Unfortunately, many "contemporary" churches don't take sacraments...well, they have a room for sacraments as if taking communion were an individual consumption of juice!

Bob, the argument that virtuality cannot replace physical presence is not in dispute. The problem is that, in reducing the definition of "church" to three events (sacrament, preaching, discipline), we miss the far broader realities and expressions of a healthy ecclesia, much of which is being given new voice and vision via virtual connectivity.

By sharing your views here on the Internet, you are engaging a specific cross-section of the global church in multi-way dialog and growth. While decrying the idea of on-line ecclesia, you have ironically become one of its key facilitators.

(as an aside, I think we should question just how prominent a role "preaching" took in the physical gathering of the NT church)

Thanks for this, Bob. I couldn't agree more. While there may be some value in hearing an online sermon or worship, it is in no way actual CHURCH. It is more easily defined in other ways and I wish it were so.

Again, thanks.

Peace.

For my part, this whole issue illustrates the confusion that exists in the North American Church today. Because of our "revivalistic" heritage (see First and Second Great Awakenings, Billy Graham Crusades, etc.), we tend to focus on getting decisions for Christ. Nothing wrong with that except it is merely the starting point for the lifelong journey of discipleship. Virtual venues may communicate the Gospel in such a way as to elicit decisions for Christ (this is the main argument I hear defending such venues) but they are poor environment for growing faithful followers of Jesus. Discipleship, as Bob has pointed out, can only happen in community where you bump up against people who are not like you, struggle with relationships, wrestle with the Word, receive the Sacrament, and over time are refined by the Spirit into the image of Jesus.

Perhaps those churches with virtual venues do hook people up with communities of disciples where they can grow in faithfulness, I don't know. But left in isolation, virtual reality is a poor substitute for real life.

Amen, Bob!

We are to gather and worship Him.

To receive the Word and Sacraments and to encourage each other in the faith.

There are no Lone Ranger Christians.

(or shouldn't be)

Someone said this earlier in another post: what is the theological defense of internet church? Pragmatics can help but they only take you so far. There is nothing pragmatic about what God did for us on the cross. Pragmatism is what has bred the church growth movement (just stay homogenous), seeker sensitive movement and the like.

I believe technology has its place as a tool that can help us sharpen what the Bible has already given us. But to take it and embue it with the power to transform people's lives without any sacrifice is exactly what many secularists and futurists talk about: a stress free commitment free environment to do as we want.

Things to overcome in an internet church:

1. If a member does not like your sermon, he can log off. (You can do this in a physical church but you must deal with proper etiquette and the perception of your peers)

2. A member can resist your discipline and change his name to someone else (try doing that in the church down the street)

There are so many more.

Nonverbal communication is an important part of life and helps us to discern what others need and want. That is totally gone on the internet.

The Internet Church has no theological mooring or Scriptural support. From the beginning of Christianity our churches have been linked by the ideas of worship and fellowship. I thoroughly appreciate these two posts...though I wish they explored the theological vacuum created by the virtual churches.

While I would call the sacraments ordinances, we believe they are vital to a New Testament Church. It is not possible to acheive the fellowship of the saints in a realistic way as we are exhorted to do in the New Testament. Fellowship requires presence, proximity and intimacy (not a sensual kind mind you.)

Most days in my travels I listen to any number of good preachers through downloaded podcasts. These times are great for me but they are not my church.

I really like Prophetik Soul's point about how if I don't like the preacher's message I can just log off. In our churches there are often messages we don't like hearing but know we must hear.

We need more real churches that really meet people's needs. We need to be the arms of Christ and embrace those who are hurting and need love.

You are the Church!
Robert Angison

oh, btw, I do believe technology is a gift from God that strengthens our ability to connect with and train. I am not one recommending a transition away from tech, but am suggesting that it (like so many other things) has its limits.

thanks!

John L,

As I said, "The internet may present a wonderful way for me to connect with the larger Church, but it can’t—and shouldn’t—replace connection with a local church community."

There's no irony in my writing in this forum about our need for real-life interaction and discipleship. Now, if I was JD Salinger and never left my home...

As for the role of the sermon, I tend to trust early Christian documents like the Apology of Justin Martyr over Mssrs. Viola and Barna. It describes pretty clearly weekly reading from the "memoirs of the Apostles" and exposition by the leader (the "president") of the local congregation.

I know it's in vogue to decry the sermon... but seriously- don't believe the hype.

Haha. Thought Bob was replying to my post, but then realized I haven't posted in this one, but only the other.

John L. is another John L., not me.

you may be right...but we have to take this thing as far as we can.

Bob,
Great couple of posts. Very well-thought and thought-provoking.

I hope Out of Ur readers will pick up a copy of the next Leadership Journal for the article to which you contributed. The article explores the virtual church and how the limitations of it can serve as a mirror to the rest of us -- helping reveal the limitations and accommodations we've all made that contribute to the church being less than it ought to be.

Bob,

I wonder if you would extend your thoughts to the consequences of video campuses?

CM

Hello;

Very good article;I live in the Dominican Republic and I listen to a lot of messages from Mark Driscoll."Open a can of Driscoll on him" good one(LOL)

Saw this on the NY Times website the other day. It has direct relevance to teaching of the Word via sermons, IMHO.

"Over the 12-year span, the report found 99 studies in which there were quantitative comparisons of online and classroom performance for the same courses. The analysis for the Department of Education found that, on average, students doing some or all of the course online would rank in the 59th percentile in tested performance, compared with the average classroom student scoring in the 50th percentile."

One of the more striking differences between a community on the web vs. a community in person is the absence of visual cues and the resulting misconceptions / preconceptions.

We've all seen those studies where, given a bunch of pictures of different people and asked to label them, most select the tall white guy the CEO and the black guy as the criminal.

Well, all that disappears on the web.

I visit a lot of churches, and they are for the most part assemblages of people who look the same.

Imagine a world in which visual stereotypes didn't exist. Imagine a world in which you couldn't tell that the person worshiping beside you was gay, or black, or teenager, or senior, or poor, or rich.

Through evolution, our brains have been hardwired to believe that "looks like me = safe; doesn't look like me = threat." This is the fundamental reason we can't find community virtually. It's not technology and it's not scripture; it's that we need visual cues to categorize people.

I wonder if the online church movement is a response to churches that have become cliques and social clubs. Often we see changes in culture as an overreaction to things that don't work.

Perhaps the online church movement started as a response to virtual community in a real setting.

It isn't about church.

"It isn't the thing you do, dear,
It's the thing you leave undone,
That gives you the bitter heartache
At the setting of the sun;
The tender word [untyped],
The [e-mail] you did not send,
The [e-flower] you might have sent, dear,
Are your haunting ghosts at night.

"The stone you might have lifted
Out of your brother's way,
The bit of heartfelt counsel
You were hurried too much to say;
The loving [warmth] of the [chat], dear,
The gentle and winsome [emoticons],
That you had no time or thought for,
With troubles enough of your own.

"These little acts of kindness,
So easily out of mind,
These chances to be angels,
Which even mortals find -
They come in nights of silence,
To take away the grief,
When hope is faint and feeble,
And a drought has stopped belief.

"For life is all too short, dear,
And sorrow is all too great,
To allow our slow compassion
That tarries until too late.
And it's not the thing you do, dear,
It's the thing you leave undone,
That gives you the bitter heartache,
At the setting of the sun."

- Adelaide Proctor

Good post Bob.

Personally, I'm about as confident in these online churches as I am in someone claiming they are participating in a virtual online marriage.

Though this is something we should be concerned about, it makes me wonder how many of the people who participate in this "fast food" Christianity are real Christians.

Really, how many emotionally and psychologically sound born-again believers would be satisfied with this stuff. My judgement is that it's more pabulum for nominal Christendom.

Our church was preparing to launch its web campus in about three weeks. We were going to focus on two things: 1) With a membership about 80% military, services timed so our deployed soldiers and airmen could participate, even letting families say "hello" on camera to their deployed spouse/father; and 2) we were wanting to use it to locate good spots to launch house churches in rural WV. However, since Calvin wouldn't have approved, we're canceling the whole thing (and getting rid of our worship team's instruments as well).

I agree with both sides of this issue: When Jesus said 'when two or more of you are gathered in my name, etc.', this leads me to go and be a part of a congregation. (Beyond that, I also teach Sunday School to our teenagers.)

However, the other side of the coin is perhaps much larger than what anyone has stated till now, and it also has two manifestations.

1) How many people, because of their external 'appearance' (re: Jjoe above) have been rejected by the congregations they have tried to 'join'? Christians, being human, can often be extremely critical of others, and judgemental because they are 'Christians' and others don't fit their own specific guidelines.

These experiences frequently cause 'new' Christians to leave the church and resort to other means to learn the Word. Are we to say that any method of learning for these should be looked upon critically? Agreed, community is necessary, but who is to say that people who learn of Christ via the Internet cannot create their own community and perhaps use the Internet as a resource in concert with others, as I have.

2) I have enjoyed and experienced many services and worship styles via the Internet and podcasts that I would not have been able to experience at my own church. By being able to hear and see others, just as through the TV, I can gain fuller understanding of the Word and how it can apply to my daily life.

As with anything though, as Jesus said, we must discern for ourselves.

I agree with the comment above from Robert Angison: You are the Church!

WHY do we keep trying to deny the fact that HUMANS need face time with each other? It is part of what it means to be human and Christian community - brother reconciling with brother; sister praising and praying with sisters - people in an "iron sharpens iron" type relationships are essential to becoming Christian.

Hi,
I read the article and I am surprised that the man is ridden by the technology such that he forget the religious values.The virtual church mustn't be the reality in this world.Such things must be prevented.

Amazing that hardly anyone here is talking about the ongoing activity of God in the world, and yes, in the online world. God is present there too. Is it so hard to believe that if those who are called to online ministry (and online community-building) are spending time in prayer and discernment, they might actually be doing God's will? Instead of spending so much energy trying to define what is or is not church, why not think about this: Do you believe that God can use all things for good? Then, think about how much time people spend online, and the increasing variety of things they can do there (many of them a lot less life-affirming than going to an online church). If anything, online church is competing against those activities and sites, not against the millions of brick and mortar buildings where people go on Sunday before patting themselves on the back and sitting down to a hearty meal at Cracker Barrel. Wouldn't you rather see someone join an online faith community than spend their online time looking at porn, or playing endless games of "Farkle" on Facebook? I would.