This past week has been a very fun and exciting week.
It’s also been a week where I’ve been called “silly”, scoffed at, and laughed at by 70 people or so, at the same time and in the same room.
Twice.
It’s because they are ignorant.
And it’s not entirely their fault.
The concept of “online church” is scary (and by no means am I suggesting a definition here… just the concept).
It challenges long-held assumptions about what “church” really is. It challenges classical and “biblical” definitions of the local church and the capital “c” Church. It’s using a medium which was widely held, at one point, as “evil” or if not completely evil, most certainly “bad”.
But reacting in fear without taking the time to understand is dangerous. Well, if anything, it can hurt people’s feelings… like mine (but that’s certainly not the “big” issue).
Now, I could have provided ample evidence and empirical data to convert many of the doubters in those audiences that their concept is limited and their understanding is shallow. That may have worked, but perhaps learning from the past might be a better place to start.
So, let’s start with the Telephone.
Back in March 0f 1876 this article, as shown in the image, came out. This is what the article said [Thanks O'Reilly!], among a number of different claims:
On page 4 of The New York Times, the article begins by describing this new device, currently being called the “Telephone,” and the exploring the possibilities “The Telephone could afford humanity.”
The writer quickly jumps into a description of the device, which “…somewhat resembles a Morse instrument…with an ear-trumpet and a curious collection of miscellaneous machinery.”
As the article continues, we are offered a variety of potential uses for this “instrument,” including the possibility of listening to music or hearing the “cooing voice of a female lecturer,” but as we read on, the writer makes the not-so-obvious point about what people will say about this new technology: “The universal use of the telephone will, of course, be viewed with disapprobation by the sound-producing part of the community, just as the introduction of labor-saving machines was met by the hostility of the laboring classes.”
We are warned that “no man will leave his own study” or “will care to go to Fourteenth street and to spend the evening in a hot and crowded building. In like manner, many persons will prefer to hear lectures and sermons in the comfort and privacy of their own rooms, rather than go to the church or the lecture-room.”
As these warnings continue, we are told that “…the telephone, by bringing music and ministries into every home, will empty the concert-halls and the churches.”
Some pretty hefty claims, huh? Melodramatic perhaps? I especially like the claim that it’ll empty churches. I guess that didn’t really happen, did it?
But let’s remember the context. Let’s remember, or try to understand their feelings about it. It was threatening. It was scary. It was an “unknown”.
They reacted. Over-reacted. Badly. So did the audiences that I was a part of last week. I understand that, and I forgive them. But seriously people, we’ve been through this before! This is not the first nor the last time that technology will threaten the old-guard establishments, practices, and personnel.
Get over it. Let’s have some grace, too, while we’re at it.
Oh, and if you’re a “doubter”… you should read my blog more often.
Still smarting over the on line church episode, eh? So, you suffered for Chrust and are not happy about it, huh? (Just messing with you man, do not take it serious)
I think the only time when new ideas are embraced totally and openly with widespread, universal enthusiasm is when the masses get it wrong. New directions require new thinking and someone to lead the way. If it is more of the same, people are comfortable with it and accept it easier, or they know they need change but do not know which way to go so they question (oand sometimes jeer at) a new thought.
All I know is it is impossible to go back, hard to stand still and daunting to move forward. But forward seems to be the easier path.
all good. i'm over it.
kinda.
for the good!
What a great find, John! I did notice, however, that the article seems to have been at least partially right.
Certainly, the concert halls are not "empty", but people do consume much differently than the 1870s thanks to radio and ipods, and the church has seen its fair share of shifts in opinion with TV preachers.
So, it's not that new technologies are necessarily bad or evil (as a "hater" might say), but to deny that technology has any effect on society or the church (as a "lover" might say), is probably just as "ignorant."
hater.
hater.
The Church as we know is not the same Church of the New Testament. There are a lot of interpretations behind the hermeneutics of ecclesiology. Thus we have denominations. Perhaps we should consider the online church movement as a denomination?
Doubters…take heed!
hmm. that's interesting.
I sat in on a Lifegroup yesterday and I'm hooked. I don't have time
to physically meet offline at the moment. But this rocks. And the
dude knew his stuff.
sweet! who led it?
David Helbig, Internet Campus Pastor at Christ Fellowship Church
very cool!
I've experienced more growth and life-change in the past month with an "online church" than I have in the past year at my "in-person" church. Maybe it's an issue with the in-person church, maybe not. But growth has happened nonetheless. And I'm grateful.
that's awesome. it's obviuosly working… right?
It is true what you said about the doubters. They fear it will replace the local church when really it's intended to grow the local church. Definitely many control issues hold churches back as well. I am excited for the online church to continue to grow, expand and minister in a way that has never been done before. Of course, all for God's glory.
It is true what you said about the doubters. They fear it will replace the local church when really it's intended to compliment, develop and grow the local church. Definitely many control issues hold churches back as well. I am excited for the online church to continue to grow, expand and minister in a way that has never been done before. Of course, all for God's glory.
fear weakens…
Oh wow…hmm, I am not commenting on the post, but the twitter activity underneath…
yeah, i took em down. i'm going to have to edit.
Yeah, I think the layout needs to be different. The tweetbacks add distraction to the conversation.
yeah.
i was laughing tonight as i was talking like bubba from forrest gump and talking about the drive-in church http://www.driveinchurch.net/; the home church; the tent-church;the tv church;the online church.
very cool. never seen that.
FYI,all ye doubters.I did tune in to Lifechurch last night. the music was off the hook!
I have never 'connected' to an online church (bandwidth and time zone issues). But I was very surprised when I read your initial tweet about the response you got to posing the question at school. I suppose to use the word evolve is also contentious, but this is how the church evolves. As @Jim said way above this comment the church today is not the same as the church 200 years ago, they did not even have a piano back then.
it's slowly working…