Fragments II

In what ways can the act of writing make us heroic? Perhaps to the extent that we reveal who we truly are, we can become heroic (or antiheroic). By expressing our concerns, inadequacies, uncertainties, doubts, and (dis)abilities, we can become heroic (or antiheroic). By being honest with ourselves (and with others), about ourselves, and by making ourselves vulnerable to others, we can become heroic (or antiheroic).

I think sometimes I may take the intuition, "That's just my opinion," as an excuse for not expressing my feelings or judgments about things.

One of the reasons I haven't given up on the idea of being a philosopher (however that calling may be defined) is that I feel I still have things to say that I haven't yet said: things that are interesting (at least to me, and hopefully to others as well), and things that need to be said (even though I may not yet know exactly what they are).  Perhaps there are things the world needs to hear about that I may be in a suitable position to tell the world about. "The world needs to hear from you, because you might actually something important to say," I say to myself. Perhaps we should try to support and encourage one another in this way, in order to discover exactly what it is we have to say to the world and what is unique and distinctive to each of our own perspectives.

Variations on the Ubuntu principle that "a person is a person through other persons":

A person becomes a person through others.

We become, and are, who we are through others.
I am, because you are (I.A.B.Y.A.).
I am who I am, because you are who you are.
As long as you are, I am.
If you weren't who you are, then I wouldn't be who I am.

If you weren't "you," then I wouldn't be "me."
My being "me" is due, in no small part, to your being "you."
Indeed, my being "me" is only possible through your being "you."
I am who I am, because of you, and through you.
I love you, because you are "you" (i.e. because you are who you are).
Without you, I couldn't say, "I am," because there's no "I" without "you."
My being "me" is only possible through you.

Some Limitations of Video Conferencing and Live Streaming as Media for Conducting Church Services

(1) Church services via video conferencing or live streaming may not be accessible to those who don't have internet access. They may also not be accessible to those who have difficulty downloading a conference app or have difficulty connecting to a platform (such as Zoom, Facebook Live, or YouTube Live). Vulnerable populations, such as the poor and the elderly, will be among the most likely to be denied access to online church services. Many elderly people may not feel comfortable using computers or may prefer not to use them. Conferencing or streaming platforms shouldn't in effect be able to decide who can go to church and who can't.
(2) Some churches may not have the technical resources to do video conferencing or online streaming.

(3) Services outages, cyberattacks, and other disruptions may occur during video conferencing or online streaming.

(4) Audio disruptions may be embarrassing for the host, and may be difficult to immediately correct without returning to the point at which the disruption occurred and then resuming the broadcast.

(5) Participants may find they've unintentionally muted themselves or been intentionally muted by the host.

(6) Noisy participants who haven't muted themselves or been muted by the host may be unaware that the noise in their environment is disrupting the service.

(7) It may be difficult or impossible to synchronize the voices of a choir or congregation in order to allow them to sing together, since each participant may have a different connectivity speed to the internet. Singing together may therefore result in cacophony.

(8) The "Hollywood Squares" format on Zoom is kind of cheesy. Participants are visible in little boxes on a screen, and a limited number of participants are visible on any particular screen view.

(9) Sacraments may not be able to be administered via the internet, due to guidelines established by the church.

"Church" as a Noun without an Article

Figures of speech employing the noun "church" without a definite or indefinite article, e.g. "being church" or "doing church," seem to be used with increasing frequency by clergy and laypeople. Why not use the definite article "the" or the indefinite article "a" when using the noun "church"? Instead of saying "being church," why not say "being the church" or "being a church"? Instead of asking "What is Church?", why not ask "What is the Church?" or "What is a Church?" Is there really something noteworthy signified by the dropping of the article before the noun or is this merely a popular form of speech that's increasingly being used out of habit?

      The noun "church," like the nouns "hospital" and "university," may often be used without an article, e.g. "We're in church" or "George is in hospital" or "Margaret is in university," without referring to any specific church or hospital or university.

      The question "What is Church?" might have a slightly different meaning than the question "What is church?", however. The capitalization of "Church" might imply the institutional nature of the Church, while the non-capitalization of "church" might imply its everyday reality.

      The question "What is Church?" and the question "What is church?" also bring to mind the experience of going to church or being in church (or a church) or being in the midst of a congregation. To be "in church" is also to be in community (or a community) with others. ("Community" is another noun that seems to be used increasingly frequently without a definite or indefinite article). To be "in church" or "in community" is also for members to be in communion with one another.

       Thus, the question "What is Church?" brings to mind that Church (or a Church or the Church) may not be a physical location. It may be a form of koinonia (fellowship, unity, and joint participation) that Church members share with one another. Church members may be present with and for one another, in community or as a community, in virtual or actual reality, in the online as well as the physical world. Church members may also be with and for one another, even when they are "socially distanced" or physically separated,¹ because they are part of, and belong to, the same spiritual body.

FOOTNOTES

¹Susan Ella George, Religion and Technology in the 21st Century: Faith in the E-World (Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing, 2006), p. 120.