative tension in diversity of views and I hope that we will continue the tradition of study, prayer and dialogue with an attitude of mutual respect."

Sadly, the Church of England Cathedral in Second Life has acquired a bad reputation for not wanting to be in communion with other Anglican undertakings in Second Life. I remember Mary chiding someone from another Anglican group for making an announcement in the Cathedral group. And strong, authoritarian power stances are already being whammed down on people who wanted to participate. One service leader, an ecumenical Lutheran, was shown the door and invited to use it. None of the leadership is elected; instead they are "prayerfully invited." Service attendance at the Cathedral is poor: you need no more than two hands to count the people at any service, and half of them are on the Leadership Hit Squad. The highest attended service was Compline conducted by the service leader that they forced out.

I would hope that the alternative Cathedral would not futz about with issues of the sacrament online or how many angels can fit on the head of a pin or a "chain of authority." If all this is just to churn wheels about how to best play church on a computer screen, then it is for naught. Instead, there needs to be outreach to those who have already rejected traditional do-as-your-told church such as the Church of England team is trying to establish. It ain't working in Real Life: news flash, it ain't gonna work in Second Life on the Internet, either. Forget the stuff about "assets" and "governance." Get off the high horse that the Church of England cathedral has placed itself on; come down the hill; partner with other Anglican and Lutheran groups for a change, and actually rub shoulders with the great unwashed that we are all called to reach out to. If some unknown Bishop in Guildford, wherever the heck that is, doesn't like it -- oh well. Ultimately, are you there for him, or for us?

That being said, Mary and Helene reading this, good luck, and I hope the RL funding that you want comes through. And I trust you will partner with an alternative Cathedral that is set up, as well as with other Anglican and Lutheran projects.

>> the Daily Office all by itself, demanding nothing but suggesting everything?

What Josh said.

Josh,

I've been impressed in the past with your remarks on your blog demonstrating your commitment to a Risen Christ and the importance of focusing on Jesus in all that we do in church (and outside of it). I thank you for how you have edified me, and I thank you for your wonderful work at the Daily Office site.

The Cathedral requires the assets of Second Life land, and other things, to run, and these must be administered faithfully. Unlike your own very successful web outreach, the Cathedral is also a kind of "live communitiy," and live communities always need some sort of leadership. This becomes eminently clear in Randal's comment; people who come together to worship have different expectations, and "community" ministries which are not run well are likely to cause hurt and harm, especially in an online setting, where the temptations to gnosticism and particularism are greater. Online ministry has its own set of dangers, and they are very real.

The Cathedral can't reach as many as you can with your ministry; but since it is "live," it touches people in a different way. If done well, they can learn a great deal and also experience actual discipleship as we learn from one another how to effectively reach out to others.

I am very much in agreement with you that our respect for the sacraments should preclude our use of them in a "virtual" setting; this seems, happily, to be the prevailing view as well - for more information on discussions we've had on this you can see this article: http://brownblog.info/?p=886 and this article: http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/virtual-eucharist/1078 - I think it's safe to say that the issue has mostly been put aside, though when someone brings it up in an article, it attracts a lot of comments (in a similar manner, I'm afraid, of the recent report of the dog given communion - little food for thought, "provocative" as it may be).

Randal,

The Cathedral has changed a lot, but some probably would have considered it to be "fundamentalist" in the "opposite" direction about a year and a half ago, when Spong was a much larger influence there, and many who held some basic faith in the creeds went running. The problem then was not in any way the intent of the leadership, but rather a situation that got out of hand with some challenges that were too large for us to reasonably take on at that time. Many came to the Cathedral primarily with the intent of asking questions in a snarky and disrespectful manner; and our leadership often didn't have the means to field the questions in a respectful manner that also glorifies God and demonstrates that we have at least a minimalist faith in the creeds or understanding of what they mean. Much like yourself here, many came with vague insinuating accusations of "fundamentalism," which tend to scare off people who feel they might be the intended targets if, e.g., they believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Sometimes there were too many making bold assertions about such "fundamentalists" that no opportunity was given the few present who were capable of explaining basic church teachings to do so - like, "what do we mean when we say Jesus died for our sins?" We never got to the point of nuanced discussion where we could, e.g., compare the differences between substitutionary atonement and Christus Victor, or discuss the notion of propitiation; it was frequently a rather blunt affair, utterly lacking in nuance, subtlety, and very low in educational value. In this way, it seemed to me at least like it was a bit too flavored with a Spong-type fundamentalism - i.e., lots of quick, slap-dash criticisms overladen with presuppositions presented in a highly charged tone; continual movement from the one to the next without any single one being able to be evaluated in depth; and highly inauthentic motivational devices insinuating that anyone who does not agree is a morally depraved idiot. This was NOT the doing of the Leadership Team nor their intention, but rather the general atmosphere which sometimes prevailed, due to difficulty in moderation and lack of leadership personel who could field these types of questions. Sometimes it seemed like we were a group that believed in nothing and had a cheap criticism ready for everything, and never the time to actually rationally consider those cheap criticisms we were throwing around. Furthermore, from time to time some Anglicans would assert that Anglicans had some special attachment to "reason" - sometimes things were said like, "we don't leave our brains at the door" - and given the very low level of education apparent at such discussions, our reputation was even further diminished, as there are ministries in Second Life which showed a great deal more understanding of church teachings and theology than we did at that time. This had a profound effect on the reputation of the Cathedral, and also on the general community; it meant that we tended to "keep" more of those who were attracted to this type of discussion, and to send packing those who had serious problems with it. It also meant that over time, we lost many who might have been able to help us in these matters, including probably some of the better minds. They either went elsewhere, or they quit Second Life entirely.

The primary problem was the Cathedral-hosted discussions (which sometimes actually were quite good, but simply had too many moments when they profoundly devolved into the type of situation described above), and not with the services. And I need repeat again: this was not the intention of anyone, and most certainly not the intention of the Leadership Team. It's simply a demonstration of one of the dangers of community-based online ministry. Things can get "out of hand" much more easily in online ministry than in "real-life" ministry.

People from other Christian communities would often come to see what the Anglican Cathedral was like, and some unfortunate associations were being made about Anglicans in general.

Something needed to happen at the Cathedral. The Cathedral needed either to make clear that either:
a) it was not Anglican; or
b) it was a special Episcopalian sort-of-Spong-like institution claiming to be Anglican, but dissenting the principles of the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral; or
c) to make more clear that we are indeed Anglican, and to also live accordingly.

It was the last which occurred, with the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral explicitly mentioned in our vision statement, and members of the Leadership Team brought aboard who carried with them some excellent training in hermeneutics, Biblical criticism, and theology.

Had this not occurred, the Cathedral would probably have maintained a reputation as a primarily Episcopalian endeavor (Episcopalians were over-represented, being about half the Leadership Team) with a reputation that also did no good for the Episcopalians running it, nor was deserved by them - as the situation was not at all what they intended. Without the revised vision statement, the Cathedral would probably have worn further on the patience of Anglicans who were not on the leadership team, and created a nasty split. It would have been clear, however, that the split had nothing to do with sexual ethics, but was exclusively because of Christology, the creeds, and the most basic notion of the authority of Scripture (and not even a high one, as enshrined in the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral). This would have done no one any good, except, perhaps for the reputation of the ACNA or the Catholic apostolate - but frankly, of the ACNA and Anglican-Use people I know, they would have much preferred the Cathedral maintain an authentic Christian and Anglican outreach rather than see the community split. The Cathedral also probably would not have been able to convince Anglicans knowledgeable in theology, Biblical hermeneutics, and Biblical criticism to come on board the Leadership Team - such persons in Second Life are not easy to find, and I know of none who would be happy to join the ministry at the Cathedral as things stood.

Allow me to repeat: I do not believe that it was the intention of the Leadership Team to create this situation which came about at the Cathedral. I do not think that the Leadership Team wished to diminish the sense of the importance of the creeds, but that this simply came about due to situations which proved too difficult to handle and an atmosphere resulting from such situations.

I congratulate the Leadership Team for having been able to do so much to turn around a situation far beyond any of my expectations. Randal, I do wish you were there to witness those old discussion groups, I do hope that you also would have realized that something needed to change.

I am glad that there are Episcopalians like Josh who confidently proclaim the importance of Jesus in the life of the church. I am thankful that there are many Episcopal parishes which have faith in the creeds and who confidently reject Spong out-of-hand for the backward tabloid rhetorician he is, and who do not blindly cling to re-hashings of outdated 19th century hermeneutics and doctrines which have been shown to be so irrational by the likes of Barth and Tillich, and which are incapable of responding to a contemporary world view and the likes of Husserl, Heidegger, Gadamer, or Derrida. It deeply disturbs me that such large swaths of the Communion have become such an educational backwater as to have allowed the ascendancy of such poor scholarship as we find in Spong. Now I am beginning to sound "inauthentic" just as Spong sometimes argues - I do wish I had more time to explain why, but I must say after what I have seen at the Catheral before the new vision statement - that this does bear being said. Spong does not help educated people "think." Where educational levels are low enough for people to find him interesting, he muddles things, polarizes where unnecessary, and inculcates habits of inauthentic discourse.

I believe, but may be corrected on this point: no change occurred in policy regarding LGBT people whatsoever; the vision statement simply made clear what had occurred until then: that the Cathedral leaves teaching regarding matters of sexual ethics primarily for "real-life" settings, as so much confusion and grief is likely (and has already occurred) in discussing issues as delicate as this one. Indeed, I find this the best possible policy for LGBT people for the situation at the Cathedral in Seond Life, who otherwise would likely feel thrown around like a football in a heated and politicized debate; and we have had LGBT people express their disappointment in how they sometimes feel themselves to be the focus of so much conflict already, without such debates going on at the Cathedral. I've only known of one incident in which an LGBT member had to bear an unfortunate remark by a visitor to the Cathedral; and I assure you, that visitor left very, very quickly after having been challenged. Dealing with matters of sexual ethics can be pastorally very challenging, and even more challenging when it comes to policy; they effect not only those individuals with whom we speak, but the whole community; and the whole community can also react in ways which are not helpful, or do not fit our expectations. This is something that is frequently misunderstood by those not charged with pastoral care themselves, both those who agree and disagree with Lambeth I.10.

I do believe that you are the only person who has ever even imagined the Cathedral Leadership Team to be "fundamentalist". I may, of course, be wrong. I hope you realize what a pejorative word this is; for how vague it is and how little it says, it is not worth using, as it makes clear that the one using it wishes to smear and exclude without providing clear grounds for doing so. It provides little or no cognitive content, but a wallop of a bite. I understand however that you are upset and I am sorry about that, and I take your use of the term within this context, and not as an intent to insult.

Mary Wanamaker,

Thanks for showing most exemplary leadership. I do not believe you have "whammed down" anyone, and I thank you for going the extra mile in helping those with difficulty understanding the Cathedral feel welcome. You have had to deal with more than most are aware of, from "all sides" of the church-political spectrum, and you have continued to confidently show love even when you have seen very tough times.

[Welcome to the Cafe. Not certain if Jmcoder is your name or not. Do notice our policy in fine print above the comment box requiring you give your full name. Thanks - ed.]

I've been working in online ministry for about 6 years now and the issue of sacraments comes up frequently.

Most recently, a retired Methodist minster announced that he was holding a communion service via Twitter and then announced that, while he had not been forbidden from doing this, he had been persuaded that it might not be helpful.

http://www.twittercommunion.co.uk/

I think it's an issue that will keep coming back for all sorts of reasons - not least that some people who find it hard to get to an offline church have found Christ present in their online Christian community and naturally want to express that through communion.

I think we really do need to work out how we can best express church within the online environment rather than try and replicate the same things in the virtual space.

The Church of Scotland church at Luss, which is mentioned in the on the twitter communion page, is live streaming services and has found people are joining in at home using real bread and wine. So it's a bit different from celebrating a communion that is somehow taking place within a virtual space with vitual elements. (I'm not sure that the Church of Scotland has explicitly come out and said that what is happening is communion in any case.)

One thing I've learnt from various online projects I've been involved in is that doing things online can be - and usually is - quite small scale. Indeed, the Internet gives us the opportunity to connect in a much more intimate way than we could if we attend an offline church.

The above comment by Jmcoder is by a chap also otherwise known as James Coder. Sorry, editor - this is how things came through with Facebook Connect, I've since edited the information after finding the appropriate interface. Editor, feel free to delete this comment, it's for clarification.

Hi JMCoder, and many thanks for all the effort you have put in to addressing me. I disagree that "fundamentalist" is a pejorative term. There are many, many who very proudly wear that term as a badge of honour in their beliefs.

An Anglican from another group was indeed told to "pipe down" but asiding from assuring other readers that I don't live in an inventive fantasy world, there is no point in going there, so let's forget that -- the broader point is that the Church of England Cathedral has placed itself literally and figuratively on a hill above other Anglican groups in SL.

Why that is important is in order to note that that Cathedral is AN Anglican presence in SL -- not the only one.

I'm sorry that so much of your time has had necessarily to be focussed on hermeneutics, doctrines and theology. Perhaps that is why other Anglican efforts have sprung up -- in order to do outreach and ministry in to the "unchurched" (heck, to just "plain people") who haven't come to talk about Husserl, Heidegger, Gadamer, or Derrida.

Perhaps what will evolve over time is that the current Cathedral can be a centre for those such as yourself who do enjoy such discussions, and for those who are interested in the experiment of replicating exactly church administration in SL. An alternative, sister Anglican Cathedral can instead be focussed on outreach and ministry. There are, after all, needs for both specialties, and no one human or human group can be all things to all people, I'm sure you can agree!

[Long post - sorry!]

I'm only an occasional visitor to the Anglican Cathedral of Second Life so I can't comment about its internal workings.

I do know that once you have an income stream you do have to have some way of handling it, and especially if you are collecting money for a particular aim. In the UK that would normally be a charity if your aims fitted the charity commissioners definition of charitable purposes.

St Pixels - www.stpixels.com - was initially part of Ship of Fools Ltd but more recently has become an independent company, registered at Companies House in the UK. They have not gone down the charity route because they feel it creates complications and they are not part of any denomination but their leadership structure is still fairly complicated with company directors, a community leadership team, hosts who oversee the forums and worship leaders for the chat room.

i-church - which is where I am at the moment - was set up by the Diocese of Oxford in the UK, so it has always been part of an Anglican Diocese. The legal structure started off with it being part of the communications department in the Diocese but it then became an independent charity and as such has Trustees who take overall responsibility for the financial and legal well being of the organisation. The Trustees delegate to the priest in charge and officers/Council on the day to day running of the group.

So it does seem as if having a legal entity complicates things. And it is all too easy for any Internet based group to spend a huge amount of time discussing how it is run once you have a structure that requires some form of legal accountability. Where two or three are gathered together there is often a disagreement about the best way of doing things!

One way round this is to have a charismatic/autocratic leader but once that person starts collecting money if they have and sense they will make sure that they are able to account for it and that adds a layer of responsibility that is better shared. That's why evangelists often have a trust fund which is administered on their behalf and I believe Billy Graham strongly advocates this on spiritual as well as legal grounds.

So - as has been pointed out - there is a culture clash between the free flowing culture of the Internet and what is required to be a legal entity.

In fact I think being democratic within an Internet community is quite difficult precisely because democracy is intrinsically bureaucratic and therefore is also out of keeping with Internet culture. Eg i-church is required to have a Council by our constitution, but last time we held elections hardly anyone bothered to put themselves on the electoral roll despite a long lead in and there were less candidates than places. So I can see that it can seem simpler just to appoint.

It seems to me that the Anglican Cathedral of Second Life are seeking to do two things; 1) to establish a legal and financial entity and 2) to become a formal part of the Anglican Communion.

1) is fairly straightforward - though it still requires a terrestrial location for the registered legal entity that is chosen. Still, money that is raised inworld is presumably banked at some point in the real world and although money is fairly virtual nowadays there will be a terrestrial location involved even if it is the head office of the bank in question.

2) is the one that is exercising people and I think this is because the name 'Cathedral' is involved. I don't know any way for a group to be a formal part of the Anglican Communion without being part of a local Diocese. Being under the oversight of a particular Bishop in a particular terrain is characteristic of Anglicanism as far as I can see.

In the Church of England we do have the concept of 'alternative episcopal oversight' for churches who are opposed to the ordination of women but the 'flying bishops' exercise their ministry with the permission of the Diocesan Bishop in whose territory they exist. This is why the logistics of appointing women as Bishops are having to be worked out slowly - because a female Diocesan would still have ultimate oversight of churches which rejected her ministry as an ordained woman.

I agree that the title 'Cathedral' is a bit confusing - as far as I can see that was applied to the artefact that has been created on the terrain owned by the group but imbuing it with some of the actual qualities or attributes of a terrestrial Cathedral is what is exercising people.

Pam Smith
(sorry about the 'Rev' - that has crept in from my email address when I logged in through facebook!)

Randal, you write:

"I disagree that 'fundamentalist' is a pejorative term. There are many, many who very proudly wear that term as a badge of honour in their beliefs."

What's relevant is if the way it is used is pejorative. You are here calling e.g. Mary Wanamaker a "fundamentalist." By this, do you mean, "Mary Wanamaker proudly wears the term 'fundamentalist' as a badge of pride?" A gay friend of me liked to refer to himself and other gay men with the "F" word - is it acceptable for others to use this label? I know that there are persons who describe themselves as "fundamentalists" and you allege that there are "many, many," but I have never met a single one.

The term is usually used in such a way to describe persons with whom one would rather not associate one's self. It is used to exclude, belittle, denigrate. Especially in an Anglican context, where the person who is best-known for thematizing this word is Bishop Spong - for whom all Trinitarian churches are officially "fundamentalist."

Eventually, we will have excluded everyone but ourselves and a tiny clique who shares our specific beliefs with the rest of the world written off as these dirty, fearful, ignorant "fundamentalists" without our having understood them, and frankly as acting similar to those we tend to criticize as "blind bigots." The Puritans at least gave sound reasons for their various disagreements.

I wish you knew Mary better, and you would know just utterly silly it is to use this word about her. Frankly, I think you may already have an idea of just how silly your contention is, but haven't yet figured out for yourself what you find the problem to be, so must resort to such vague and nasty language.

There are problems in churches and in the behavior of individuals that we sometimes refer to with the word "fundamentalist," but using the word usually makes the problem worse - people feel they are misunderstood, belittled, or cast out. It is better that we make clear what the issues are of which we are speaking - i.e., is a church insisting on cooperating only with other churches that share a particularist view of baptism? Do we find a person uncharitable in his means of teaching a certain doctrine which he finds important? etc. etc.. Such problems often have as a root a form of fear, and such fear is not assuaged by appending vague labels to them. We must love all people, including such "fundamentalists" - and we do not help such people with their challenges, and frequently only make these challenges and their associated symptoms only worse, by labeling them in this manner.

I actually think you will agree with me here: people who are progressive and liberal in mindset do not convey their thoughts by labeling others as "fundamentalists" - rather, they try to communicate more constructively and fruitfully regarding those things which they perceive to be problems. And I think that you'll recognize that this labeling was simply silly on your part, and that it's more a matter of finding an honest and clear description of whatever view or action of hers it is with which you disagree. You are an intelligent man and I know you will understand this. You have a bone to pick with Mary, and you want to engage in some honest and forthright picking of that bone - but you don't want to exclude or unjustly belittle her, I'm sure. If you had any idea of all that she has done to support LGBT people, and all of her support for various LGBT issues - you would understand better why I am singling this issue out for your attention and why I fear that you may be painting yourself into a puritanical corner.

This is one of our rather benighted habits as Anglicans. We are much more likely than persons from other churches to describe others with this vague, unhelpful and pejorative label. It almost seems as if we exult in amplifying the problems associated with "fundamentalism" in order rally others to our crusade, while we end up painting ourselves further and further into a corner.

I can identify because I once used this term myself, and enjoyed describing Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostalists, and non-denominational Christians as, in various ways, inferior to the group to which I belonged, and not appreciating their separate gifts. It's one of those deep-seated things that makes Anglicans tick. Once one takes a more honest look at the mess we are making, especially in areas of scholarship and education, and is honest about the accomplishments of other churches - one realizes how desperately in need we are of taking a more humble view of our church, and of how utterly backward we are in so many areas. All told, we aren't any smarter, better-educated, or more tolerant than other churches, and often much less so.

Is "hit squad" a pejorative term?

No desire to quibble or spend a single second on polemics, James, while time's a wasting on other stuff to be done, so enjoy it by yourself! Peace!

Ok Randal, though this seems to me more about "people" than polemics. Think about making things better with Mary. I'm pretty sure Helene can take this standing up without thinking twice; she's amazingly tough. But Mary has had a lot of unpleasant things to bear lately (not thinking of this here), and I know that if you're some way able to think about the above, and let her know that calling her a fundie and part of a "hit squad" was not exactly a smart thing to do, that she would smile and smile. And she would have her trust restored as well in the whole "people who are LGBT activists" thing. Don't do it now, or it will seem contrived, but do it sometime when it will surprise her. No need to respond here, let's just drop it & enjoy that peace you mention. I doubt anyone else is following this thread any more except you & me.

Hi I've only been involved occasionally in other Anglican efforts in SL. Did not get involved with Cathedral cause by the time I came along was warned it was being run by ACNA types so people are staying clear. It was said earlier before topic went a bit off that the cathedral should do more partnerning. As I said only occasionally involved and I stay out of the politics, so don't shoot the messenger lol, but on that topic the word and impression on the street out there is that the cathedral keeps to itself and doesn't like much to do with other Anglican projects. I don't think it's a big issue one way or another, friends tell me not many go there now anyway they have switched to other places. A lot of them aren't yet regular church goers in RL and some theological types at cathedral turned them off, etc and the ACNA stuff etc I guess. Better stop rambling before I get a lecture too from that Encoder guy lol!

William,

You are important to God as are all He created, so I will address these words, even though you seem to be afraid of a "lecture," and though what you write is highly problematic for a number of reasons which I'm sure will quickly become apparent. Thus, the lecture which you were probably secretly waiting for:

There is only, to my knowledge, only one person from the ACNA involved with the Cathedral, and her "theology" is very ordinary - not remarkably situated in the camps of the "conservative," "liberal," "catholic," or "evangelical" but basically straightforward, Trinitarian Christianity. She is very much committed to engaging in ministry with all people, and actually most of her male friends with whom she regularly prays are gay - kind, tolerant people, like herself.

It is possible that some group of people, however, are for whatever reason scared, and are warning persons like yourself. Should such a group exist, I can assure such a group that these worries are completely unnecessary, and that actually going to visit the Cathedral would be the best way to assuage such fears.

I don't think the Cathedral, for the moment, should be partnering with groups whose members are trying to paint its leadership as "Fundamentalists" or a "hit squad," nor is "warning" people to stay away from the Cathedral because of some imagined "ACNA stuff" - whether such a group be Anglican or otherwise. Probably a period of "cooling off" would be better, don't you think? But then again, hopefully no groups are doing this, and this is all just a misunderstanding.

I imagine that that none of the things I mentioned above were ever intended; there may have been a lapse in communication or a misunderstanding, as knowing a good deal about the Cathedral leadership and the situation around the Cathedral, it would be utterly silly to think that there is any "ACNA stuff" there.

This message could also be read as a not-so-subtle warning to the leadership, "You better partner up with some particular Anglican organization in Second Life, and make more clear that you're definitely against those awful ACNA people that no one wants to be around, or somehow the 'word on the street' is gonna be that you're all raving fundies and no one will come!"

I am sure that this was not the intention of this message either, and that instead it was just a good-willed misunderstanding. Nonetheless, a bit of cool-off is probably a good idea, and we must recognize that Anglican organizations are not always best served by partnerships, even amongst themselves, when there is a bit of confusion in the air that needs to be dispersed.

If you are afraid of some sort of "ACNA stuff" or "theological types" at the Cathedral, it's best to explore the Cathedral, and address Cathedral staff with whatever concerns you might have, rather than engaging in indirect advocacy here.

That said, I can understand the awful tensions in the Communion and how attractive it sometimes is to engage in advocacy in a manner which is less than direct. We are indeed living in difficult times.

For all Anglican organizations in Second Life, including the Cathedral, I wish for you:
- that your love for one another will grow and flourish, and cast out anxiety, as we read in I John how love casts out fear;
- that the peace of God which surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts;
- that you will share what you know of Christ with one another and grow in your knowledge of Him, and your love for Him.

For all Anglicans I wish:
That we become better educated about other Christians and other Christian denominations, and avoid describing ourselves as more "rational" or "enlightened" or "modern" than they, as we most certainly have become an awful backwater of in-fighting and - typical for a war-zone, there isn't much genuine education taking place, we are going around in circles, and we are becoming a rather backward people.

That we would learn to break these vicious circles by respecting one another more, respecting other Christians who aren't Anglican, and respecting and loving Jesus who told us, "if you love me, you will keep my commandments" and: "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God."

As one of the leaders of one of the other Anglican/Episcopal groups in Second Life and a former member of the cathedral group that the original post was about, I wanted to add my belated 2 cents to the discussion and perhaps help to bring it back on track.

In our group, as in the cathedral group, we use the Daily Office as the core of our common worship together. None of our regular participants is a clergy person, so this is an appropriate format for us as lay people. In fact, we use the Compline/Night Prayer services from various Anglican provinces. We also point people to Josh's wonderful site as a resource to deepen their prayer lives, and we oftentimes use the collect of the day from his site. (Thanks Josh!)

I think that sites such as Josh's are a wonderful online ministry that brings deep prayer resources to so many around the world, as evidenced by the site visit totals that Josh mentions. Personally, I have used both Josh's site and the Mission St Clare site, and when I do so, I feel a connection to everyone else who uses them too. Our communal worship in Second Life rarely gathers more than a dozen or so people at a time. But this type of small and intimate community, where we have regulars who come every night as well as occasional visitors, is an effective method of evangelism, bringing into Christian community people who might never darken the door of a church in "real life". Strange as it may sound, even though we use computer generated 3D characters called avatars to interact with each other, the presence of each others avatars gathered in a circle for prayer and fellowship really does bring a deep sense of presence of the other that is deeper than is oftentimes possible through a blog or web site based ministry.

To touch on the various comments about ownership of virtual land, unfortunately this is a necessity even in virtual worlds. Think of virtual land as space on a web server. If you want to have a reserved web site address on a high volume web server, then it costs money. Similarly, it costs money to rent land in Second Life, which means you are really renting space on a server operated by Linden Labs, the company that runs Second Life. Also, although virtual worlds allow us to reach beyond ourselves and connect with a larger global community, we are none the less physical beings, grounded in our bodies. In both virtual and real worlds, we feel the need to congregate in beautiful settings that are conducive to prayer and community. Again, this takes money as well as time on the part of those who lead the groups. In the case of the cathedral group that is the focus of the original posting, they are a large group, with almost 700 members, so they feel the need for more structured organization. The group I am in is smaller and much more informal in our leadership style, more in line with the emergent church movement. Perhaps if we grow as large as the cathedral group, then we will need to be more structured in our leadership style. Or we might just divide cellular style and start new groups. To use a real life analogy, think of the difference between a large urban parish with several thousand members versus a small informal prayer group that meets in someones home.

We have not really dealt much with the issue of sacraments in either our group in the cathedral group. However I really do think that we as a church need to explore this issue more. While many of us who do participate in Christian communities in Second Life are also members of "real life" church communities, some are not. Also, many of the people we reach out to and try to bring into our community are not connected to churches in "real life", and might never do so. The inability to be able to bring the sacraments to them is an issue we need to figure out if we are to become fully church in virtual worlds like Second Life even though we have many of the marks of church in our communities.

Download the viewer, create a free account, and come and visit with us sometime!
www.secondlife.com

~Caoilin Galthie

Just to let you know. I have no faith in the leadership team, they are exclusive bullies.
I was originally involved even before Epiphany island. It ended up as a vehicle for self promotion. They are welcome to play church. God is their judge
Loo
Lorraine Wall-Jones

Caoilin,

There's lots to be said about remaining confident as a rather small group and concentrating on doing well whatever it is you're doing - this was a problem with the Cathedral, a vision that was too large but not padded out in concrete detail, and too many additions of activities beyond what it could reasonably handle. It's more important that a group really bonds and gets to know one another - then prayer is also more effective.

A wise approach!

Actually, there may even be some opportunity for "healing" here - since some people are going about warning others to stay away from the Cathedral because of a single ACNA person there, I'd suggest that perhaps we have a situation where some education and awareness could improve attitudes; there are probably misperceptions, either on the side of the Cathedral about the danger of the ACNA, or perhaps on the part of this group. I would be very much interested sometime in getting to know the people better of this group who have this special message. I may learn more myself as one who is neither a part of TEC nor ACNA, and I'd like to know about what perceptions exist and, if possible, understanding can be improved. Does anyone know where I might be able to find people belonging to this group with the special message about the Cathedral and the ACNA? William, perhaps you could tell me who it was who warned you?

To be fair, the leadership team of the cathedral group is a pretty diverse group. As James (who I know in Second Life) mentions, there is one member who is part of the ACNA movement as well as several others who are just as conservative, alongside members who celebrate and live out the inclusiveness demonstrated by Anglican provinces such as TEC. I count several members of the leadership team as dear friends.

I see the cathedral groups mission to be the "big tent" and to be a place where people coming into virtual worlds such as Second Life can find an Anglican community that looks a lot like they are used to in "real life". Unfortunately, when you try to be the big tent and stretch too far, sometimes the people at the edges of society find it hard to find a place in the tent. There is a place for the big tent churches that present an acceptable and familiar face to the "real life" church as well as a place for Christian communities that are working to create safe places where those who see the church as a place that is hostile to them can find a place to connect to Christian community and the One who calls us into community.

~Caoilin

Well-said, Caoilin. I know that some bemoan the very existence of different "denominations" and how churches are less than one in their understanding of God, but I am actually very pleased that, e.g., the Roman Catholic Church and Calvinist churches have different ways of celebrating the eucharist, and different understandings behind it. I believe they are both being "honest" in their approach, and that somehow they are both carrying out tasks which God has appointed to them. There is something truly beautiful in the diversity of practices in worshipping God, as well - though I certainly have my own "preferences" and views.

This is also true of how communities work. Some have a very robust notion of the goodness of life and of how God wants us to live; they can sometimes, to an outsider, seem quite "strict" - I'm thinking, for example, of the Calvinists who live to the north of me in the Netherlands known for wearing black socks (with this particular tendency, I'd fit in perfectly). They tend to be very tight communities highly engaged in helping one another. Others are more "thin communities" with fewer expectations, but with less of a notion of a common good, less opportunities and means for mutual engagement. God can work with both types of church; both types of church can have problems and tend to their own specific types of sin. Being a part of one type of church community, it is often difficult to understand the other, and to find it either too "narrow-minded," or too unconcerned about life outside of that small weekly moment of Sunday worship.

I think one form of misunderstanding between church communities comes when we fail to realize that the community dynamic we have in our own parish isn't always possible in another - that they truly "come together" in a different manner from ourselves, though the purpose of worshiping and glorifying God remains the same. A "thin community" where anyone can easily join and feel immediately at ease won't have the same kind of cohesion, sense of purpose, and ability to help members as a "thick community" - but membership in such a "thick community" is developed over time, and a newcomer will realize that though he may be welcome, he hasn't developed the same connections as others.

A friend of mine was recently looking into the Eastern Orthodox as a possible church, this particular church sounding like an exceedingly "thick" community by Western standards. It was interesting to hear about their specific means of welcoming catechumens. I suppose it's particularly necessary for more "thick" communities to offer a means of welcoming newcomers and making clear that there is something akin to a "learning curve" when it comes to that specific community - but that members are committed to helping along with this.