We do not yet have a commons; this from the second half of this interview with Doc Searles by JD Lasica. Searles draws upon the image of how we engage with one another in a town square – a public place, its norms of interaction, and how as yet, no such set of norms is commonly held on the net. One does not need to look beyond our own indie-garden to see how true this fact is! Blogs, Yahoo groups, newsgroups, email, and even web pages, associated with our community are shamefully lacking in any sense of a commons. Why?

I think the answer to this question is not straight forward, that there are a number of factors involved, some I have already discussed in earlier posts, others, I’m only now becoming aware of.

One thing I have always prided our community on, however, is that we are often the vanguard of new interpretations of our faith, and new expressions of theology. I think we ought to see the lack of a commons on the net as an opportunity for our community to shine, rather than as a criticism of one another, and net experience across the board. We don’t need to dig too deep to uncover a basic format for giving life to this sense of a commons.

“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgement.’ But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgement . . .” – Mt. 5.21-23

Jesus said, that if we hold an act in our hearts – anger, an act of violation, then we have effectively committed the act, even if we have not realised it (Mt. 5.28). Yet through the media of blogs, emails, and chat groups, we find this anger unleashed in various ways – causing injury to the body of Christ, and thus to our own person (Rom. 12.5).

The internet while ostensibly bringing people together who would not otherwise have the opportunity for fellowship, is paradoxically an inherently impersonal medium. Jesus said that from the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks (Lk. 6.45). Today, we must re-interpret this teaching; from the fullness of the heart, the fingers type. It is so easy to forget that there is a person, a baptised member of the Body reading what you have typed. If your heart is filled with anger, revenge, and self-righteousness, and in the heat of the moment you quickly fire off a “communication” to your brother or sister – you have given “speech” to that which fills your heart, and you have thus, realised the sinful act against another.

“Therefore, encourage one another and build one another up . . .” – 1Th. 5.11

During a vigorous and potentially heated, even emotional discussion it can be difficult to recall the teaching of the Apostle. The written word, particularly in media such as net discussion groups and blogs has, I think, a greater potential to destroy, to knock someone down, than does speech alone.

There is permanence in the written media – once you click that “send” button. It is out there, and it cannot be retrieved or erased. Once it is sent, it may take days or hours, and many heartfelt exchanges before there is reconciliation.

When, on the other hand, we sit face to face, and engage one another in speech – there is an immediate possibility of clarification, and re-establishing understanding. Over 80% of our communication skill is rooted not in the written word, not in speech, but in body language; this simply cannot be conveyed in an email or a comment on someone’s blog. Awareness of this, alongside the Apostle’s teaching, means that we become disciplined, choose our language more carefully, and thus reduce the possibility of breaking another’s spirit.

If, when we engage with others in the community over potentially difficult topics we remember that we have a religious duty to build one another up, and not to destroy, or lay waste to one another; then the likely hood of building that elusive commons increases.