What's key here is "the definition of church as a process of taking one step after another along the faith journey." I am sorry to say that this definition is completely unfounded scripturally.

The Bible over and over again describes the church, the ekklesia as a group of people, never as a process (point it out if you find it). The church is the called-out ones, who have gathered together under Christ as their head, not a process that can be done individually and without interaction with other Christians.

I appreciate the technological advancements and the pragmatics of an internet church, but frankly it scares me that the definition of church is being redefined far beyond what scripture puts it as.

I can see discipleship as a process like the above, but even during the process of discipleship the disciple is required to interact with others (Hebrews 10, especially verse 25, as well as the incredible number of "each-other" verses that Frank Viola has already discussed.)

The Bible is fairly open about the definition of a church, never giving us a true propositional statement, but at the same time it is not that loose and can be filled in with some thought and searching. In the end any expression of the church requires some kind of gathering and interaction with others. Not just another step in the journey.

Like or dislike Driscoll, I can at least respect him for thinking deeply and theologically about matters of church and mission. I don't always agree with where he lands, but I respect his process.

So many of our churches are being led by pastors with business and management skills, but who lack in some cases any theological training. This often results in pragmatic values trumping biblical ones. We end up with church that do what "works" but not thinking about what's "right." I fear internet campuses are the result of this lack of theological training.

An internet campus can no more be called a church than Facebook can be called a country.

I have issues, I think it needs to be thought about deeply, but I just don't think that there has been enough done to say that internet church is not church. The trials are too new, the rebuttals just don't have enough meat to them.

The reality is that we are in a world that has been strongly affected by the internet. It is not a fad. One in eight couples that get married this year met on the internet. Marriage is as intimate as a relationship as you can get. So if marriage can have its origin in the internet then why can't a relationship with Christ?

I know that people will come back and say that there aren't any marriages that are just on the internet. I agree. But I would also say that we are way to early to say that these churches are just online. Most of them have physical locations as well as internet sites. I think that most people that are drawn to an internet church will seek out a physical church as some point in time. What I am afraid of is that Driscoll and others will shut down evanglistic efforts in their desire to maintain the church. It is not our job to maintain the Church it is the Spirit's job.

Let's go back to the advice of Gamaliel. If it is something that God is going to bless, he will bless it and it will expand. If it is not something God is going to bless then it will fail.

While we're debating what, theologically, "Internet church" is, lots and lots of people are choosing to go to it rather than brick-and-mortar fellowships, and don't really care for our theological explanations—to them, it's church. It "counts."

Counts just as much as setting up a videoconference with the family's Thanksgiving dinner, in lieu of visiting them, but there you are.

Okay, so why do people do that with family occasions? (1) They really truly cannot make it, and this is the best they can do. (2) They don't want to come, and this is the best they WILL do.

We need to help the people with situation #1. For those people, if we can't accommodate them any other way, we need to make Internet church a viable possibility. In this instance it could be a very good thing.

We need to rebuke the people with situation #2—or deal with the circumstances that make them not want to come. Maybe they're valid concerns. We won't know, though, if we simply say, "Internet church isn't church; you're in rebellion." Are they? Maybe. But maybe there are bigger problems. We should find out.

I'm all for online church. It's not for everyone but it has its place. Church online not only has sermons and worship but can also have live chat during the services, live prayer, and small/life/community groups which also meet online. I attend a local church and an online church. Online I've gotten to speak with a teenager that found a church home online after her atheist parents refused to take her to church. I've spoken with people from countries where Christianity is not allowed and churches are not available. I've even spoken with people that stumbled upon a live service while searching for adult websites that gave their life to Christ after attending church online. I'd imagine many of these people will move on to a local church but truth be told online church is far less intimidating than the local church. No one cares what you are wearing or if you raise your hands while you sing. I've never heard anyone at my local church say "I struggle with porn addiction" or "I'm considering suicide" or "my marriage is failing and I need help" but I have seen all of those discussions at church online. Perhaps local churches could learn something from online church.

I could go on and on about the benefits to church online, but my space is limited. I just challenge people to think outside the box. Remember that satan is more than willing to come into your house through your computer. Why can't God? Online church could be someone's first step into a life with Christ.

Driscoll's "eight characteristics of a local church" reflect a building-centric, clergy-dominated, institutional form of church unsupported by the New Testament. Maybe he should call it "eight characteristics of a 501c3 non-profit religious club."

Though I find this conversation interesting, in the same breath I find it disturbing. Online church is not a sin issue or a gross theological error. For those who have never, ever attended a church online, perhaps they should to have a better understanding of what happens. KW Leslie is right, there are many people who would never step foot in a church, who would tune in online. People I know in closed countries, including hard working missionaries, welcome online church with welcome arms.

At times it worries me when evangelical Christians find so many things to be against, when sometimes I feel there are more things we should be for. Online church has it's place, and why not celebrate the positives instead of zeroing in on the negative.

And as for Driscoll, why provide things like iPhone apps for listening sermons if you are against "online" church? Seems there is an inconsistency there.

I agree in principle with Bishop Driscoll.

I'm just pleased he didn't feel it necessary to flame anyone in a degrading personal way to make his point.

This is getting more silly by the year. The church is about flesh-and-blood people, not internet audiences. But maybe because our "brick-and-mortar" churches function in the same way people would rather just sit at home on the net and consume their religious experience.

Chruchless: How do Driscoll's eight characteristics "reflect a building-centric, clergy-dominated, institutional form of church unsupported by the New Testament"? They all seem like straightforward requirements of believers who gather together.

(1) regenerated church membership: duh.

(2) qualified leadership: We need leaders, elders and servants of the church to serve and protect.

(3) preaching and worship: I don't know about preaching, but we are told by Paul to have "psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19)"

(4) rightly administered sacraments: over and over again we the NT shows the importance of baptism and a meal together.

(5) unity through the Holy Spirit: duh.

(6) holiness: duh.

(7) the Great Commandment to love: duh.
(8) the Great Commission to evangelize and make disciples: duh.

I just don't see how these are characteristics of the kind of church you speak of, and not others...

Overall: I am cynical about the pragmatics of the discussion about internet churches. We can find GREAT reasons for these churches, but if they aren't fulfilling the NT definition of a church (at minimum I would say that means fellowship, worship, and "one-anothering") then they aren't a church. And we don't say that to disqualify God's work in them, but because the importance of being part of a church is so important. If a person believes they are part of one, but aren't they are missing out on something God intended for them. This isn't just an attempt to qualify, categorize, and then seperate, but a much-needed look at what being part of a church really looks like, because being part of one is so important to God.

By being pragmatic about it we are losing an important theological reflection and basis for why we do things. If we ignore proper theological reflection we allow for more error, and errors can hurt people.

I honestly, other than sacraments, don't know why internet church can't do all of these things that Driscoll talks about. And sacraments are an issue that we need to think about. I am not dismissing it.

While I understand people can be hurt by ignoring theological reflection, people can also be hurt when the church moves too slowly to help them. Our church launched an online church service this past weekend and about 7000 people showed up. Many of those people were people that also attended church physically. But obviously there is a desire for online church if 7000 people showed up to a live stream of a service.

Talking about it afterward, one couple was on vacation and watched/listened while driving. Another couple watched "together" while separated because of work travel. I invited friends to watch because I haven't been able to get them to actually come to my regular service. None of these reasons are examples to me that we need to be wary of.

Excuse, that I interfere, there is an offer to go on other way.

My issue with Internet campuses is that it provides the ultra-casual attendee with an easy opportunity to disengage from actually fellowshipping with fellow believers. If they actually physically attend a church, they will have to engage socially with at least a few people, and share in at least some form of fellowship. Someone who solely watches church over the Internet can get their "church fix" and then walk away without having gained or learned anything and without having shared with another believer (even if it is only a friendly hello).

And I do watch church online on occasion, when I am unable to be there in person, but that is only a stopgap, a pale reflection.

The problem with James' complaint is that you can do the exact same thing with a mega church or even a church much smaller than that. Any church over about 500, you can go in and out regularly and no one will ever notice, if you want to. The issue that I have with that complaint is that you assume that there really are people that want to do nothing, that don't want to grow spiritually are happy with it. I think the reality is that many are happy to do little or nothing for a while, but very few will do little or nothing for long. They will eventually go in or out. Internet church give an even lower bar (no fighting parking lots, etc.), for those that are discouraged for a time. We have lots of people that have left the church. We need some way to get them back in. This is one means, not the only, maybe not even the best. But it is one.

Hi,

I guess that is people are not emotionally or socially mature of confident to physically meet people in their neighborhood, it will have to do till they grow in their confidence in their ability to navigate real relationships. It may be a good place to start for some people.

@Adam S.

I think you miss the point of what I'm trying to say. Sure, you can go in and out without being noticed at a physical church, but at least in person, there is the chance that someone will engage with them (the person who sits next to them in the pew, the volunteer or church worker who sees them and God moves them). On the Internet, the chance of that happening is nil.

I'm not saying that providing a church service over the Internet does not have its place. I'm just saying that we need to engage people in more than just a casual, "I did my 70 minutes, so I'm good for the rest of the week" relationship, and I'm not convinced that providing a connection with ever fewer opportunities to fellowship and engage (and promoting it as an acceptable way to "do church") is the way to go about it.

Hi,

I guess that if people are not emotionally or socially mature or confident to physically meet people in their neighborhood, it will have to do till they grow in their confidence in their ability to navigate real relationships. It may be a good place to start for some people.

I think Mark has great biblical support for his view/elements of church.

However, I see absolutely no biblical support for Troy's view that church is moving people along some kind of discipleship timeline. It sounds really consumer-driven and progress-oriented. I can perhaps understand sanctification this way (but tithing just doesn't seem to be proper milestone of that to me), but certainly not church. I would be interested in Troy's biblical support for this view.

Seems to me the simple difference boils to this: is an internet "church" an independent church, or is in a ministry of a church. I don't think anyone objects to ministering the Gospel and discipling to people through electronic means. But if they gather in cyberspace, do they meet the definition of a church as described in the NT? I have a friend who ministers online to people all over the world. He doesn't call it a church. BTW, where do they send their gifts? (I think there are a few folks in some churchs who would get into giving uncashable checks on the Bank of Cyberspace.) If they give to a congregation with an address, are they then connected to that church?

I read with interest of Kara's experiences (posted on the 18th) about how she has connected with lost and broken souls through an online church.

People, God isn't limited, only we are, in our inability to understand this side of Heaven, how He could use technology to further His kingdom. Haven't we all praised God for the technology he has provided us in our ministries? Folks, everyone reading this posting benefits from information technology, whether using your computer for preparing sermons, lesson plans, correspondence or comments to this posting. What makes anyone think that online churches CAN'T serve to bring lost sheep to the Father. As Kara said in the last sentence of her post....
"Remember that satan is more than willing to come into your house through your computer. Why can't God? Online church could be someone's first step into a life with Christ."

Amen

Perhaps here the issue is not that we ought to overtly critique the internet Church, but that we are not critiquing enough of the "brick and mortar" Church. It seems that the word Church is part of the misunderstanding. Some use it to mean the building, others the event, and still others the organization. Further, in what way does the persecuted Church meet for its large gathering of "fellowship". It is probably true - believers may fellowship more authentically and honestly over the internet, but it doesn't mean that this is best. Deitrich Bonhoeffer makes a case for the taking of communion in solitary confinement without any elements, but this is also not necessarily best. I would suggest that internet Church is yet another example of our dissatisfaction with what we knew Church should be and yet somehow have not managed to craft outside of the lifespan of any particular gospel movement.

It seems like the concern in the article about is that "you can’t control the environment" of someone worshipping online. Seems like control is the key word in that statement. Unfortunately, I believe we as pastors/preachers often focus to much concern on that word, and should focus more on the concept of "inviting to learn" instead. The reality is that learning at higher levels requires interaction, dialog, and the ability to respond (none of which normally happens at most weekend services I have attended). With the use of live chat boxes, many online churches have added this to the worship experience.

As far as controlling the environment, I think if someone is an ineffective communicator in "real life" then they aren't going to command the attention of the people sitting in front of them with no distraction. We have a way of mentally checking out, even if we are physically present. If a person is good a communicating, they shouldnt feel threatened by the possibility of distraction. Jesus didnt preach in nice air-conditioned, insulated sanctuaries. He preached in environments ripe with potential distraction. Dont believe me? Try preaching on the side of a mountain to men, women, and children, in the middle of the day, in the middle-east. No "kids church" back then!

10 million downloads ? 10 million downloads ? 10 million downloads ? 10 million downloads ? I need some sources for those facts driscoll -- I think its more like 10 million long hours worth of preaching and announcements via podcast --

any other numbers you'd like to brag about while you bash other ministries ?

-H

My issue with Internet campuses is that it provides the ultra-casual attendee with an easy opportunity to disengage from actually fellowshipping with fellow believers. If they actually physically attend a church, they will have to engage socially with at least a few people, and share in at least some form of fellowship. Someone who solely watches church over the Internet can get their "church fix" and then walk away without having gained or learned anything and without having shared with another believer (even if it is only a friendly hello).

And I do watch church online on occasion, when I am unable to be there in person, but that is only a stopgap, a pale reflection.

I guess that is people are not emotionally or socially mature of confident to physically meet people in their neighborhood, it will have to do till they grow in their confidence in their ability to navigate real relationships. It may be a good place to start for some people.