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
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.