The conversation continues…
There have been two (or three, depending on how you look at it) posts of recent that take a look at the Church Online from different perspectives: Bob Hyatt’s manifesto against the “Virtual Church” (Part 1 here / Part 2 here) and then Tony Steward’s responses to “Concerns About Church Online” over at CatalystSpace.
I think both points are valid and I can respect both equally (just as much as I respect the fact that you may like chocolate icecream while I think vanilla is far superior). Different yet valid and equal in their own merit.
I also think some of the resulting comments and commentary is also worth a read too.
At times it seems that we stand as a body and Church divided where those that espouse the amazing opportunity of online communication platforms are rubbed hard against those that say it’s theological and biblical nonsense.
And that, my friends, makes me sad.
Although most readers here are familiar with my position (one post about it here) let me be clear that I’m not dogmatic about it; there is much conversation (and education) still to be had surrounding what [C]hurch is in the context of online as well as the obvious and potential dangers of engaging online at all (go read some of John Dyer’s thoughts here).
If I am to be dogmatic about anything though it would probably be this: Christ came and died for people, not for the ways and protocols in which that message was shared and communicated. I’m suggesting an order of importance here, perhaps things we hold in “closed fists” and that which may be held in “open hands.”
Also, I think everything has its context and it’s ok to not understand the other parties’ perspective. It becomes dangerous when out of that misunderstanding and ignorance births vitriolic banter and accusatory remarks.
For example, I used to make extremely derogatory remarks about Apple, their products, and their fans and customers; that was before I realized how amazing their hardware architecture was for motion graphics, video, and multimedia and how it was actually superior to the Windows-based machines. Contextually I was a graphic artist and developer; this spoke to me directly and it all made sense. I had a personal encounter, a personal experience.
What happened? I changed, and it was due to being educated, learning, and understanding that which I was heavily criticizing.
I wish we’d give more opportunity to have those personal encounters and experiences with the varying perspectives, especially those that we don’t automatically agree with or understand; we could save ourselves a lot of regret (and time).
Finally, don’t give the Church a bigger black eye online than it already has just because you feel like blogging about it. The world’s watching (and reading), have you forgotten?
[Image from CTRL-F5]
Wesley Allen says
Online presence? Sure. Online outreach? Yup . Online relationships? Absolutely. The Internet is a communications medium and we have a story to communicate.
But, try as we might an online church is no more a "church" than singing is "worship."
Why? Because in an online church there's no way to physically incarnate the manifestation of Christ. The net, while real, is a virtual reality – and for the Church to manifest then the real relationships that form on the net need to cross over into the reality where physical incarnation is possible. How, for example, would you share Communion in a virtual space?
Granted, the notion of the Church as the continuation of the incarnational presence of Jesus has been almost obliterated by American Evangelicalism, and among the same the idea of communion being anything other than "my communion with Jesus" has been lost (just look at the stupid shot glasses we Baptists use) – but to me, that lack of reflection on the nature of the Church is why we so casually label our online efforts a "virtual" or "online" church.
I just think we can do better here.
Daniel_Berman says
You raise many good points, and these need to be addressed by Church's leading online ministries and ChurchCrunch is a good forum to raise such questions in.
However, at the same time many people have raised similar questions both in this time frame and stretching back to the printing press with similar concerns I would imagine about the "proper Christian response" to many different communications technologies and its effects Christian community. Unfortunately I see a large number of people willing to offer criticisms but very few step forward with solutions. There's definitely a need to encourage people to think, but I think that privilege often abused. With the utmost of respect, if you don't have a solution don't offer a critique….
Daniel_Berman says
You raise many good points, and these need to be addressed by Church's leading online ministries and ChurchCrunch is a good forum to raise such questions in.
However, at the same time many people have raised similar questions both in this time frame and stretching back to the printing press with similar concerns I would imagine about the "proper Christian response" to many different communications technologies and its effects Christian community. Unfortunately I see a large number of people willing to offer criticisms but very few step forward with solutions. There's definitely a need to encourage people to think, but I think that privilege is often abused. With the utmost of respect, if you don't have a solution don't offer a critique….
human3rror says
perhaps i need a solution in this post…
Daniel_Berman says
My comment was mostly directed at Wesley, but in reference to you; its one thing to discuss the fact that there's been discussion about certain points its quite another to level specific complaints without an alternative.
Daniel_Berman says
My comment was mostly directed at Wesley, but in reference to you; its one thing to discuss the fact that there's been discussion about certain points its quite another to level specific complaints without an alternative.
But proposed solutions are nice…
Wesley Allen says
"With the utmost of respect, if you don't have a solution don't offer a critique…."
I've had about 7 or 8 responses written to this, none of which were appropriate because, frankly, I'm rather ticked.
Here's the deal. I read the posts, appreciated all of them, and threw in my two cents – and got smacked for really no good reason.
I didn't offer a "solution" because I don't see a serious internet presence for Churches as a "problem." I rather see the online and physical realities of the Church in this age as a "both/and" reality that requires a lot of deep reflection as well as interaction.
Daniel_Berman says
And right here is a graphical illustrations of misunderstandings of communication from text alone. My apologies Wesley. Its very easy to put people in boxes. I have read way to much criticism of Church online, and it gets old really fast.
That said why is it so hard for people to understand this both/and reality?
joannamuses says
The whole online church thing is one i'm reluctant to put out a firm conclusion on yet. I hope it does work, but i have some reservations i'm stil thinking through/watching for evidence.
On a less serious note, i'd be interested in your answers to the questions about online church posted on stuff christians like recently http://stufffchristianslike.blogspot.com/2009/08/…
Jim says
i loved those questions!
Name:Mark Thomas says
The focus of online church should only be to encourage people to actually attend a physical church in their community. It should make people want to actually be there rather than give them an excuse not to.
Why is being at a U2 concert so much better than watching the DVD? Because by actually attending you’re taking part in and contributing to the spirit and growth that only happens when people gather in one accord, expecting to experience something magical. Why be just a spectator when you can actually be there?
klreed189 says
It is funny how you can go to church online with thousands of people and even converse with them in chat. But it does not fill the need of the physical presence of another person. Crazy thing
NicCharalambous says
For sure. That's exactly the strategy that we at NewSpring are now wholly committed to pursuing. We want to see people enter an online church experience as a way of hearing the good news for the first time or reconnecting after a long absence and then disciple them into a local, physical community of faith.
klreed189 says
Good stuff and great reminder of the ultimate mission and message…"while we were still sinners, christ died for us."
Where you were talking about the education of it all, it reminds me of twitter and facebook. Often times I hear people talk about twitter in a negative light until they are educated and have an experience with it, then their attitude changes completely and they are hooked.
I think the same can be said about church online experiences. It is pretty easy to stand from afar and bash it, but when you experience it, you perspective is changed.
John, you and others are leading the way on this great message that the web is not such a bad place for church.
Cliff says
I believe that too many people degrade online church for everything it is not. Yes, with online church you do not get the personal and social interaction. Online church is not an all encompassing replacement for a physical church. Many critics of online church believe that is the purpose, but some of the actual online church producers will tell you different.
As believers one of our main goals should be to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ around the world. That is what online church does. It is another vehicle for evangelism. Shouldn't we celebrate it for this purpose?
There are millions of people around the world who are unable to make it to a physical church for a variety of reasons. Online church has the ability to reach those people. I honestly can not criticize any vehicle that helps people develop a closer relationship to God.
NicCharalambous says
Amen, Cliff. As a "producer" of online church here at NewSpring, we never set out to replace physical attendance and membership of a local body of believers. We set out to be a pathway to it.
ntumlinson315 says
Isn't church online better than no church online? Last time I checked if Jesus really enters someone's life, doesn't He deposit the Holy Spirit that enables a believer to walk in the ways of God? If that means physical relationships with other believers, don't you think God would quicken someone's heart to do so in addition to being online? Please don't get me wrong Im trying not to overspiritualize, but I think many people are underspiritualizing what God can do online. If you are asking questions about is that "really real" then we are crossing over to the arena of philosophy, and you could chase tails all day long on this one. Anyways that's my banter, for what its worth.
gabehoffman says
"Isn't church online better than no church online?"
You'd think it was that simple wouldn't you? Does Bob Hyatt really think that lifechurch and northpoint, and all of us that do it, should just stop and that's better. I'm glad Paul used the technology of his day (letters) to communicate God's truth to people that were immediately outside the range of his voice. Nobody is saying don't get together in real life with other believers. It's a good thing that people like this weren't around in the early church, he might have really freaked out on Paul when he wrote to the Corinthians (1 Cor 9:22) that "To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some." Do we try to save some, or not? It's that simple Bob. Really. To people that are online, do we go online?
And really Paul gives us a lot of liberty in ways to get the gospel out there, he just wanted it out there, even if people were trying to building themselves up or tear him down to do it (Phil 1:18) he would rejoice in it. That's more than I can do, but it's what we should aim for.
@adamrshields says
This is basically my position. I am open to being shown to be wrong, but I just don't get how online church is somehow so opposite to Christianity that it would be better to not do online church.
johnwsnyder says
Just like anything new and foreign there will be resistance. Church isn't just what happens on Sunday mornings. Church also happens the rest of the week outside of the church walls and even on the internet. I don't think the debate for church online will ever end. Just like there are hundreds of other debates in the church that we are still having that aren't going away. Whether you agree with it or not, it's not going to go away. The best thing we can do is support it and hope that it is reaching people where they are. I suggest if you don't like it or are against it but have never tried it, try it. It might open your eyes to things you have never seen before.
John Dyer says
Just some observations:
(1) Many of the criticisms of the online church come from people who seem to be unaware of how much technology they have already embraced. It's a bit surprising to see someone from a mega-church with video screens and air conditioning not at least acknowledge that they are only one tiny step back from an online church compared to a church 100 years ago,
(2) Many of the criticisms about online church seem to apply equally to the mega church movement (particularly in regards to community, but even in regards to the sacrament of communion).
(3) Many of the criticisms about online church are very important to be aware of. However, a criticism or concern does not automatically mean a ministry shouldn't take place. Doing ministry with prostitutes can be dangerous (it might lead to dancing!), and if someone doing ministry with prostitutes acts like it's not an issue they are clearly wrong, but those concerns don't automatically mean one shouldn't do the ministry.
(4) I write long comments.
(5) I love John Saddington!
NicCharalambous says
John: incisive comments as usual, and I particularly like the fact that you pointed out the 800-pound gorilla of how so much of the criticisms of online church center on community, which is hands down the weakest aspect of modern (megachurch) evangelicalism. At NewSpring, we think it's best to move boldly but humbly and cautiously in this new area of ministry because all of us believe passionately that we please the heart of God by trying to reach people with his love who aren't being reached right now. Ministry is always dangerous. As you say, we shouldn't let it stop us.
John Dyer says
John S. or John D. 🙂
Norman Tumlinson says
"ministry is always dangerous"- love it.
NicCharalambous says
JohnD 🙂
Mike says
I think a lot of the currently accepted practices in churches were once heavily criticized at some point. Take having bible in each person's hand for example. But look at now, don't think anyone can imagine a believer without a bible of their own. I think the topic of online church in a way is the same. So long as people are mindful about how the medium could potentially alter the message and thus to make sure the core message stays intact.
@megodbike says
Many of the anti-online comments on here and criticisms elsewhere seem to point to the lack of fellowship online. Just speaking from personal experience, I have met more people who would be willing to share their lives with me, walk with me one day at a time and fight spiritual battles with me, than I find in many British (I don't know about America) physical churches. I cannot start debating on theology, but just from my own experience.