There is a need for the church to be thinking about the theology behind their databases,  and what our theology suggests about how to expand them to be EXTRA relational;  in other words,  not only technically relational,  but theologically and “ecclesiological-ly” relational.  We need to think about our databases more like Mark Zuckerberg did:  looking for ways to connect people by interests, likes, friends of theirs we might also like,  etc.  But we also have a theological stake in doing that.  The church itself is to have an underlying theology that focuses on the power of the relationship between us as a body;  the parts we each represent are always ins each of community,  so that those parts can complement one another and enable a BODY which is an effective change agent;  a light that reveals what the Kingdom of God is about.

There is a whole universe of “taxonomy” in our theological language.  Theological terms,  often expressed under the umbrella of particular pieties,  have widely divergent meanings in a fundamentalist “Bible-believing” culture than in a more liberal (or is more fashionable today “Progressive”) context.  So the use of certain terms alongside or in close proximity to other terms and adjectives can distinguish between what “Biblical” means;  what “faithful” means;  what “Christian” means.  In looking for relevant conversations and communities hold possibility for us, certain terms may steer some away prematurely,  and others may draw us in further.

Communities of interest  are often “hangouts” for people looking for others who express similar reasons for “liking” a particular book, TV show, movie,  or music.  (ie. Library Thing, Facebook, IMDB, or iTunes,  as well as many others for each).  These communities attract a certain audience,  but depending on the breadth of appeal,  the audience could vary in diversity.

It would be a useful exercise to see what comes up when you start breaking down theological terminology and what kinds of theologies there are,  and which groups use certain words most often in proximity to each other.  And proceed on to books, Bible passages,  church denominations, politics,  etc.  One would probably amass a huge chart of relational data that would begin to show us what we’re dealing with.  A few years ago,  when I was helping build a sermon database application for a sermon sharing site,  this issue of taxonomy was talked about but then set aside.  It was not a popular idea to consider how to categorize theologies of the sermon browsing-and/or-providing member.  Although we may well decide that such things are not so advisable on the front end,  we still have use for such categories on the back end.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.  Exploration of this terrain is sparse.  But Facebook seems to be going much further than any in doing this.  I long for the same sort of devotion to our “data” as we see in the secular world.  We’ve so much to learn about thinking theologically about our databases.