Church of Fools, part 1

Church of Fools was a 3 month experiment conducted by Ship of Fools and the Methodist Church of Great Britain in 2004 with an eye to what online worship services might look like. After three months (plus a couple extra, due to its success) of online interactive worship, visits from various trolls (disruptive visitors), and an appearance by Satan, the experiment came to an end, at least in part. The website is still up, and the 3D bandwidth-hogging format has been changed to a less-interactive single-visitor format...but visitors still come in to pray, to be silent, and to meditate. The original creator of Church of Fools has moved to St. Pixels online church community. Jay Voorhees, a UM pastor outside Nashville TN, was a part of Church of Fools, and is my first victim, I mean, interview subject. Jay: Let me give a little background to set the stage. I was not in on the original planning for Church of Fools (COF) but was rather brought in a bit later, however I have had enough conversations with some of the founding team to give at least some information on the formation of the site. Anne: I think first off, I want to know how Ship of Fools got involved in the online church idea. Was it just for the sheer fun of it, or was there a desire to see how people might respond? How did you get involved with Church of Fools? Jay: As I am sure you know, the Ship of Fools was an online community focused around a set of bulletin boards that attempted to deal with issues of faith in a fresh way. The Ship itself took a satirical approach to the things of the church, reflecting especially the sense of humor of its founders, who maintained a traditional British sense of humor. I had been involved on the periphery of this conversation at the bequest of one of my parishioners, a man who soon became a moderator on the boards, and was involved in the earliest days of the COF project. Part of the impetus for COF arose from a group of active chat rooms at the Ship. These rooms involved some fairly serious theological discussions, and there was a feeling among some that they would be enhanced by a visually oriented chat space. As a first step the Ship did a small experiment with an online space that was (I think) based on Noah’s Ark. When response to that was positive, there was a movement by many to enter into an experiment with an online church. The Ship founders approached the Methodist Church of Great Britain about entering into a partnership on the project, and the Methodist Church provided much of the funding for what was to be a three month experiment, which then extended out after the rousing success of the project to five or six months. I became involved in the COF project at the invitation of my parishioner, and after participating in that space for a while, was asked to become one of the regular “Reverends” on the site to moderate conversations, lead worship, and generally be present. Anne: What are your thoughts about online worship settings? Do they work? What was the best thing about Church of Fools? Jay: Honestly, for me, the online worship was forced. Frankly a text based environment, even in a virtual world, doesn’t allow for the flow of thought and the expression of emotion that is necessary for heartfelt worship. On the other hand, many of the leaders and regular participants at COF had history in the Anglican tradition, and I think maintained a sense of the holy in our regular observance of morning and evening prayer. What works in maintaining these worship services is the daily discipline of gathering with others (albeit online) to focus intentionally on God. I also believe that these “services” provided an entry point back into the church for a group of persons who had been alienated by the church in the past but wished to reconnect. Coming online allowed them a safe space to dip their toes back into the water, ultimately leading some to reconnect with churches in the “real world.” What become probably the most important aspect of the SOF project was the community that arose from the online conversations between the services. People somehow found ways to bond in this online space, creating relationships of importance. Obviously, they were limited in their scope, but for many they remained very important in their lives. Anne: One of the hopes for Church of Fools was that the online community would lead to people wanting to connect with conventional churches. How did that work out? Jay: There really was no way to measure how many folks ended up connecting to conventional churches. Anecdotally, there were several (10 or so) folks who claimed that they had been away from church for many years and this project was leading them back into the practices of prayer, and considering reconnecting with “real” churches. However, there is no firm data beyond those conversations to support any claim that this directly led folks into relationships with conventional churches. Anne: What did the Church of Fools project team hope to come out of it? How did that work out for them? Did you yourself have any different hopes? Jay: I’m not sure anyone had clearly defined goals as to what would be the final outcome. It was an experiment to simply see what would happen. What happened was that a large number of folks showed up, more than anticipated. It also demonstrated the problems and limitations of online communities in that it is much easier for those inclined to come and disrupt what others are doing. My own hopes related to entering into deep conversations with persons seeking to understand God at a deeper level. That certainly happened and I think were valuable. Anne: Is the Methodist Church across the big water still interested in the project? Are there plans to move back to 3D and a more interactive experience? Jay: I’m not sure about the desire of The Methodist Church of Great Britain to remain connected to the project, although they have generally been willing to think outside the box. The COF project ended due to funding issues as maintaining a 3D environment requires a bunch of bandwidth. The leaders at the Ship unfortunately entered into a deal with the software developers which make resuming COF (or St. Pixel’s as it’s called now) at its previous level impossible due to licensing fees. At the same time, the COF ran into the same problems that traditional churches experience – differing visions among the leaders, and the stresses of identifying the commonalities of a community. There was (and continues to be) a group in the US that is proposing an alternative vision of the COF project, recognizing that COF maintained a more British feel and background and that there might be a need for a more Americanized expression. However they have been unable to find a suitable 3D environment and I am doubtful that they will get that project to happen. Anne: How would you define “postmodern”? What would you consider to be hallmarks of postmodern ministry? Does Church of Fools meet your criteria? Are there other online “churches” that you’re interested in (and what are they)? Jay: Wow, that’s a loaded question. I frankly don’t like the descriptor of “postmodern” in talking about church today for I think that there are many factors and descriptors to describe the cultural shift we find ourselves in. Postmodernism for me is the challenging of the assumptions of modernity, especially pushing against the reliance on scientific truth as the only form of truth, and taxonomic character of modern society (that is, the desire in modernity to created categories with fairly rigid boundaries). Modernity seems to me to loosely be focused on the activity of the left side of the brain – analysis, rationality, logic. On the other hand, postmodernity lifts up creativity and flexibility as values to be pursued. There is a discomfort among postmoderns with rigid categories of truth, and a recognition that scientific definitions of truth may not be the only way to define truth. Postmodern people tend to value authenticity, communal connection, and are comfortable with paradox. At the same time, I would suggest that post-colonialism is also an important factor in culture today. Post-colonialism is the movement from the centralized authority of those “in the know” to a more distributed notion of power and knowledge, with the understanding that power and authority should arise from within a community rather than be imposed by outside forces. In many ways, the rise of open source software (with the connections of “open source” to other areas of life, including church) is an example of a post-colonial mentality. It is the belief that there is power when the end users own what they are using rather than having someone determine what’s best for them. Postmodern/Post-Colonial/Emerging ministry is characterized by many things, but the quick and dirty answer would be an emphasis on shared power within a communal context, a willingness to ask difficult questions of church traditions and the scriptures, a valuing of experience as a valid revelation of God’s presence and activity in the world, leading to a more interactive form of worship. COF met many of those markers, however the tension in the community arose in the nature of communal leadership. The founders of the Ship of Fools, especially the primary leader Simon, was unable to recognize that he no longer “owned” the COF once the community began to gel in that space. Like most web site operators, he assumed that he was in control because he maintained the site. However, once a community began to be formed there, it was clear that the postmodern folks there believed that their input was important if not crucial to the success and operation of the COF. Simon and the other Ship leaders struggled to realize that the communal dynamics had changed and that authority was seen not in titles or roles, but in the interactions with the shared community. I am unaware of other online churches and have not attempted to be in contact with them.

Preliminary Thoughts on Church of Fools and St. Pixels

(see Interview with Jay Voorhees) I'm not surprised the Church of Fools experiment did not continue. It wasn't really constructed such that results could be tracked, and I'm not sure there were any real clear expectations to begin with. This creates a real disincentive for the funding body to keep paying for the bandwidth it took to run it. However, there are some long term benefits and some positive ideas that have come from Church of Fools. As Jay said, anecdotal evidence suggests that a few people found a connection through COF that hopefully motivated them to seek a relationship with a "real world" church. In addition, in reading the comments on the website, even the current 2D single-user interface has provided some meaningful space for connecting with God through prayer. The 3D St. Pixels environment seems clunky and antiquated compared to Second Life, and no wonder: it's 3 years old, which is centuries in Internet years. Text-based worship experiences there seem forced and a bit hard to follow; on occasion there are more comments than one can make sense of, and sometimes they just don't seem to make sense. I did not feel like a part of the community, but rather like a voyeur with many choices as to who I might be peeping at. In other words, it felt like a group of people each having individual experiences rather than a shared experience. These are churches online in the sense that they are intentional spaces where Christian worship may take place, but there does not seem to be meaningful deeper relationships. Everything that happens appears to happen in public space, making the worship service into an interactive performance rather than an encounter with God and others that has the power to transform lives. There is no meaningful missional emphasis, and I am finding it difficult to imagine how one might form truly incarnational relationships without some flesh-and-blood meetings. On the other hand, they made us of the technology of their time to attempt to reach a new field for evangelism. One could wish for some user data to know whether they were attracting those who were already meaningfully connected to church or those who find themselves somehow alienated from brick and mortar churches.

Jay Voorhees and Church of Fools, part 2

Anne: Would you consider being involved with a project like Church of Fools again? What would you change? Jay: Yes, I would consider being a part of a COF like project, and have maintained relationships with the US expressions, although I really don’t have the time to do much. The main problem with COF was an inability of the founders to envision a form of polity that was community driven, one that was more influenced by open-source software than something created by a centralized owner. I think that the leaders were driven more by technological wizardry rather than thinking intentionally about the nature of community, and what type of community they were creating. Communities are things that aren’t created through human efforts, but are things that we put in motion but then have lives of their own. The COF founders didn’t fully recognize and appreciate the power of what they were putting in motion, and have been unable to build upon that to create a sustaining church. Anne: How do you think the UMC in particular and Christians in general can best connect with postmoderns who are not presently connected to a church? Jay: Obviously, as is true for any form of evangelism, one has to be present with folks before one can connect them to a faith community. What I think we offer as a denomination is a theological tradition that is well situated to deal with complexity, holding in tension personal piety and social holiness. Postmoderns usually need to belong before they believe, and our “journey based” theological construct allows us the means of recognizing the unique gifts of all, and of understanding that our relationship with God is not based on a single event (walking down an aisle, saying the sinners prayer, etc.) but instead represents the adoption of a lifestyle over time. Anne: You mention shared leadership as a hallmark of ministry with postmodern/emerging people. What might this look like in a church context, functionally speaking? Alan Hirsch suggests in The Forgotten Ways that leadership in postmodern/emerging ministry will be more lay-driven, with less value placed on seminary training and ordination. What might clergy look like? Jay: Shared leadership is absolutely crucial in ministry with emerging folks. The pastor in the these models is less of the example to be emulated and much more of a co-participant in the journey, albeit with a certain task in helping to create a culture within the congregation. Certainly many of my colleagues in the evangelical end of the spectrum are very negative of seminary education, however I think that is because they experienced a theological education based in indoctrination rather than in formation. I frankly found my seminary education (Candler) to be valuable, but part of that we there was a great deal of thought given to balancing praxis and doctrine. In these kinds of congregation, however, clergy are really environmental engineers, creating spaces by which Christian community and the experience of God can flourish. Anne: So many people posit that the age of the denominational church is coming to an end. Do you share that view in regard to the church at large, or the UMC in particular? Some have suggested that we are “due” for another Great Awakening. Do you anticipate a revival/renewal movement growing out of postmodern/emerging ministry? Jay: Are we at the end of the denomination era? It depends on how denominations respond to the world around us. There is no doubt that denominations in the current American form are children of modernity, focused on institutional development and the systematization of revival along universal norms. Denominations assume that there are universal truths and practices that they hold which can be shared and experienced with little regard for the specifics of cultural settings. The great analogue to modern denominations is the notion of the fast food franchise – an organization that helps to provide uniformity to an experience (be it worship or a Big Mac) in a variety of locations. From that standpoint, denominations are certainly already dead, for “brand loyalty” means nothing these days . . . for postmoderns and moderns alike. There has to be something more than style of branding that provides meaning for this structure if it is to have any success (one reason that Open Hearts, Minds, Doors is generally ineffective is that it is built on old notions of brand identity and loyalty). Yet, I maintain hope for denominations, especially our United Methodist Church, based not in a universal experience or form, but in a shared theological heritage that provides meaning for folks searching for holistic ways to reach God. This absolutely requires an emphasis on content, not style; theology, not form. Part of the reason that I maintain this hope is that I think the church needs structures of accountability, both at the individual and small group level, and at the ecclesiological level. At that latter level, I think this needs to include not only accountability for church leaders (clergy and staff) but also accountability for congregations, holding struggling congregations to certain expectations of their faith practices. Are we due for another Great Awakening? I am always suspect of those who put too much emphasis on “revival,” fearing that we will fall into the trap of the first and second awakenings – the systematization of that revival into something that can be duplicated. I think that the emerging church is indeed bringing about renewal in certain segments of the church, especially to an evangelical world in flux with the fall of the Falwells, Robertsons, and Haggards. But it is one of those things that we won’t really know until hundreds of years later, so we are better off simply trying to be faithful to our calling by God and let the historians worry about those questions. Anne: How do you feel that that the Internet (including blogs, social networking sites, YouTube, Second Life, etc.) and other new forms of communication (text-messaging, for example) can be used to foster community and bring people into relationship with Christ? What dangers do you see in the Church adopting these means? Jay: I am the original technogeek (sometimes called the TechnoPastor) so I am not the best person to ask this question, however I do see value in these tools for facilitating alternative paths for communication. One must always remember that these things are tools in the service of a broader mission (bringing Christ, creating community, etc.) and resist the temptation to jump on the bandwagon simply because something is cool, however the proper use of these tools can indeed enhance ministry. The one mistake I often see made is the desire by Christian folks to create alternative spaces to the ones currently populated on the web. So instead of trying to be present on MySpace, we create a “MyChurch” site as an alternative, only to find that no one shows up. It is kind of like saying we’re going to build our own alternative mall with only Christian stores, and then are surprised when folks keep going to the “real” mall and shopping at Macy’s and Sears. Just as the church has to be present in the broader world, we also have to be present in the on-line world rather than creating our own Christianized ghettos. The danger is what I said above – becoming enamored with the technology and forgetting that technology is only a tool in the service of a broader goal. The church has to think through what it is trying to accomplish and then choose wisely the technological solutions that help them in that purpose. Anne: Who do you see as leaders in postmodern/emerging ministry? Who has most influenced you (positively or negatively), and how? Jay: I’ve been lucky enough to be friends with many of the public faces of the emerging church, folks like Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt of Solomon’s Porch, Dan Kimball of Vintage Faith, Tim Keel of Jacob’s Well (whose new book titled Intuitive Leadership may be one of the best introductions to the who postmodern emergent thing I’ve read), Karen Ward of Church of the Apostles, and the list goes on. These are folks who aren’t mentors but are friends, willing to engage in conversation about the variety of ways that God is calling us to be faithful. I am also especially pumped up by a new generation of United Methodist leaders involved in trying new things – D.G. Hollums in Kentucky, Jim (I can’t remember his last name) at Hot Metal Bridge in Pittsburgh, and others along the way. Anne: What sources do you consider essential for learning about and participating in postmodern/emerging ministry (books, people, websites, places, conferences, etc.)? Jay: www.emergentvillage.com ; www.ooze.com (Anne suggests maybe this should be www.theooze.com?); Soularize, most of the books in the emergent lines published by Baker, Zondervan, Josey Bass, and Abingdon; Wikipedia; Malcolm Gladwell’s “Tipping Point” and “Blink”; Friedman’s “The World is Flat”; the Alt Worship movement in Great Britain; open source theory; well, that is a start. Anne: What is your greatest hope for the Church in the future? What is your biggest fear? Jay: Greatest hope? That we might actually follow in the way of Jesus and actually help to usher in God’s kingdom on earth. Greatest fear? That we will continue to be consumed by consumerism until we are totally meaningless. Anne: What have I not yet asked that you wish I had? Go on, you might as well answer it, too. Jay: I’m out of gas, so I hope these are helpful.

Some Deeper Thoughts on COF and Jay Voorhees

Thus far, what strikes me most from what Jay has said is the notion of pastors being "environmental engineers, creating spaces by which Christian community and the experience of God can flourish." I, like Jay, found my seminary experience to be formative rather than indoctrinating, and thus a valuable part of my preparation for ministry. Coupled with the belief we share that the UMC's theological heritage may suit us to minister to postmodern/emerging people, as we live in the belief that we are on a journey of dicovering and growing in relationship with God and one another. Our Wesleyan roots give us the freedom to accept that there is tremendous mystery in our relationships with God and God's desire for us, yet we can also have assurance that God's love and presence are real, even as we work out what that means to us on an individual and corporate level. Jay also brings out the very real issue of how we can be present to postmodern/emerging people, as a way to make the prelimiary contacts that lead to relationships. I think the Internet is one valid and potentially effective way to establish a presence, whether is be through splashy websites, blogging, or local contacts through a social networking site like Facebook. I continue to be concerned that we have a way to have good and healthy relationships online, and also to have some means for these relationships to become incarnate (pardon the pun): to take on some flesh-and-blood or brick and mortar context. Jesus taught the value of affirming one another face to face, of healing touch and the ministry of being truly, physically present to one another; I don't think we can be truly successful in ministry if we do not do this, although I am also convinced that online relationships can have real value in helping people grow closer to God and one another. It's a bit of a paradox to hold both ideas in tension, but this is the place I find myself. There is an old illustration that wanders around in email from time to time about a little girl who was afraid to be alone in the dark at night. Her mother and father shone the flashlight under the bed and made sure the closet door was securely closed; they made sure no tree branches would brush up against the house and make scary noices. Finally, they told her that she would not be alone in the dark; Jesus would always be with her. "That's fine," she said, "but won't you stay with me? I like my Jesus with skin on." That's how I think most of us like our Jesus: with skin on, incarnated in the community of believers. That's why I think that virtual relationships are fine, to a point, but should lead to incarnate relationships, where we can meet our Jesus together with his skin-on body. Geez, that sounds vaguely nasty, but you know what I mean. I like my Jesus with skin on.