The language we use about God is revealing. Do we allow God a name, personhood; or do we avoid any suggestion that God can be talked about except indirectly, using analogy and periphrasis? Can anyone speak about God, or is that reserved to a privileged few? What constitutes religious authority online, and how do we discuss religion in a way that makes sense to believers?
My own answer would probably be found unsatisfactory by many. While I think that the internet offers great opportunities for exploring religion, the drawbacks are numerous. Authority is conferred by the search engines, not experience; the opinions of the weird and wacky are just as "important" as those of the thoughtful. The instantaneous nature of the internet also means that we can respond immediately, without thinking through the consequences of our actions. That tends to make some religious pages unpleasant places to be, full of vitriol and point-scoring.
Perhaps the fundamental problem is that we approach the internet as a tool in the service of religion. We use it for setting out our teachings about God, our particular "brand" of religion, and for creating our own religious club online (I exaggerate a little, but not much). As a Benedictine, I prefer to think of the internet as a sacred space, a place where everything we do is under the watchful gaze of God. It is already "religious". Our business, therefore, is to use this space in a way that is consistent with our beliefs about God.
Doing so immediately shifts the focus from preaching about God (whether to believers or non-believers) to worshipping God (something we share with those who do not subscribe to our particular beliefs). It enables us to be both supremely free and yet sensitive to others. Religious dialogue is often presented as an attempt to minimise difference, whereas true dialogue, of any kind, means clarity about one's own position and respect for that of the other.
I wonder whether adoption of the monastic practice of chapter would change the way in which we talk about God online. Chapter is essentially a way of seeking a common mind on some subject or of deepening faith and observance. It begins and ends with prayer and is conducted on democratic lines. Everyone is trusted to speak frankly but courteously. Any lack of authenticity tends to show itself pretty clearly so that it is effectively self-policing.
If we had something of this idea of chapter in mind whenever we went online, would the way in which we talk about God change? Would we be more modest in our claims to speak on God's behalf, more reverent towards those whose understanding of God differs from our own? Would we be able to eliminate the offensive and downright ridiculous, not by suppressing but by making their crudeness/absurdity manifest?
I don't know, but I have a suspicion that believers and non-believers alike might find this more attractive than the free-for-all that exists at present. We would be creating a safe and friendly place where we could explore religion, talk about it, experience it. It is the latter that is missing from most religious activity online. We talk about God; we don't "do" God.
Finding the right venue space within budget, location and size constraints can be the toughest part of planning an event. And the most time-intensive part of the process is doing the due-diligence around booking a space, from finding contacts to calling event managers to find info about size, price, to signing contracts and more. While hiring an event planner can save some of the strain caused by this responsibility, this can be an expensive undertaking. Today, Y Combinator-backed Venuetastic is launching as an easy to use event venue marketplace. It’s essentially a comparison shopping site for booking event venues.