Mike's musings

Places and spaces

One of my MA modules focuses on Christian Community and Worship, I am currently reading about place and identity, the need for community and rootedness, I was wondering how you see the Cathedral in Second Life in the context of this Walter Brueggeman quote:

“Place is a space which has historical meanings, where some things have happened that are now remembered and which provide continuity and identity across the generations. Place is a space in which important words have been spoken which have established identity, defined vocation and envisioned destiny. Place is a space in which vows have been exchanged, promises have been made and demands have been issued. Place is indeed a protest against an uncompromising pursuit of space. It is a declaration that our humanness cannot be found in escape, detatchment, absence of commitment, and undefined freedom…Whereas pursuit of space may be a flight from history, a yearning for place is a decision to enter history with an identifiable people in an identifiable pilgrimage …”

…and this line of thought:

Philip Sheldarke points to the way that the world has effectively “shrunk” for many of us due to technological advances – but notes that space is an objective thing that is subjectively perceived and experienced differently depending on perspective.

It struck me that the Brueggeman quote could be used to both defend or to critique the Second Life Cathedral depending on your perspective.

Sally ran the question in her blog, along with Mark's response, in her blog. I've added a comment, which I thought I'd post here, as I think it's relevant.

So, I was one of the original people on the "To:" line, and I've yet to respond. Here's my attempt. I think I'm going to try to do so at two levels. The first is a response to Tim. I wrote a paper a while ago, which you can find as a post on my blog. I, too, struggle with the issue of sharing communion: and that's not the only sacrament which I find important, but which I struggle to situate in SecondLife. I hope you find the paper interesting: it attempts to deal with a number of the questions that I think you're alluding to, including, I think, the issue of sect-dom (if you will). Maybe it's not explicit, but I think the attempts we've gone to maintain an authentic Anglican voice, and to take all comers, mitigate against the (real) danger of a descent in the sect.

(15 minute hiatus while I take over putting one of the kids to bed)

The other part of my response is really to reject Brueggeman's view. I kind of see his distinction, and by his definitions, I'd say that the Anglican Cathedral in SecondLife fulfills both of them. But I think that a place - if it is separate from a space, and I think it's a useful distinction, then I think that a place is negotiated, and personal. That negotiation may be internal and personal, but as I take a postmodern view of "truth" and "experience", then whether a space is a (Brueggmannian) place is always already up for negotiation. Obvious examples are whether you find Stone Henge a "spiritual place" (and is that enough to people - even Christians - meeting there as a "church"?) or whether King's College Chapel, Winscombe parish church, a chapel in Iona, a mega-church in Orange County of the front room or your house is what leads you to "being church". In short, Brueggeman's definition - at least as presented above - is too modernist for my taste, and I think that if we insist on engaging with SecondLife with a modernist agenda, then we're sunk before we've begun.

Labels: church, secondlife

# posted by MikeCamel @ 8:06 pm