Praising God Online

Social Interaction on the Internet

The primary objection most people have to online Christian practices is that they are highly individualistic and impersonal. While there is some truth to this concern, the Internet can actually enhance genuine human interaction, in part because of the unique aspects of online communication. For instance, the immediacy of responses, on the one hand, and the freedom to postpone a response, on the other, make Internet conversation different from letter writing, in the first instance, and from face-to-face conversation, in the second.

This freedom to respond immediately or postpone a response coupled with the wall of anonymity created by the computer screen allows some people to be less self-conscious about things that inhibit them from speaking in face-to-face encounters. They may become funnier, more relaxed, and more comfortable with themselves online. Teenagers sometimes find they can talk online about depression, sexual orientation, their parents’ pending divorce, or even thoughts of suicide, getting help they need but would never seek in face-to-face encounters. Even when speaking to people one knows, the “disinhibition effect” created by the computer screen can free the individual to say things without the restrictions that may apply in person. ³ Students, for instance, who never speak in class, sometimes find that knowing that others cannot see them in an online discussion and being able to collect their thoughts before posting their comments help them overcome the shyness or lack of confidence that prevents them from speaking before a group in person.

The Internet also connects people in a manner never before possible. In some ways, online communication is the twenty-first century version of pen pals, but with a significant difference: with a single posted message, one can instantly have hundreds of pen pals as well as an immediate response from friends, family, or total strangers. Hence, strangers can readily offer emotional support or share information regarding a common problem. Friends and family members can cope with separation by emailing and Skyping as well as texting. Friendships are forged, and some people have met online the person they eventually marry.

There is, of course, a downside to Internet communication. The disinhibition effect that allows people to express themselves more freely also allows people to assume a persona completely different from their own. Online communication provides a screen (literally) behind which a person can hide, never showing his or her true identity, increasing the possibility of self-deception as well as the ability to deceive others. ⁴ There is also growing concern that some people prefer online communication to the physical presence of friends or family and that using the Internet can become both isolating and addictive.

When assessing online social interaction, one issue debated by experts is whether a group of virtual “pen pals” can constitute a genuine community. Sherry Turkle has her doubts. Although she once used the word “community” to describe social networking websites, such as Facebook, she now believes she “used the word ‘community’ for worlds of weak ties.” ⁵ John Suler, on the other hand, readily uses the word “community” to describe various online groups, but insists these virtual communities work best when members maintain a connection to the non-virtual world: “For a community to be healthy and productive—for it to have ‘staying’ power—its members must integrate their online lives with their in-person lives.” ⁶

Whether the Internet can produce genuine community is especially important for evaluating a church that exists entirely online—a topic that will not be addressed here. It is also important for considering the integrity of online church practices. Are they entirely individualistic, or can they grow from and even create a stronger sense of connection and community among Christians? The remainder of this article will explore two Christian practices that are offered online. One, confession of sin, will be examined from the perspective of secular versions of this Christian practice. The other, Communion, is offered by entirely online churches, but also by some pastors who serve “regular” churches. The issue of anonymity, which increases the disinhibition effect, is especially important in analyzing online confession, while the question of whether genuine community arises online most informs the discussion regarding Communion.

Confession of Sin

Prior to the sixteenth century, Catholics made individual confession in full view of a priest with no expectation of anonymity. In 1564, the archbishop of Milan, Charles Borromeo, ordered that confession be made in an enclosed space with a grill set between the priest and the penitent; this practice was nearly universal by the seventeenth century. ⁷ Today, confession in the Catholic Church has reverted to something like its original form: the confessional booth has been replaced with face-to-face meetings with a priest. A quick look at Internet postings reveals that some Catholics prefer the personal encounter with a priest, saying it provides a more powerful understanding of repentance and forgiveness, while others find the lack of anonymity awkward and embarrassing, making it more difficult to be honest. ⁸

Some websites today offer complete anonymity as they invite people (who are not necessarily Catholic or even religious) to confess their sins online. DailyConfession.com provides a good example:

DailyConfession.com is the only place in the world that you can go to truly confess your sin (or sins), your transgressions, your humanity, in complete anonymity. So, let it go! Tell the whole world what you did (or didn’t do.) … This is where you can actually confess the sins that you would never admit to your priest, or your mother for that matter! … DailyConfession.com is a Secular (not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body) forum. ⁹

According to Anne Machalinski from The Arizona Star, some people feel less isolated when reading other people’s confessions (realizing they are not the only ones who fall into error) and some feel a burden lifted when they confess their own. Regarding the latter, one woman reported, “I get relief; I feel like a load has been lifted off of me.” ¹⁰ This experience of relief, however, is somewhat problematic. As Sherry Turkle observes, most people who confess online are ready to confess, but not to apologize; people tend to go online “to feel better, not to make things right.” ¹¹ As one woman told her, “This is my way to make peace … and move on.” ¹² Dietrich Bonhoeffer called the need to confess in order to feel better without seeking to make amends “cheap grace.” ¹³ Similarly, Turkle notes, “Online spaces offer themselves as ‘cheap’ alternatives to confronting other people.” ¹⁴ Once people confess, they absolve themselves from guilt. The confession itself, not subsequent repentance and reconciliation with the one harmed, allows them to move on.

Granting that this practice involves theatrics, love of gossip, and the need to judge others as well as a conspicuous lack of repentance, the church would, nevertheless, do well to examine the dynamics of online confession for the purpose of evaluating its own practice. Protestants do not require congregants to confess to a priest or pastor; typically confession is expressed in a unison prayer or by the worship leader in the prayers of the people. While some individuals seek pastoral care when struggling with a personal sin, and sometimes the need to be relieved of guilt is expressed in the face of death, many people bear heavy burdens of guilt they do not know how to handle and sometimes carry to their graves. Does a unison prayer of confession really meet people’s need to unburden their individual sense of guilt, to hear God’s grace, and to be called to repentance and action? The liturgy should include prayers of confession, but perhaps something else is needed to encourage individuals to confess personal sins and be empowered to repent and make amends. Could the computer screen serve the same purpose as the grill that separated a confessor and a priest, allowing parishioners to unburden their guilt to their pastor and, unlike their secular online counterparts, be encouraged to seek avenues of reconciliation? Admittedly, such a practice could be dangerous if not handled with skill. If inviting parishioners to confess their sins online is too risky to endorse, the popularity of secular versions of online confession should at least encourage churches to consider how they can better help people come to terms with their guilt and make amends in the context of receiving God’s grace.

Communion

Whether maintained by a church that exists solely online or offered by a recognized denomination or independent church, some websites now offer online Communion. Given the untraditional context, one finds surprisingly traditional Communion services read out loud while the words appear on screen or shown as a video with the elements blessed and the words of institution proclaimed by a pastor. Typically, people are instructed to pour the juice and have a piece of bread or cracker ready prior to participating in Communion online and then give the elements to themselves in front of a computer screen at the appropriate time. Why would anyone want to take Communion online? Answering that question may help us discern what can be learned from online Communion even if we disagree with the practice.

Although there are many reasons why individuals take Communion online, the most compelling one has to do with their inability (rather than unwillingness) to attend church in person. They may be too sick or disabled to leave their house to attend church, or their jobs may demand travelling on Sundays. They may live too far from a church or travel too often to make home Communion possible. While some people may seek an individualized spiritual experience with no commitment to the church, others want a connection to a congregation, and some people report a keen sense of connection when they know they are taking Communion at the same time as other online participants. Andrew Thompson, a United Methodist pastor who criticizes the practice, insists that if people “won’t make the commitment to be present in worship [they] do not meet the bare minimum requirement of discipleship.” ¹⁵ But two United Methodist pastors who have (independently of one another) offered Communion online insist they are not seeking to cater to people who simply do not want to come to church, but to serve people who cannot attend yet want to be part of a community receiving the Eucharist. ¹⁶

One important question raised by online Communion is, How should churches reach out to people who are estranged from the church either by decision or circumstance? Certainly offering Christian practices “on demand” is not the right approach, but neither is ridicule. Claims such as Thompson’s that taking juice and a cracker alone at home in front of a computer screen “is nothing more than a snack” should be resisted. ¹⁷ This mocking attitude will not make the embodied church a place people would like to join.

Gordon Mikoski convincingly argues that offering Communion online defies both the embodied and communal nature of the sacrament. ¹⁸ Christians are called as the Body of Christ to come to the Table together and in person. Even home Communion typically includes the presence of a pastor or one or more elders who represent the congregation. However, even if we agree with Mikoski, we need to ask whether most parishioners who take Communion in a “regular” church approach the Table not as part of a communal gathering, but in search of a highly personal moment of grace between themselves and God. To borrow Turkle’s phrase, when the elements are passed from person to person in the pews or administered to congregants who come forward and kneel at the rail, are parishioners doing anything other than receiving the elements “alone together”? Acknowledging that the practice of Communion in church may be as individualistic as offering Communion to individuals online does not suggest that the latter must be defended. It should, however, encourage churches to consider how they practice Communion, seeking ways to emphasize the very thing that online Communion supposedly lacks: a real sense of the communal nature of participating in the Heavenly Banquet.

The Church’s Use of the Internet

Dietrich Bonhoeffer observed that “the physical presence of other Christians is a source of incomparable joy and strength to the believer,” because in the nearness of another Christian we recognize “a physical sign of the gracious presence of the triune God.” ¹⁹ The church should never relinquish the importance of embodied relationships. Furthermore, it should strive to be a place where people feel safe and welcome even when, lacking the anonymity of the Internet, others know how they look, what their bad habits are, what they fear, and what they hope for. Nevertheless, the church should recognize the potential power of the Internet to promote human understanding, combat loneliness, and share the Gospel. Referring to Facebook, Leonora Rand has noted how the Internet can connect people in a manner that the church no longer can by providing a place “where on a daily basis we can confess our sins, weep together and laugh together, know the intimate details of one another’s lives and pray for one another in very specific ways.” ²⁰ Ignoring the Internet would be equivalent to ignoring the telephone when it was first invented, insisting that only face-to-face encounters mattered. For all its dangers and pitfalls (which certainly exist), social interaction on the Internet via email, Facebook, and websites (as well as texting and tweeting) are here to stay. The church can reject these as superficial sources for enabling Christians to connect with one another, or it can find creative ways to use them that are theologically sound and that not only protect, but promote the integrity of the Body of Christ in the world that the church is called to be. One does not have to agree with offering Christian practices such as confession and Communion online to believe that churches should learn to use the Internet as something more than a vehicle for sending newsletters or maintaining webpages and consider how (not whether) the Internet can enhance, but never replace, the physical gathering of Christians in the place we call church.