If you haven’t been to Ragamuffinsoul’s blog recently you’re missing a post for the ages (and a title to boot!).  Titled “Welcome to the First United Church of 192.168.0.1” the entry challenges the archetype of what “church” is: digital and online.

Carlos likes to play with fire, and this one’s got the fiery bowels of emotionally-charged commenters commenting.  I love it.

And although the comments are entertaining, it’s the subject matter that needs to be considered heavily.  The idea of “church” online is still taboo, even in the most progressive circles.  It is simply too radical and looks too different than the traditional roots that often times entangle.

It’s the mission of this particular blog, ChurchMag, to explore those things, ideas, and the technology that inevitably plays around and in the circle of mystery.  I love that too.

So is what @loswhit saying here true, believable, and right?  From where I stand the answer is both a “yes” and a “no”.

You see, there are a handful of base assumptions about community and online that are fundamentally required in order to successfully have a conversation that gets beyond the heated argument of semantics and disposition, and Whittaker’s post digs the dirty (which is what gets a rise out of every body… he apparently has a knack for it).

This assumption, among many others that need to be established, is that physical community cannot completely replace virtual community.  The inverse is also true: virtual community cannot completely replace physical community.

This is a base assumption, that everyone needs to understand, agree with, and come to terms with.  The conversation that Carlos is bringing up is a correlary descriptor of a functional and pragmatic outcome and/or result based on the aforementioned assumption.

Let that sit on you for a bit.  Then go finish reading his post and make a comment.  You’ll feel better that you did.