A Hermeneutics of Imagination: Developing a Virtual Ecclesiology for the

Postmodern Church

REED, Holly

M.Div., STM, ThD Candidate

Boston University School of Theology

Boston, Massachusetts

Summary:

My intention is to define a �hermeneutic of imagination,� or a way of engaging the church

which suggests a discourse of expansion and fluidity. It is a hermeneutic of imagination

focused on the church and ecclesiology, I suggest, that will break open traditional

categories and facilitate a shift across the postmodern divide and the virtual divide to an

online church. I will utilize a practical theological approach in the review and

reconstruction of a virtual ecclesiology. I will note contemporary themes that have

rendered the online church a battlefield for the convergence of old and new, modern and

postmodern, high culture and popular culture, the embodied and the virtual. Additional

subthemes include authority, control, fear, and elitism. Together, these topics represent a

clash of paradigms and traditions that is detrimental to the spirit of the church. While we

have faithfully enacted a hermeneutic of suspicion in regards to these issues and the

existence of a virtual church, it is now time to utilize a hermeneutic of imagination to

develop new theological and ecclesiological possibilities for the online church as well as

for embodied communities of faith.

Key Words: Virtual, Ecclesiology, Hermeneutic, Imagination

In the face of theological, academic, social, and technological complexities, my

task is to offer a practical theological approach for defining and analyzing the character of

the online church. I call this process a �hermeneutic of imagination,� for it is less of a

id19199777 pdfMachine by Broadgun Software - a great PDF writer! - a great PDF creator! - http://www.pdfmachine.com http://www.broadgun.com

formulaic progression through established criteria than it is a conversation, or a way to

engage the church which suggests a discourse of expansion and fluidity with malleable

boundaries while remaining in relationship to historical ecclesiology and a range of

theologies.

The online church is an important topic of consideration because it has become a

battlefield for the convergence of the old and the new, modern and postmodern, high

culture and popular culture, the embodied and the virtual. These dichotomies represent a

clash of paradigms that is detrimental to the spirit of the church, and these examples

represent the struggle of many churches to cling to the familiar and the comfortable as a

way to salvage stability and security while warding off fear of the unknown. The online

church becomes a target for negative judgments about cultural change and shifting

realities in a multiplicity of arenas. Though it is not without some truth, the tendency to

focus on the differences between the online church and the traditional church is to negate

the existence of less familiar or new theological and social/historical traditions that can

expand and enhance our ecclesiologies. It also clouds the theological horizon and

diminishes the movement of the Holy Spirit. While we have faithfully enacted a

hermeneutic of suspicion in regards to the online church, it is now time to develop a

hermeneutic of imagination which opens up new theological and ecclesiological

possibilities for the online church as well as for physically located communities of faith.

In order to do this, there is an underlying substratum of feelings and attitudes that

needs to be addressed. I want to lift them up as critical components in any attempt to

consider, reconsider, and reconstruct, new expression of church. The primary subthemes

I am referring to are authority, control, fear, and elitism. These themes emerge, frequently,

in the forms of deep suspicion of computer technology and its assumed anarchical

character.

It would serve the church well to recall that the creation of new technology has

always caused consternation in Christian circles, while the same technologies have

simultaneously produced excitement and opportunity � which at times creates a disturbing

tension between that which is and that which can be. Invariably there are tensions among

the guardians of tradition, the intellectual elite designing new technologies, the purveyors

of the new products, and the general population which will be affected by � and will most

likely use � the new technologies. Philosophical, scientific, and technological

developments during the Renaissance era and the Reformation period are often cited as

examples of the power and magnitude of change and innovation when it is reflected in

audience reception and popular enthusiasm on a grand scale. (Eisenstein 1979; S. White

1994; L. White 1978; Horsfield 1997; Helland 2004; O�Leary 2004). With the development

of the printing press and the mass production of print media, the increasing literacy of the

lower classes, and the shift to the use of the vernacular all being credited as major

catalysts of change, other scholars would contend that such changes were not unique to

that time period alone. The shift from orality to literacy, for example, was an earlier media

transition with an impact equally as significant as the move into mass media in the 15th

century and the shift to electronic media currently being experienced. (Horsfield 2003;

O�Leary 2004; Horsfield 1997).

When these shifts occur, tradition and authority begin to compete with � and feel

the need to define � normativity and creativity. With the development of each new

technology, new questions have been generated about creation, God�s purpose, and

human agency. The status and legitimacy of leadership is often attacked. Institutional

structures, textual authority, and doctrinal hegemony are also particularly vulnerable to

challenges from new and evolving voices (Campbell 2007; Fore 1990).

One response to such a situation could be the renewal of a strong creation

theology. If God is seen as the author of creation, and is considered to be in control,

humans can relinquish some control. Nicholas Healy suggests utilizing aspects of

Balthasar�s theodramatic concepts as a way to envision the wholeness of God�s creation

and human participation in it: �Within the theodramatic horizon, everything is located

within the sphere of God�s creative and redemptive activity�If God is active everywhere,

then all human activity bears some relation to God, and to bracket out that relationship can

only be a temporary move� (Healy 2000, 66-67). This �theodramatic horizon� counters the

modern tendency to relegate God�s activities to particular spheres and credit human

endeavor with shaping and commanding other arenas.

In conjunction with this suspicion of technology as removing us from God�s

Kingdom, comes the fear of losing control. An example of an advance in media

technology provides a sound analogy. With the emergence of the printing press, Bibles

became readily available. The use of the vernacular allowed even the less educated

access to scripture. With this came the loosening of authority and control, for anyone could

now read, interpret, and expound upon scripture (Helland 2004; Murdock 1997). Much of

the Reformation and Counter-Reformation can be read as an attempt to harness this

evolving media and to reassert control of interpretation and ecclesial authority. The rise of

denominationalism in the US is a particular example of attempts to establish secure

boundaries and explicit criteria for membership and participation in the face of shifting

demographics, rising populism, and the decreasing public status and authority of the

�mainline� churches (Butler 1990; Hatch 1989; Noll 2002). In our era, computer-mediated

communication is offering the same challenge anew, as information, resources, and

communal activities become readily available online and groups can form to study,

interpret, and enact their convictions (Campbell 2005; Helland 2004; Young 2004;

Campbell 2004; Macwilliams 2004; Ferré 2003).

Closely connected to the shifts in authority and control is fear � fear of change in

public status, validity, and personal or public identity (Bader-Saye 2007). Once again the

US experience provides an example of the tension between the value of, and the

perceived destructiveness of, technological change. The �evangelical impulse� of

American Protestantism has always been a double-edged sword, combining the biblical

mandate to spread the Gospel and the need to develop and maintain structures and

regulations to protect the Gospel and its messengers. Unfortunately, it was not

uncommon for these two interests to compete, making it difficult to acquire printed material

for distribution as both local and denominational groups guarded their particular territorial

and doctrinal proclivities, thus thwarting the evangelical mandate they shared (Nord 1984;

Jorstad 1993).

In addition, elitism surfaces in an attitudinal prejudice toward technology, imagery,

and communicative channels open to spontaneity (which is often identified with the

irrational and unconsidered), to mass appeal, and to mass access. The result is

distancing among denominational groups, polarizing them into those who represent

popular religion and those who represent traditional faith (McGuire 1997). Popular religion

became aligned with � and continues to be aligned with � the evangelical impulse and its

enthusiastic embrace of any method that will spread the Gospel (O�Leary 2005; Morgan

2002). The more traditional denominations, often the mainline churches, perceived

themselves as the keepers of tradition, aesthetic propriety, and intellectual rigor (Butler

1990; Williams 1980). The mainline churches offered reasoned ethical and social critique

of emerging technologies, thoughtfully and thoroughly assessing the situation before

acting, while the evangelical Christians subsumed the newest innovations and

technologies into their strategies to fulfill their professed mission to spread the Gospel, and

were seen to be anti-intellectual in their lack of reasoned reflection. Through this

polarization, the mainline churches took on the role of the �prophetic� voice and the

evangelicals became the �priests� who enacted the faith (Schultze 2003, 41). This

polarization continues to occlude the fruitful possibilities of an active engagement between

the prophetic and the priestly, the traditional and the innovative, the mind and the heart.

In order to address issues such as these, an ecclesiological approach that is

sensitive to context and culture is required. Roger Haight offers one possible definition:

�ecclesiology demands a consideration of the concrete, social, and historical community

and institution of the church as that in which God acts in grace� (Haight 2004, ix). He goes

on to describe his work as an �ecclesiology from below:� �Ecclesiology from below begins

with a critical historical account of the church, analyzes the sociological dynamics of its

original formation and constant change, and integrates the theological understanding of

the church gathered from the historical witnesses into the historical and sociological

understandings� (Haight 2003,13). This definition points to the study of a concrete entity,

the church, and to its nature and function, as well as to the need for critical analysis of the

historical and cultural situation of the church in its empirical existence rather than in its

ideal or universalized form. Nicholas Healy writes explicitly about the need to move away

from what he calls �blueprint ecclesiology� that can confine the church into idealistic,

unrealistic, and perhaps even sinful models (Healy 2000, 10-11), and rather adopt a

�practical-prophetic� approach to ecclesiology that emphasizes the dynamic essence of the

church. Such an ecclesiology falls into a postmodern worldview that recognizes truth

without absolutes and acknowledges sin while seeking holiness (Healy 2000, 20-21). This

produces a distinctly �grey� ecclesiology in an intellectual environment accustomed to

polarized dichotomies and absolute distinctions. The benefit of this approach is its

openness to the imaginative reconstruction of traditional theologies and traditions while

utilizing emerging categories and concepts.

A virtual ecclesiology can, under such conditions, be defined as a real�but never

quite complete, consideration of the nature and function of the community gathered in the

name of Jesus, expressed historically and culturally. But does this apply to an ecclesial

community that is not physically located? Even in asking this question there is an

assumption that there is an explicit understanding of what the church is in the �real world,�

a standard by which all churches are judged.

Unfortunately for this assumption, there is no single, accepted definition of the

church, either historically or currently. The classic marks of the church, derived from the

Nicene Creed � one, holy, catholic, and apostolic � are frequently used as a starting point

for conversation, but they are by no means considered to be inclusive of all aspects of the

church. One reason that they do not currently enjoy a �bottom-line� status among all

Christians is that they are not scripturally derived. Though each �mark� is mentioned or

alluded to in scripture, they were not combined so concisely and conveniently for many

generations. It should also be noted that one�s ecclesiastical tradition is a major

component of one�s definition of church. The Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and various

Protestant denominations each bring different nuances to an understanding of the church,

which creates a vibrant and virtually infinite combination of possibilities that defies a

monolithic definition.

There is, however, an existing trend of thought which defines the church without

the marks and without an institutional emphasis. This trend can be attributed, I believe, to

the ascendancy of postmodern thinking and its disavowal of rigid, absolute categories in

conjunction with the development of liberation theologies and reclamation of the

priesthood of all believers with its sense of �distributed intelligence.� This is the same

dynamic that has pushed Healy to discard �blueprint ecclesiology� as the way to

understand church, for it does not allow for the dynamism and plurality of expression that

also marks the church. A positive aspect of the move away from absolute definitions and

models is the acknowledgement of pluralism as a constitutive element of the church �

even from the earliest of times. Pluralism of expression was the norm in scripture, and this

has continued to be true (Haight 2004, 44).

Yet our human desire for stability and control has narrowed our vision as to the

possible locations and expressions of church and the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit. We

have established a set of criteria that is limited and biased because it is based on selective

traditions and a frequently non-reflective acceptance of the status quo. Perhaps we

should also ask the question in a positive frame: what does Christianity and virtual

enactment gain in cyberspace, even if it is losing something in the shift of media? Thus I

would call for at least the opportunity to engage in reflective dialogue with a range of

Christian traditions and theologies as well as the establishment of consistent and unbiased

criteria of evaluation for the definition of a virtual ecclesiology. We can rectify this

imbalance of standards with an intentional plan of deconstruction and reconstruction in our

lived church experience and of our sources of meaning, which are grounded Jesus Christ.

This will entail all of the resources named above as well as any others that may help to

reveal the mystery of God and address the dialectical tensions that stand between the

believer and revelation. This could be considered a four step process of �hermeneutics of

imagination, based on:

1. Relinquishing the dichotomies and absolutes of modernist thinking that

requires either/or thinking or exclusive allegiance to only one form of revelation.

2. Reframing experience and language.

3. Reconsideration of human experience and its permeable boundaries in

cyberspace, including the expansion of time, space and location as well as the

idea of embodiment in a world that has expanded beyond the visible.

4. Reclaim the Holy Spirit and the power of discernment.

One place to start this imaginative process of discernment and interpretation would

be to turn to theologians within the particular tradition being considered. For example,

within the Reformed tradition both Calvin and Karl Barth provide interpretive guidelines for

assessing both tradition and innovation. Calvin speaks of both human expediency

(Institutes I.XI.13; I.XVII.1) and divine accommodation to human limitations (Institutes

I.XIII.1) in discerning the appropriate acceptance and utilization of extra-scriptural sources

of inspiration and definition. (Wheeler 2003; Calvin 1960)

Barth�s dialectical approach, engendered by a profound faith and trust in the

presence and work of the Holy Spirit, is another place to begin this conversation, a starting

place that Barth would approve of if pursued within the church, as the church, for the

world. He advocates for a strong pneumatology at work both within and outside of the

church. Barth held that �the Spirit is the great and only possibility in virtue of which men

can speak of Christ in such a way that what they say is witness and that God�s revelation

in Christ thus achieves new actuality through it� (Barth, CD I/I, 453). Without the Holy Spirit

at work, human words remained human words. Barth also proposed the existence of

�secondary parables� as a way to describe the unbounded and limitless work of God in the

world (Barth, CD IV/3.1, 112). While Christ, through the Word, is the one and only True

Word, there are other �true words� that exist because God cannot be limited in any way or

form. Barth describes it as �What is not doubtful and contestable is the prophecy of the

Lord Jesus Christ and its almighty power to bring forth such true words even extra muros

ecclesiae and to attest itself through them�hence it is right and proper that we should

avoid giving even the impression that dogmatics can and should make pronouncements

on matters on which He has already spoken or will perhaps do so� (Barth, CD IV/3.1, 135)

Yet even with an open mind and fluid categories ready to challenge tradition, there

are many theological and institutional issues and questions that continue to be thrown in

the path of the online church. If, however, these questions are reframed with new

language and experiences that can illicit an imaginative response rather than a threatened

reaction, polarization and prejudice may be avoidable. Consider the two ways to look at

this question: does an online church heighten dualism by privileging mind over body? Or

as Wertheim suggests, is Internet technology allowing the reclamation of an appreciation

of body and soul, both the visible and visible, that which can be empirically established

and that which is a matter of heart and soul (Wertheim 1999)?

Another example is the question of the emphasis upon certain characteristics and

behaviors and their potential to further the privatism and individualism of western society.

The question could be asked: is the Internet perhaps permitting a global pluralism and

relationality and networking never before possible (Dawson 2004)? Yet another issue is

that of the loss of personal identity within Internet communities. Does that necessarily

happen, or is one able to finally transcend the barriers of race, gender, class, and sexuality

and connect on the deepest of spiritual levels (Barker 2005; Linderman and Lövheim

2003)? And finally, will a virtual church accentuate the �digital divide� between the rich and

poor, the connected and the unconnected, thereby reinforcing rather than diminishing

injustice? Or, does the virtual church bring the necessity and possibility of mission and

justice to the world through information access, immediacy, and personal engagement with

others (Mitchell 2003).

Each of these questions, and the many others that exist, are all valid questions that

deserve answers utilizing sound hermeneutical techniques grounded in imaginative

possibilities rather than a suspicious retraction of options. Many attempts at responding

have already been made, but are not always well received. In part this is due to the major

shift in thinking that is required to accept the postmodern historical premise and

characteristics inherent in the establishment of a virtual ecclesiology. What emerges

simply will not look like the churches of modernity. The call to remember the plurality of

ecclesiologies in the New Testament is pertinent in this situation, as is the reminder to let

the Holy Spirit work as it will. It is also imperative to keep an open mind to new ways of

thinking about traditional topics as well as an imaginative appraisal of ecclesial and cultural

trends and traditions.

If one can shift to a postmodern worldview and suspend judgment long enough to

experience an online church, I believe a virtual ecclesiology will be identifiable, and will in

fact be essential to maintaining a community committed to Christ. Drawing upon

definitions of church which emphasize the role of faith, mission and discipleship, at least

three theologians suggest ecclesiologies from below that are inclusive and open-ended.

Haight defines the church as ��the historical community of the disciples of Jesus

animated by God as Spirit whose goal is to continue and expand Jesus� message in

history� (Haight 2004, 134). Letty Russell, a feminist theologian from the Reformed

tradition writes that �[church is] a community of Christ, bought with a price, where everyone

is welcome� (Russell 1993, 14). Leonardo Boff, a liberation theologian from Brazil states:

�The church comes into being as church when people become aware of the call to

salvation in Jesus Christ, come together in community, profess the same faith, celebrate

the same eschatological liberation, and seek to live the discipleship of Jesus Christ� (Boff

1986, 11). For Boff, the basic and essential fact of the church is faith (Boff 1986, 19).

These definitions establish a functional rather than essential ecclesiology, for they are

intent upon the concrete, historical church and its practices and not upon an abstract or

idealized vision.

A virtual ecclesiology for an online church can emerge from the traditional marks �

one, holy, catholic and apostolic � of the church even as it remains functional. It will move

away from absolutes, rules and doctrines confined by tradition, and affirm the dynamism of

ongoing appropriation of the Gospel in diverse ways as represented by historic populist

impulses and newer theories of emergence and convergence (Johnson 2001; Jenkins

2006). Virtual ecclesiology comes to these positions through postmodernism (and not by

avoiding it) and through an expanding mission field in the areas previously claimed by

Christendom (and not by clinging to old ways).

A virtual ecclesiology can also, because of its willingness to appropriate ancient

traditions to help enculturate Christianity anew, make use of the traditional marks of the

church if they are able to be infused with new meaning. George Lings offers a suggestion

for a definition of a church that meets postmodernism in this context: �A group may be

called Church when a diverse community is formed by transformative encounter with

Jesus Christ. Called to follow him, this community lovingly responds through the

prompting of the Holy Spirit, seeking to live and act as signs of God�s Kingdom� (Lings

2006). Lings uses the four marks of the church as a way of assessing whether a group of

people is actually living as a community of faith, by reformulating the symbolism of each

mark.

Mission rather than the traditional category of apostolicity (a term laden with

centuries of meaning and misconception) marks a virtual ecclesiology, and it must revolve

around the sense of being sent out, whether as a website, email, or a corporeal being

serving in the world. Because an individual � as Internet avatar or physical being � must

incarnate, or mediate, God to the world, the doctrine of incarnation remains central to the

mission of the church, even if it is not expressed bodily or in a physical gathering.

Despite the high potentiality for individuality in this form of mission, oneness can

flourish with a strong community base of support and accountability which will originate in

two primary ways. First, it will be rooted in the gospel, and secondly it will embody the

relationships found in the Trinity. The perichoretic expression of the Trinity, which

emphasizes distinct relationships while mutually participating and interacting with and

among one another, serves as a model for unity and relationality without demanding

uniformity or conformity among members of the virtual church.

The universal dimension of virtual ecclesiology is both an inward and an outward

expression of faithfulness. The tension between these two expressions may be

experienced in terms of prioritizing commitments, in the challenge to balance personal

spiritual needs with the needs of the larger community, or in choosing how to demonstrate

support and compassion. Holiness resides most explicitly in the form of sacred practices.

The sacraments are one expression of this, but so is the transformation of daily living.

Practices are both individual and corporate, and will be the most visibly �off-line� of the

marks of the church as people find ways to claim sacred time and space along with the

commitment to practice and embody a lived faith.

With this final mark we are returned to the first mark � mission � as we enliven the

mandate to go forth and be present to others in a way that shares the faith. This is a

hermeneutical circle of sorts, but it is more of an expression of the perichoresis of the

Trinity � the mingling and meshing of the three Persons that forms both a model and a

basis for us to mediate God�s grace and salvation. Some may consider this to be too

much of a functional consideration of the Trinity, and it is true that it falls on that end of the

spectrum. Virtual ecclesiology may always fall into the category of functionality because of

its basis in technology and action, yet this predilection should not be cause to eliminate it

as a potentially incarnational experience.

It must be said that all forms of mediated communication are functional in some

sense because a material object is being used to convey something beyond human

expression. Jesus Christ is the ultimate mediator, of course, but the Christian tradition

acknowledges other mediations as well, including writing, serving, supporting, preaching,

and teaching. Each in its own way seeks to convey the grace of God and the power of

God�s love. The form of mediation is simply a vehicle for revelation, and so the form of

mediation can change. Virtual ecclesiology seeks to express new ways to encounter God.

But the ability to see this possibility demands a reformulation of the questions we originally

asked; a reclamation and renewal of terms, definitions, and categories in our language,

practices, and traditions; a willingness to reassess our personal and communal Christian

relationships by the same standards we are imposing on the virtual church; and an ability

to �let go� long enough for the spirit to move us in new directions.

This could open the church to vibrant new expressions of being, if we let it. But to

do so we must relinquish many traditions and honored criteria for ecclesiology, including

things that were once fundamental truths: geographic location, body/mind dualisms,

synchronous time, spatial embodiment, ecclesial control, and Truth. We must replace

these categories with a new sense of pluralism, fluidity, relationality, social networking, and

trust. And we must trust the work of the Holy Spirit among us.

Can we have the faith to allow the Spirit to work as it will, rather than as we will

have it? For example, in a position of total abandon to the possibilities of postmodernism,

consider the idea that virtual ecclesiology is a 21st century expression of Augustine�s

Heavenly City. Think of it: virtuality is that which seeks to be real�but isn�t quite yet. The

virtual is that now/not yet moment where the Kingdom of God is breaking into our

established world in new and unexpected ways. Virtual ecclesiology names a space that

becomes more real as we inhabit it, claim it, and make it a home of lived faith. Virtual

ecclesiology has become, simply, the newest way in which the Gospel is mediated as a

participatory and interactive form of incarnation that is both visible and invisible, and which

can be focused upon the mission of the church as a transformative community seeking to

live and act as signs of God�s Kingdom in all possible worlds.

If indeed pneumatology and imagination work together to expand our

understanding of ecclesiological diversity and legitimacy, we must apply our operative

hermeneutic to all ecclesiastical bodies. Different responses will emerge in different

contexts, but we would know that our process of discernment was open to a variety of

expressions, experiences, and structures and valid for all Christian communities. If this is

true, we are surely asking the wrong question in asking if the church can be the church

online. Rather, we need to ask how the church is the church online and just how the

Kingdom of God is breaking into our world anew, moving our virtual realities into a reality

that speaks of an old reality in a new way.

Bibliography

Bader-Saye, Scott. (2007). Following Jesus in a Culture of Fear. Grand Rapids, MI:

Brazos Press.

Barker, Eileen. (2005). �Crossing the boundary: new challenges to religious authority

and control as a consequence of access to the Internet� in Morten T. Hojsgaard

and Margit Warburg (Eds.), Religion and Cyberspace. London: Routledge.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, 2nd Edition, 13 volumes, ed. by Geoffrey Bromiley

and T.F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956-1975

Boff, Leonardo. (1986). Ecclesiogenesis: The Base Communities Reinvent the

Church. New York: Orbis.

Butler, Jon. (1990). Awash in a Sea of Faith: Christianizing the American People.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans. Ford Lewis Battles.

Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960

Campbell, Heidi. (2005). Exploring Religious Community Online: We are One in the

Network. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

_____. (2004). ��This is My Church�: Seeing the Internet and Club Culture as Spiritual

Spaces� in Lorne L. Dawson and Douglas E. Cowan (Eds.), Religion Online:

Finding Faith on the Internet. New York: Routledge.

_____. (2007). �Who's got the power? Religious authority and the Internet� in Journal

of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3). Retrieved May 27, 2008 from

http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue3/campbell.html

Carey, James W. (1989). Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society.

Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Dawson, Lorne L. (2004). �Religion and the Quest for Virtual Community� in Lorne L.

Dawson and Douglas E. Cowan (Eds.), Religion Online: Finding Faith on the

Internet. New York: Routledge.

Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. (1979). The Printing Press as an Agent of Change:

Communications and cultural transformations in early-modern Europe,

volumes1and 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferré, John P. (2003). �The Media of Popular Piety� in Jolyon Mitchell and Sophia

Marriage (Eds.), Mediating Religion: Conversations in Media, Religion and

Culture. London: T & T Clark.

Fore, William F. (1990) Mythmakers: Gospel, Culture and the Media. New York:

Friendship Press.

Haight, Roger. (2004). Christian Community in History, vol. 1: Historical Ecclesiology.

New York: Continuum.

Hatch, Nathan O. (1989). The Democratization of American Christianity. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Healy, Nicholas M. (2000). Church, World and the Christian Life: Practical-Prophetic

Ecclesiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Helland, Christopher. (2004). �Popular Religion and the World Wide Web: A Match

Made in (Cyber) Heaven� in Lorne L. Dawson and Douglas E. Cowan (Eds.),

Religion Online: Finding Faith on the Internet. New York: Routledge.

Horsfield, Peter. (2003). �Electronic Media and the Past-Future of Christianity� in

Jolyon Mitchell and Sophia Marriage (Eds.), Mediating Religion: Conversations

in Media, Religion and Culture. London: T & T Clark.

Horsfield, Peter. (1997). �Changes in Religion in Periods of Media Convergence� in

Stewart M. Hoover and Knut Lundby (Eds.), Rethinking Media, Religion, and

Culture. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Jenkins, Henry. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide.

New York: New York University Press.

Johnson, Steven. (2001). Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities

and Software. New York: Touchstone Press.

Jorstad, Erling. (1993). Popular Religion in America: The Evangelical Voice.

Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Linderman, Alf and Mia Lövheim. (2003). �Internet, Religion and the Attribution of

Social Trust� in Jolyon Mitchell and Sophia Marriage (Eds.), Mediating Religion:

Conversations in Media, Religion and Culture. London: T & T Clark.

Lings, George. (2006). �Unravelling the DNA of Church: How Can We Know that

What is Emerging is �Church�?� International journal for the Study of the

Christian Church, Vol. 6, No. 1, March 2006, 104 - 116

McGuire, Meredith B. (1997). Religion: The Social Context, 4th edition. London:

Wadsworth Publishing.

Macwilliams, Mark W. (2004). �Virtual Pilgrimage to Ireland�s Croagh Patrick� in

Lorne L. Dawson and Douglas E. Cowan (Eds.), Religion Online: Finding Faith

on the Internet. New York: Routledge.

Mitchell, Jolyon. (2003). �Emerging Conversations in the Study of Media, Religion

and Culture� in Jolyon Mitchell and Sophia Marriage (Eds.), Mediating Religion:

Conversations in Media, Religion and Culture. London: T & T Clark.

Morgan, David. (2002). �Protestant Visual Practice and American Mass Culture� in

Stewart M. Hoover and Lynn Schofield Clark (Eds.), Practicing Religion in the

Age of the Media: Explorations in Media, Religion, and Culture. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Murdock, Graham. (1997). �The Re-Enchantment of the World: Religion and the

Transformations of Modernity� in Stewart M. Hoover and Knut Lundby (Eds.),

Rethinking Media, Religion, and Culture. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Noll, Mark A. (2002). America�s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Nord, David Paul. (1984). The Evangelical Origins of Mass Media in America, 1815-

1835. Journalism Monographs, no. 88, May 1984

O�Leary, Stephen D. (2004). �Cyberspace as Sacred Space: Communicating Religion

on Computer Networks� in Lorne L. Dawson and Douglas E. Cowan (Eds.),

Religion Online: Finding Faith on the Internet. New York: Routledge.

_____. (2005). �Utopian and dystopian possibilities of networked religion in the new

millennium� in Morten T. Hojsgaard and Margit Warburg (Eds.), Religion and

Cyberspace. London: Routledge.

Poling, James N. and Donald E. Miller. (1985). Foundations for a Practical Theology

of Ministry. Nashville: Abingdon.

Russell, Letty M. (1993). Church in the Round: Feminist Interpretation of the Church.

Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press.

Schultze, Quentin J. (2003). Christianity and the Mass Media in America: Toward a

Democratic Accommodation. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Wertheim, Margaret. (1999). The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace: A History of Space

from Dante to the Internet. New York: Norton.

Wheeler, Geraldine. (2003). �Revisiting the Question of the use of Visual Art,

Imagery, and Symbol in Reformed Places of Worship� in Lukas Vischer (Ed.),

Christian Worship in Reformed Churches Past and Present. Grand Rapids, MI:

Wm B. Eerdmans.

White, Lynn Jr. (1978). Medieval Religion and Technology. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

White, Susan J. (1994). Christian Worship and Technological Change. Nashville:

Abingdon.

Williams, Peter W. (1980). Popular Religion in America: Symbolic Change and the

Modernization Process in Historical Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenctice-

Hall.

Young, Glenn. (2004). �Reading and Praying Online: The Continuity of Religion

Online and Online Religion in Internet Christianity� in Lorne L. Dawson and

Douglas E. Cowan (Eds.), Religion Online: Finding Faith on the Internet. New

York: Routledge.