Wow... Really sad to see all the concerns about virtual Church chocked up to "myth."
I used to expect more thoughtful interaction with critique but between this and Perry's video that was posted recently, I've begun to rethink that. I'll draw up some point by point thoughts in a bit.

Unfortunately, you didn't address the best criticisms of the "virtual church" (which is a contradiction in terms) but you did build several convenient straw men. I'm excited to see an article that actually addresses the good critics (such as the one you make a few allusions to but never actually address).

"they boil down to some very common and tired themes: Internet campuses and online churches are not true churches because they don’t look like and feel like churches are expected to look like and feel like (in the West, anyway)."

-Really? have you actually read any criticisms?

"Let’s lay aside the problem that most (all I’ve read) of the blogposts criticizing virtual churches are based on cultural factors, pop psychology, materialistic misreadings of a few New Testament verses, or worse, citations of famous pastors who have doubts."

-It would be great if you talked about some of these, but honestly it sounds like you're just making this up!

"All this time I thought that church—and real, biblical community—had nothing to do with where a church meets. Isn’t church supposed to be about people in communion with God rather than the building? Does it really matter where the church meets?"

No, it doesn't matter "where" the people meet, it's THAT they actually meet at all! And to be an anonymous "guest" on an website does not even come close to capturing meeting, and especially does not make up "community".

It's hard enough to know who people really are and what they are dealing with when you see them every week, but to live in a virtual realm only makes this distance greater. How can you possibly pastor people that are literally creating a virtual identity? It would be pretty naive to think this wouldn't be a problem.

I hope there are some better arguments for the "virtual church" out there, because just saying, "Look, I'm telling you, virtual church IS real community" doesn't really cut it.

a mosaic of online identities cannot "gather." when we gather leaves from our backyard, we don't take digital photos of them and arrange them on our computer screen with photoshop in order for them to have a "virtual" proximity to each other. No, we actually have to go outside and rake the leaves so they have a physical proximity. That is a gathering.

If embodied, face-to-face relationships aren't necessary for church, then why would they be necessary for life? Why even leave your computer screen? This is like saying virtual sex with your wife is interchangeable with being with her physically, by her side.

I can't believe this even needs to be explained.

Straw men are so easy to beat.

Not once does Douglas Estes actually cite any specific criticism of internet churches. The crux of the most of the criticism I've heard is that a non-physical space (I'm not sure the term "synthetic" is right--lots of buildings are made of synthetic materials) is fundamentally different from a physical space. Asserting that "meeting in a bar is no different from meeting online" begs the question.

Moreover, Douglas seems to defend online churches by saying they work hard to create physical meeting spaces and events, too. Doesn't this reinforce the criticism that online interaction can't replace the face-to-face embodied presence of other people?

Is this really the best defense for online church out there? If so, why are we even talking about this--there's no debate left.

Nate - To clarify, many of the criticisms I was referring to have been posted to Our of Ur earlier in the year and a few other blogposts. You can easily google to find them.

And look to the right of the blog post - you'll see the book I just wrote, SimChurch - what I hope to be a solid 'defense' of the reality of the online church - as well as a solid challenge for online churches to step up to the plate and become more healthy forms of the church.

Zach - It does need to be explained because many people have never visited a virtual church (or especially what they will be like in the near future), and they are working on old assumptions. Even more so, we are working on a lot of Western assumptions about what church is - that to be the church we have to be gathered in the same building, but when we are not together in the building, we are not longer [at] church. I hate to say it, but it will have to be explained repeatedly because our culture's view of church (as building, as meeting point) is sorely at odds with the Bible's view. And I and many other folks believe online church is one form of the church that will help us overcome this modern deficiency so as to, in the long run, have more healthy, more biblical communities.

Dustin - To answer all of your questions: Yes, I wrote a whole book addressing the theological, ethical, and missional pros and cons of virtual church. Read it and get back to me if you still have those kinds of questions!

Bob - As you know a myth is not just a false idea but it also means a collective belief shared by a group of people used to create a culture (or a reaction to another culture). So arguments against the validity of online churches would fit under this heading because most people (remember I am saying most, that I have read) are reacting to the idea rather than thinking through the idea. Note, I'm not speaking of you here, just most people on most blog posts.

But as far as more thoughtful interaction, I would rather debate you on the merits and demerits of my book than a blogpost (though I will do that if you want). In SimChurch, I spent a great deal of time trying to dig deep into the biblical texts, the Fathers, the middle church and the modern church to look for arguments for and against online church. There were few against, and many for.

To me, clearly, the burden of proof lies in those people who argue against internet campuses. You may disagree, but anytime God is working in our world through an avenue (even if we are not comfortable with this avenue), the burden of proof lies with the antagonist.

Douglas - I appreciate your willingness to publicly discuss this issue, but I can't help but wonder if what I interpret as veiled shots at Bob and his church throughout your piece underscore one of the limitations of online interaction. Forgive me if I've misinterpreted those comments, but wouldn't this conversation tend toward more generosity if all its participants were seated around the same table (in a pub or otherwise)?

"Note, I'm not speaking of you here, just most people on most blog posts."
Really? To be honest, I had to laugh when I read that. The number of references to NW Pub churches must have been a coincidence.. or maybe you WERE doing exactly that- speaking of me.

My last article (and in fact, every time I have written on this subject) contained substantive questions about virtual church which you fail to address in this article and in fact demean by labeling them as"cultural factors, pop psychology, materialistic misreadings of a few New Testament verses, or worse, citations of famous pastors who have doubts."

I get the desire to sell your book. Actually previewing your real arguments for, not just caricaturing the arguments against probably would have been a better strategy for this post.

Virtual Church? You mean like this one?

http://www.virtualchurch.com

Oh... Oh my...
That theme song. Wow. Will I EVER get that out of my head??? :) Thanks for making my day, Basil.

Scott - Fair point. For the record, though, if you look through Out of Ur and some other Christian communication mediums, there has been alot of negative talk about virtual churches. One sided, really.

I don't think there are any veiled shots at Bob -- anyone who sees his link knows he pastors a church in Portland in a bar/pub/whatever. I don't know Bob, I don't dislike Bob, and in point of fact, I hope that if Bob is faithfully serving God that God will bless him tremendously. I did make a pointed remark about Bob's location for a singular reason - when you live in a glass house, it's better not to thrown stones.

If you, or any of the other readers, think it is unfair for me to question the location of Bob's meeting place for his church, then maybe it is also unfair for Bob and others to question the location of people who meet for church online. Either way is fine with me, all I ask is that we just be fair.

Doug,

I find your reflections on the criticisms of "virtual" church to be naive at best and sophmoric at worst. At first blush I could'nt tell if you were doing satire on the virtual church, but then I realized you are totally serious.

Your sweeping statement regarding the history of the church having nothing against virtual church or new forms (only in the initial stages) is superfluous, because church history has no concept of a virtual world. They did have an idea about Gnosticism and they rejected it. The idea of detached, virtual churches, that communicate like I do with my friends on Facebook with out ever building flesh and blood relationships is more Gnostic than it is Christian.

So using Acts 2:42 as a general framework for the church, how are these virtual church goers supposed to partake in the laying on of hands on each other, or share in the Eucharstic gift of Christ's Body and Blood?

To construct your biblical-historical arguement that the bible and church history would be mostly for virtual church, out of the very silence they speak on the issue is obsurd.

Your statement that most of the criticisms you have come across are borne out of myth against virtual churches is strange. Most of the critics I read and now make the aruement out of deep, rich, and textured ecclesiology, missiology, and overall theological outlook on life and faith.

Oh well, I am too exhausted by all this siliness to go any further. A few years back when I was in seminary I would've had the passion to argue.

Bob - Two thoughts briefly. First, remember that you are not the only person out there criticizing the online church. I am not demeaning folks who have argued against online church when I say that most all are based on "cultural factors, pop psychology, materialistic misreadings of a few New Testament verses, or worse, citations of famous pastors who have doubts." But I do stand by my statement that this is characteristic of most posts. Most posts are reflective or reactionary and not substantive. (You can label my post reactionary, fine, but again, I did a measured study on this that's in book form). No, I'm sorry to say I wasn't impressed with the substance of your post in Our of Ur, it's also more reactionary. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have wanted to 'break open a can of Driscoll' or whatever silliness that was all about. But you should know that, for example, on my website, I have you posted as the best blog-argument against. It is probably the best I've seen; most though are much weaker.

Second - Even here though, you and Basil feel it is funny to mock some website that is trying in some way to be an outreach online (I don't say church because I don't know anything about this ministry). Why mock people trying to do what God called them to do? I don't get that. Over the last year or two, lots of people have insensitively mocked, and sovereignly declared, online church as a fake. I bet you're like me, and I bet you love the church. If bet you hate it when folks question why you meet in a pub (I don't know in Portland, but I would guess some folks question it). How would you feel if folks tell you 'your communion wasn't real because you had it in a bar'? This is exactly what alot of unthinking folks are doing to alot of people leading and worshipping in online churches. It hurts the cause of Christ.

Me, I love the church in all its forms. As I said, some people won't want to meet in a bar, some won't want to meet online, but all these types of churchs are useful (and real) for building up the kingdom.

In SimChurch, I spent a great deal of time trying to dig deep into the biblical texts, the Fathers, the middle church and the modern church to look for arguments for and against online church. There were few against, and many for."

Really? So how are these practiced online?

John 13:14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

John 13:35 By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

John 15:12 "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.

John 15:17 These things I command you, so that you will love one another.

Romans 1:12 that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine.

Romans 12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.

Romans 12:16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be conceited.

Romans 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.

Romans 15:7 Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.

Romans 15:14 I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another.

Romans 16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.

1 Corinthians 11:33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another

1 Corinthians 12:25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.

1 Corinthians 16:20 All the brothers send you greetings. Greet one another with a holy kiss.

2 Corinthians 13:11 Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.

2 Corinthians 13:12 Greet one another with a holy kiss.

Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

Galatians 5:15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.

Galatians 5:26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

Galatians 6:2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Ephesians 4:2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love,

Ephesians 4:32 Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

Ephesians 5:19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,

Ephesians 5:21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Colossians 3:9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices

Colossians 3:13 bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.

Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

1 Thessalonians 3:12 and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you,

1 Thessalonians 4:9 Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another,

1 Thessalonians 5:11 Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing.

1 Thessalonians 5:15 See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone.

2 Thessalonians 1:3 We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers, as is right, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing.

Titus 3:3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.

Hebrews 3:13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.

Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,

Hebrews 10:25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

James 4:11 Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.

James 5:9 Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the door.

James 5:16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.

1 Peter 1:22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,

1 Peter 4:8 Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.

1 Peter 4:9 Show hospitality to one another without grumbling.

1 Peter 4:10 As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God's varied grace:

1 Peter 5:5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

1 Peter 5:14 Greet one another with the kiss of love. Peace to all of you who are in Christ.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

1 John 3:11 For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

1 John 3:11 For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.

1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

1 John 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

1 John 4:12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

2 John 1:5 And now I ask you, dear lady not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but the one we have had from the beginning that we love one another.

"If you, or any of the other readers, think it is unfair for me to question the location of Bob's meeting place for his church, then maybe it is also unfair for Bob and others to question the location of people who meet for church online. Either way is fine with me, all I ask is that we just be fair."

Sheesh. No one is accusing you of questioning our meeting place. In fact, you do just the opposite in affirming our choice to gathering in a pub (even if you do sniff "and I would not want to meet in a bar").But what they are questioning is your contention that you weren't speaking to or about me or my critique. This post was all about that.

And further, the logic of fairness involved in your last comment leaves something to be desired. Just because you don't question our community's choice of meeting space doesn't make invalid any critique or questions about virtual church.

In fact

I am just glad God didn't send "Virtual Jesus" to seem like he actually died in the flesh for our sins. I am not saying "Virtual Church" is some gnostic heresy but it does seem to be absent of one of the most powerful elements of what church is. Ekklesia is about a gathered people and not a fiber-opticly connected group of individuals. I just think it misses out on what the heart and soul of church ought to be about. Call me old fashioned.

Sam - Name-calling aside, people use the Bible and church history all the time to say that this type of church and that type of church is not biblical. You should know this if you went to seminary. It doesn't change how God uses lots of different formats to be church in our world -- and any fair reading of the biblical and historical evidences demonstrat this.

Matt - Yes, the incarnation is singularly important. No, virtual church is not perfect, but then neither are any other forms of the church, either. I don't think you're old fashioned, I just think that your definitions are a little narrow for what God can do, that's all. But thanks for commenting!

**A brief excerpt from the article in the current issue of Leadership on virtual church by Chad Hall**

"The ministry assumptions driving virtual churches are also driving many 'bricks and mortar' churches. These assumptions include the primacy of content, the value of individual preference over community, and deemphasizing church accountability and discipline. If church leaders have no qualms about these assumptions, online church might become the pinnacle of contemporary church philosophy. But for others, the virtual church movement serves as a magnifying mirror that reveals how prevalent these assumptions are in their own churches.

"It's not enough to simply accept virtual churches on the basis that they are 'no worse' than physical churches. A more helpful approach might be to examine the challenges in both the virtual and physical world so both kinds of churches can be more faithful to Christ's calling."

**Read the full article in the Fall issue of Leadership.**

-Url

"Why mock people trying to do what God called them to do? I don't get that. Over the last year or two, lots of people have insensitively mocked, and sovereignly declared, online church as a fake. I bet you're like me, and I bet you love the church. If bet you hate it when folks question why you meet in a pub (I don't know in Portland, but I would guess some folks question it). How would you feel if folks tell you 'your communion wasn't real because you had it in a bar'? This is exactly what alot of unthinking folks are doing to alot of people leading and worshipping in online churches. It hurts the cause of Christ."

It's exactly BECAUSE I love the Church and the cause of Christ that I feel the need to take a laughing poke at the cheesiness that is virtualchurch.com AND take a serious look at virtual church. You seem to equate serious questions with opposing the Gospel and make no room for the idea that someone could ask serious questions BECAUSE they care about the church (and even poke some fun at something as ridiculously cheesy as that jingle).

So, specifically: "How would you feel if folks tell you 'your communion wasn't real because you had it in a bar'?"
I'd be fine with that. I would ask them why they felt that way, what Scriptural basis they had for saying such a thing, where our understanding of Church experienced a disconnect with theirs. But what I wouldn't do is what you've done above- rebut my misunderstanding of their arguments while ignoring what they are actually saying.

No- asking these questions doesn't hurt the cause of Christ. Franchising the church, the hyper-consumerism and celebrity worship inherent and endemic in virtual and video venue church, and allowing people to believe that pieces of community mediated through online connection can substitute for full-bodied incarnational participation in the Body of Christ?
That's harmful.
Or at least, that's my contention... and as of yet, it doesn't seem like anyone is interested in actually dealing with those contentions.

"The offering to the online church should be looked at as a true benefit...there are many...many who can not get up to attend the church by themselves...AIDS victums for one"

Why not go to them? (e.g., John 20:21)

Historically, the practice of church discipline has been one of the marks of a church and it is clearly referenced in Scripture (1 Cor 5, Matthew 18:17). How can church discipline be practiced in a virtual community? Couldn't someone just create a different acccount?

Below I pose a question for all the commentators. This is a genuine question; I am curious about your insights, all of you, as it relates to what is virtual. There is so much to think about/wrestle through. I believe this is very relevant to your discussion.

Do you believe that a married man and a married woman (not married to each other) - who meet online, and spend hours emailing/facebooking each other, sharing emotional and even sexual intimacy to the exclusion of their mates, are having an "online affair"?

Would that be a "real" affair? Why or why not?

Or, because they never meet, can we assume it is not "real" and discount it?

Is anything virtual, "real"?

Barby,

A good and fair question. Without hesitation I would say that an online affair is "real," it is wrong, and it is evil.

But just because a medium, like the internet, can be used for evil doesn't mean it is equally powerfully useful for good.

For example, we might agree that an online affair is a "real" affair. But would we consider an online marriage a "real" marriage. If the husband and wife didn't have a physical, in the flesh, present and real-world relationship, but only an online communion, we'd probably say this is a sub-par marriage...not as good as God intended it to be.

So, just because the internet can be used foster real evil doesn't mean it is equally capable of fostering the highest good.

Skye

It seems to me that the question being asked and debated here is lacking definition by both sides. The question seems to be cast as, "Is virtual church valid/beneficial?" No one has bothered to ask the (what appear to be obvious) qualifiers, "For whom?" and "In what form?"
It would seem that both Doug and Bob (among others) would agree that neither a virtual service nor a Sunday morning attendance in itself is sufficient for healthy participation in the body of Christ.
Do both sides agree that virtual space is profitable for helping extend relationships beyond the walls of the church (Facebook has been invaluable to me in getting to know people in my new church)? Is it also helpful to draw relationships from outside the walls of the church in?
To the degree in which virtual services draw people out of participation in a local body for the easier, self-centered mentality of receiving "what I need" without participation, they are destructive. However, to the degree that virtual churches (let's be careful to distinguish churches from services whether virtual or physical) encourage participation and relationship in local and physical ways, they are positive. Let's get to the heart of the issue rather than polarizing and talk about the challenges and benefits to using virtual & physical media for discipleship, worship, relationship, leadership, discipline, etc. Whether you start virtually and incorporate physicality, or you start physically and use virtual space some of the issues will remain the same. How do you get people to participate in the body of Christ for the edification of both individual and body?

*** PLEASE NOTE ***

Friends, I just realized some of the confusion today! When I submitted this blog, I submitted it under the title, "The Myth(s) of Virtual Church" NOT "In Defense of Virtual Church." I wasn't writing to defend virtual church per se, but to broad-brush some of the myths surrounding it. So for those of you expecting a defense (and were unaware of my other work on this issue), I apologize, because that was never my goal. The title was changed by someone other than me, and as such, is a bit misleading. The rest of the post is accurate and is an accurate reflection of the myths that are out there.

"to broad-brush some of the myths surrounding it"...
I'm not really sure that's any better! :)

Chris - Great question about church discipline. I address this in SimChurch in more detail, but, yes, virtual churches need to work harder to make sure that they can practice this. The problem, though, is in the assumption you make "Couldn't someone just create a different acccount?" Yes, they can. But so too do people do that in the real world. When faced with discipline, many people just leave one church for another. So this is a problem in church culture as a whole, not just online church. Good question!

Good questions, Travis.

Speaking from my own experience, I find that virtual communication and interaction are deceptively shallow, most often.

It's true that we can have a discussion online, like what we're having here. And in some ways, online discussions can (CAN) be more fruitful than shouting matches. When you write something, you have a chance to edit yourself, and to finish a thought without someone interrupting you.

On the other hand, I find that online interactions rarely help me actually KNOW a person. To give just one example, I recently noticed that an old friend from high school mentioned something on a Facebook posting about her being single. I was surprised, since the last time I saw her (a couple years ago), she introduced me to her husband. I had completely missed an obviously major event in her life, even though I continued to see her daily status updates.

What I hear in the critiques of a Virtual Church by Bob (and Shane Hipps), and what I don't hear Douglas responding to, is the notion that while online interaction might be beneficial in some situations, it is dangerous to consider those interactions sufficient to build the true community and full relationships that ought to be present in the Body of Christ. Virtual interactions cannot replace enfleshed interaction.

Douglas, as I said, the heart of your argument here seems to beg the question:
1) God is using virtual churches
2) Therefore virtual churches must be of God

And it seems your response to any objection to this is to say, "Go buy my book." That's not a particularly compelling argument to me. And it's not a particularly compelling sales pitch, either.

"It would seem that both Doug and Bob (among others) would agree that neither a virtual service nor a Sunday morning attendance in itself is sufficient for healthy participation in the body of Christ."

Based on Doug's statement ("no virtual church I’ve ever met is trying to be virtual-only... not that that would be wrong")I don't think that's accurate.

And here's my concern: Not that virtual churches have real "brick and mortar" places somewhere and give people a chance to occasionally connect via a mission trip or some other opportunity in meat-space, but that those churches launching internet campuses are positioning them and their virtual church in such a way that someone could (and does) consider their participation online as participation in a local body.

This is the big ecclesiological question here! We are part of the Universal Church/Body of Christ with millions of people we will never meet.
But can I truly consider myself part of the local ecclesia if my only contact with the other members/elders/teaching ministry/sacraments/service, etc is purely online?
Doug and other proponents seem to be answering yes.
I'm saying an emphatic no.
It remains to be seen whose argument carries the most weight.

Barby (and Skye),

Both of you raise important points. Yes, a virtual affair is a real affair and it is wrong and ungodly. The reason is because a virtual affair (remember virtual doesn't mean fake, it means synthetic) IS a real affair.

Now, let's assume I accept all the parameters of Skye's analogy to virtual marriage (I don't fully but I appreciate the metaphor). To me, if folks get married online, it doesn't mean they're not married. We can argue it is impoverished; fine. But it doesn't help those folks marriage to go around calling it unreal, because it's not.

Also, my experience is that there is an asssumption in Skye's response; namely, that virtual churches have no physical interaction. This is true for some, not all. Please bear in mind I am not arguing against physical interaction, far from it!

Finally, Skye mentions that "just because the internet can be used to foster real evil doesn't mean it is equally capable of fostering the highest good." Personally, I think we have to be careful here; I'm not saying Skye isn't, but: this is a similar line of argument used against things like pop music in churches. Surely, we say that drugs are more capable of evil than good, but what about, say, books? TV? the new holograph meeting technology? This could be true of everything, or nothing, depending on the perspective.

Anyway, great questions and responses.

Nate - Sorry, that's not at all what I'm saying. Very, very far from it. The only reason I say, 'read the book' is because it is a much more measured discussion than I can produce right now. It's not a good sales pitch because it's not a pitch. So, no, that's not what I'm saying at all, sorry.

Thanks Nate,
I agree that virtual media is best used as a supplement to rather than as a replacement for physical relationship. I have found that I get to know people quicker and am able to pray for/speak with people better when I have seen what is happening for them daily in status updates (conversation starters abound, when I see them face to face).

What is a church? There are two main definitions.

First, from the Nicene Creed in 325. "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church." Protestants, especially in the free church tradition, have interpreted this in quite general terms. If a "virtual church" considers themselves part of the one church of Jesus Christ, made holy by Jesus Christ, catholic--part of the universal worldwide Church, and believes themselves in continuity with the apostolic tradition, they could fulfill this definition though of course Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans would hardly recognize them any more than they recognize your average Baptist, nondenominational or Mennonite church as fully legitimate.

The second definition is from the Lutheran Church’s Augsburg Confession (1530) written by Philipp Melanchthon and Martin Luther.
"The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered" (The Augsburg Confession, article 7. The Book of Concord. Online: http://www.bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.html#article7 ). Church discipline is also often added to this definition as the third mark of the church.
One could conceivably participate in proper preaching in a virtual church and church discipline but baptism and communion are hard to imagine being "properly" participated in virtually. But Estes says above that every virtual church he knows actually meets in person from time to time for baptisms (and communion I suppose as well)! In this case, again, it seems the virtual church would technically qualify as a church.

But the odd part of this whole conversation is that Estes seems to be saying a virtual church is a church that often meets virtually but not exclusively. If they also meet in flesh-and-blood, are they really worth calling "virtual" which seems to imply exclusively meeting virtually?

"Now, let's assume I accept all the parameters of Skye's analogy to virtual marriage (I don't fully but I appreciate the metaphor). To me, if folks get married online, it doesn't mean they're not married. We can argue it is impoverished; fine. But it doesn't help those folks marriage to go around calling it unreal, because it's not."

You are confusing a wedding with a marriage.
It's inconceivable to me that people would have an online wedding, but even if they did- if they never met, it might be a lot of things, but one thing it would never be is a marriage.

Doug -

I agree with many here that you're over simplifying the arguments of those of us who have a different take.

You claim Western thinking creates an emphasis on physical community. My thoughts are that it’s quite the opposite. The Bible is focused on the importance of not separating both spiritual and physical. It is Western thinking, rooted in Plato, that pried apart the physical (bad) from the spiritual (good). In saying the Bible is primarily concerned with community being spiritual, you seem to actually be reaffirming a Western view – not deconstructing it.

The reality is that Christ incarnated into bodily form and lived in community with humans. He is still alive in bodily form. We find our communion in Christ - so in a sense being in Christ is both spiritual and physical.

But even more important to me than the physical/spiritual debate is the implications of online community in terms of consumerism and individualism.

I’ve discussed this very topic of Internet church on my blog. If you have time or are interested, I’d love to here your thoughts: http://www.thejakers.com/tag/digitalists

Andy - Perhaps you are right that virtual is not a good word. I'm not a marketing guy, so it is just the word that seemed to fit best to me. Most folks in the US seem to call it an Internet Campus. Outside of the US, it varies. These types of churches have virtual elements and physical elements. Same as brick and mortar churches (difference is in degree).

Andy,
I believe that it is exactly that kind of definition of terms that bring any benefit from debate.

Jake - As I mentioned, I don't feel that I am oversimplifying any more than those whose posts I have read arguing against online church. I have not read yours, and yes, I will be happy to do so. Thanks for mentioning it.

On the issue of the physical and spiritual in Western culture, I largely agree with you (I don't think it's the opposite, though - Western culture is clearly materialistic). In my opinion, Plato does play a big role in the discussion but you have to factor in the influence of all the other folks who came after him (no easy task!) But I think you have misunderstood my point abit. Online church could be used to affirm the Western dichotomy, but that's out of my hands. The church at large in the West has embraced it for a couple hundred years so maybe I am too hopeful to think (like you) that online churches will be successful in 'deconstructing' the misunderstandings that have crept into the modern, Western church (I use deconstruct in quotes because I am not sure it is something God calls us to do, but I get your idea).

Thanks, Jake!

"Same as brick and mortar churches (difference is in degree)."

No, it's not. It's qualitatively different.

In a church with a physical presence (whether it be an owned building, rented space or under a tree/in a van down by the river) the expectation is one of physical presence and the benefits/responsibilities that go with that.

In an internet church, the *opportunity* may exist to someday have real, offline interaction, but the expectation is that someone's participation could and indeed may take place completely online. The drive is to replicate as much of the actual experience of church online.

In other words, what is primary, and what does having THAT be primary in your experience of church form in you? The possibilities to do all that defines church exist in a way with a physical gathering that they simply DON'T when the "gathering" is online.
Thus, while a truly biblical church may supplement their body life with online experiences, to claim to be able to experience all that is involved in a biblical definition of church purely online (which is what people involved in internet churches are inferring, and (I believe) what those churches are implying) stretches to the breaking point the definition of all the words involved.

Travis - I agree, btw, with your post about Andy. I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but I interact with those definitions in my book. I didn't in the blog today because the point of the blog was to expose some myths.

I had to post that link because it is the first site that appears when you Google the phrase "virtual church". From my standpoint this 'virtual church' is great as a supplement but where is the soul? I know where you are coming from Doug but some of the stuff out there is plain schlock. Even though you have mixed feelings about all this I would like to see some links from those who agree with this that could be treated as quality examples.

Doug,

Thanks for the response. Just a few thoughts about having too narrow a view of church. Can the web and "virtual" things be used for God's glory?

Yes.

Is it church?

No.

Is it ministry?

Yes.

Is it church?

No.

I don't think that is too narrow a view of what church is. This is something church does but it is not what church is, at least not in my opinion. So how broad can our view of church be before it starts involving things that are no longer church? I don't think the answer to that question should stop us from using these venues but we do need to realize their limitations (just like the limitations of a room full of 5000 people has!) and realize that they are no substitute for real shoulder rubbing. Thanks for listening.

Doug -

Thanks for your response. I'm looking forward to reading your book.

I've been tossing this stuff around in my head for some time. Seems like the conversation is really amping up lately.

Grace and peace.

the criticisms levied against internet campuses, they boil down to some very common and tired themes: Internet campuses and online churches are not true churches because they don’t look like and feel like churches are expected to look like and feel like

This might be the least thoughtful thing I've ever read at Out of Ur. All due respect, Prof. Estes, but it is silly and lazy.

Something that might be helpful in furthering the conversation would be for the author to get more specific and define the following terms:

What is church? Those in the Reformed camp, such as I, define it as a community where the Word is rightly preached, the sacraments rightly administered, and church discipline exercised. This is clearly a definition built for Christendom and now that Christendom is failing, it does need to be revisited. However, one cannot throw it out without offering a compelling alternative. In my own theological journey, I have begun to gravitate towards Acts 2:42-47 where the early church devoted themselves to meeting together to break bread, fellowship, study the apostle's teaching, and prayer. They also shared resources and needs were met. If one wants to make a case for virtual/synthetic/sim church, one has to present a compelling case for what "marks" it as such. It is way too easy and disingenuous to suggest that critics don't like it because "it doesn’t look like church, feel like church, swim like church, or quack like church..." The people I have read on this blog and others who offer a critique of virtual church do so for strong theological and biblical reasons and cannot be dismissed so easily.

Why the church? This is the second question one must ask. Pastors such as Perry Noble defend their style of ministry by citing the number of conversions that take place. In all fairness, Prof. Estes doesn't fall into this trap as he cites the number of "testimonies of meaningful community" that are coming out of the movement. However, what both Noble and Estes do fall prey to is the temptation to cite anecdotes and stories rather than test these things against the truths God reveals in His Word. Eisegetically suggesting that the Bible and church history is silent on virtual church is a specious argument. It carries no validity because, as a previous poster pointed out, this kind of ministry simply wasn't possible until recently. To infer from the silence of Scriptures and church history that something is beneficial, healthy, even helpful is a dicey proposition.

I would argue, a la Dallas Willard, that the church exists to make disciples...not converts. And while a virtual environment might be a great venue for people to hear the Gospel, becoming a disciple requires them to give their lives to others in authentic community. Following Jesus Christ requires regular, often messy, interaction with our brothers and sisters in face to face, flesh and blood community. If one is going to defend "virtual church" one has to deal with the disconnect that exists between the "virtual" and the "incarnational". And I would simply submit that following a God who became flesh and blood and moved into close physical proximity to us requires us to do the same with others.

All in all, I think a virtual campus may have its place as a precursor to real, dare I say more biblical, forms of community. I see in much the same way I see the ministry of a street evangelist. Yes, lives may be changed but the faithful street evangelist points those who respond to the local church...and I think virtual churches would do well to do the same.

Grace and peace

Is anyone going to address the fact that "virtual" is an antonym to "actual" and "synthetic" means "artificial...so, in fact, they both mean "fake"?

Doug, I think the first marketing move you should make is to come up with a words to replace "virtual", "synthetic", and "sim" (short for "simulated", which also happens to mean "fake"). You should also avoid "imitation", "make-believe", and "not real".

I give you respect since I'm young and you're an older pastor and professor.

But you're dead wrong.

The pattern is very clear in the New Testament and to push it aside in favor of being new and hip with the internet is a foolish move.

Can we minister through the advanced technology of the day?

Yes, absolutely, Paul ministered to churches through letters. I use the word "ministered" not in DOING but in PROCLAIMING.

Big, Big, Big difference.

Can you proclaim the gospel, build relationships, and fellowship through the internet? Yes that is a ministry, it is not the church.

See Paul can tell two women to stop fighting, but it is only in the context of that local community and under the authority of that pastor at that church can it be done. Since Paul is long gone we now must Proclaim the Scriptures and Obey what they say.

Read the Old Testament about all the commands "go to the priest and...*fill in the blank*" (notice it's not "send a letter to the Priest"), it's the same reason we have a strong case for expository preaching. It is founded in the OT and revealed in the NT.

Why sacrifice at the altar at the synagogue with the Priest when you can just as easily make your own altar in your backyard and be your own priest?

Hmmm...see how there is much more at stake here than "another way" of doing church.

Loss of authority and obedience.

There's already personality cults happening (unfortunately) with popular "new" reformed preachers and Christians making "those guys" their preachers without even attending a church. This raises the whole debate on Multi-Site which is practiced by both Piper and Driscoll but I'm still very hesitant about because of some theological problems I'm working through.

anyway. nickel thoughts.

online "church" is now a "movement"?

really?

a "movement"?

If the 'virtual church' becomes mainstream does this mean that we will have 'lurker sensitive' virtual churches?

"lurker sensitive"...

:D

Doug Resler - Thanks for the comments. Lots of folks have mentioned the defining church thing. Two things: First, if all of us got together to define church, many of us would not agree with each other (just look at church history). So - one of the huge difficulties I had in writing SimChurch was to not just weigh the virtual church from my specific ecclesiological context, but also to consider it from others as well. I know that the further you get away from Protestant thought, the less convinced folks will be by my arguments ... but this is the fractured aspect of the church that we live with.

As I've stated before, I understand and am not taking anything away from the incarnational and physical aspects of life and faith. I am not arguing they are not necessary--the exact opposite. And I am very appreciative of Willard myself.

For those interested, I am posting the working definition of church I used/developed for SimChurch. It is:

“a localized assembly of the people of God dwelling in a meaningful community with the task of building up the Kingdom.”

Remember, this is a definition divorced of context, but so far I am happy with it, based on my study of the Bible, the fathers, the middle and modern church for writing SimChurch.

So, for those who ask, "How do I define church so as to argue an internet church is a real church?" this is it. (This does not supplant any creed as Andy mentioned).

"It does need to be explained because many people have never visited a virtual church (or especially what they will be like in the near future), and they are working on old assumptions. Even more so, we are working on a lot of Western assumptions about what church is - that to be the church we have to be gathered in the same building, but when we are not together in the building, we are not longer [at] church. I hate to say it, but it will have to be explained repeatedly because our culture's view of church (as building, as meeting point) is sorely at odds with the Bible's view."

I might have missed something but show me where a critic of online or virtual churches have insisted that a church is defined by it's building or meeting place? I've yet to see that.

The best analogy, as I used earlier, is one of a marriage. In order for a "virtual church" to be a valid form of community, you must commit to the notion that the "virtual church" experience is universally interchangeable with a church where belonging primarily begins with and is sustained by a consistent physical presence. If you truly believe both are interchangeable then you'll also be forced to admit that virtual marriage is interchangeable with a marriage in which two people actually, you know, live together and see each other, talk to each other face to face, and share intimate moments where they can, you know, actually touch each other.

So my question to you is that if you believe they are interchangeable, by all means, commit to that. But if they are not then admit that what you are talking about isn't Church but is, at best, a supplement to what Church can ultimately be.

The promotion and defense of the validity of "virtual church" is misplaced energy that should be funneled towards an effort to get people plugged into a community of embodied relationships where physical proximity is valued as a necessity and not a "maybe we'll actually meet face to face sometime" priority.

Zach - You wrote: "I might have missed something but show me where a critic of online or virtual churches have insisted that a church is defined by it's building or meeting place? I've yet to see that."

Almost all are. It's clear in their words even if most of them don't come right out and say it. (My first book was on implicit assumptions in biblical interpretation, so I have some experience at this). Even you yourself appear to be buying into a Western worldview without recognizing it. Oversimplifying here, these folks are privileging the physical. My arguments in SimChurch make the physical only one, necessary, part of the greater whole. Modern western thought makes the physical king; I'd like it go back to where it probably was intended to be, one part of many. Blessings.

Zach - Many people use the marriage metaphor -- Marriage is a reasonable metaphor but it's not necessarily the best one. After all, you do a lot physical things with your spouse you don't do with church folks! So as I mentioned above to Skye's post, marriage has some similarities and some dissimilarities.

Thank you Prof. Estes for responding to the need for definition. While understanding the limitations of a definition divorced from context, I do want to offer an irenic challenge to your working definition of "church."

“a localized assembly of the people of God dwelling in a meaningful community with the task of building up the Kingdom.”

I think this definition starts well and ends well but also illustrates what I believe to be a common problem...it is way too general. It lacks the specificity of Calvin's markers or Acts 2. How do we define "meaningful community?" Surely there are some common elements that we can offer from Scripture that are absolutely foundational if community is to have any kind of Christian meaning? Surely God's Word and the Sacraments are critical to provide biblically meaningful community, are they not? And even beyond that, modern day communication experts will tell you that for full communication - and here I would add meaningful communion - you need not only words, but tone of voice, body language, facial expressions, etc. Without these there is something lacking, missing that is essential for relationship...ergo, it cannot be "church."

I do like the idea of a "localized assembly of the people of God" and I like the missional component - tasked with building up the Kingdom of God. But meaningful community escapes us unless it is flesh and blood, life on life experience together.

Let me hasten to add, that this kind of meaningful community indeed is unfortunately not present in many churches today. That is a sad state of affairs that should cause us to weep. But it doesn't mean we can turn to virtual community as a replacement.

But perhaps you aren't arguing this? Perhaps you are indeed arguing that virtual church is a great SUPPLEMENT to flesh and blood community. I might be inclined to agree with you but I wouldn't call it "church". It is a ministry much like any other ministry in the church. And perhaps even a vital one in our culture today. Words like "church" carry a lot of theological freight and it is important not to use them carelessly. The very term "virtual church" suggests that one can find their primary source of community virtually, something I think is clearly not supported biblically or even by modern psychology/communication theory.

"Almost all are."

Great, then it would be easy for you to cite one instance.

"Even you yourself appear to be buying into a Western worldview without recognizing it. Oversimplifying here, these folks are privileging the physical."

I don't think privileging physical proximity in relationships and communities is a "Modern/Western" phenomenon. It seems to be pretty universal in all cultures throughout human history. Wouldn't you agree? This isn't about saying there aren't other ingredients to community but a realization that authentic relationships and healthy communities are primarily made possible by an ongoing, physical proximity to one another. Again, I'm having a hard to understanding how this needs to be explained at all.

"Marriage is a reasonable metaphor but it's not necessarily the best one. After all, you do a lot physical things with your spouse you don't do with church folks!"

I don't mean to be unkind but are you seriously that dense? That's your critique of the metaphor of marriage as it pertains to physical proximity in relationships? I'm afraid I've grossly overestimated my chances for serious, intelligent dialogue here.

Doug Resler - I understand what you're saying about Calvin's markers or Acts 2; just realize that trying to define church for everyone is like putting a genie back in a bottle, so to speak. For example, if I had just used Calvin's markers, I would have made the Reformed folks happy but lots of other folks unhappy. So, debating this a great deal, I felt I had to go my own way and develop a definition I thought accurate in today's language. As I mentioned above, it doesn't supplant any previous definitions, it is just one that I hope may prove useful for today.

Anyway, you argue that 'meaningful community escapes us unless it is flesh and blood.' Here is where I would disagree; I think that you can make the argument that all aspects of nature engaged would provide for more meaningful community, but it does not necessitate this. This is the difference, and it is a nuance, that is largely lost in this conversation. So, for example, internet baptisms (by immersion in water); folks who say it is not real, not legit or not meaningful are using a very narrow, modern, Western definition here for what is real and legit. The people are real, God is real, the water is real, the conversion is real; just because it takes place in synthetic space doesn't make it not real. As I pointed out in the post, this is lost on many critics because they it doesn't look or feel like baptism to them.

To say it would necessitate we have the baptism in a brick and mortar church feels true, but is not true. It feels true because of the worldview we have inherited.

As far as it being a supplement, I think that's fine but I personally don't think you have to say that either. It's sort of a colonialistic argument: introduce them to God in their culture, then ask them to come back to your culture. I'm not necessarily opposed to this, I just don't think it's best.

As you point out, correctly, we struggle to get meaningful community even in our brick and mortar churches. And it makes me very sad as well. Which is why I want as many healthy expressions of the church to proliferate in whatever world to bring life-changing community to whoever they meet.

"your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10) - I seriously doubt we will get to heaven and God will isolated us into cubicles where we can type praise to him. If one of our goals as Christians is to start living out heavenly priorities on earth then to some degree that would challenge the notion of virtual church.

That doesn't mean the internet has no place in doing things that advance the kingdom of God. It just means we cannot neglect the importance of rubbing shoulders.

Bottom line here is that I don't think any of us would say that we need less face to face time with each other and more virtual time. It is just trying to figure out how to most effectively use technology to the glory of the kingdom of God.

I know you are not answering me any more... but I have to point out- by your definition of a "localized assembly" the Virtual Church fails on both counts.
It is neither localized nor an assembly. Paul made a pretty clear differentiation between being there in person and being there "in spirit" and though he tried his best to exert influence through the medium of letters, there was much he reserved for face-to-face contact. His definition of a church was a "localized assembly" as well- he was just more consistent in applying and living it out.

At this point, you seem content, rather than answering the many objections to quibble with the semantics. If you are sensing frustration on this thread, I'd say look there and begin to go back to answer some of the questions. And if you *have* answered them in your book- how about a preview of the argument? You know- whet our appetites?
(That's truly meant to be a helpful suggestion)

simple question (and i got tired of reading the comments so maybe this has been addressed)

Jesus' command in John 13 was to love one another AS HE LOVED US. his love demonstrated in John 13,15, and at the cross was a self-sacrificing/service-oriented love.

How do people in a virtual church community live out that kind of love (which i'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, REQUIRES and element of life-sharing which would almost certainly require physical presence).

For example. How does a pastor comfort those grieving the unexpected loss of a son/brother/father? IM seems coldly inappropriate.

Skye,

Surely there are better thinkers who can do the theological work to support virtual church out there. I think we're moving in the right direction. Douglas is at least engaging in conversation vs Perry's passing shot in a sermon. I can't help but think that Douglas's book will sell well because it appears to be what the market demands. it comes off as a feel good response to a nice trend toward virtual church. It will sell and that's why books like this are published it seems. I got my hopes up when I say Douglas was from Western, but was really disturbed at the lack of actual depth to the post.

Bob Hyatt and Shane Hipps are really digging into this issue in thinking ways there has to be someone else out there to counter what they say right?

To folks who want to defend or talk about Myths of the virtual church. you will loose credibility with me if you don't seriously work through both of their work.

straw men won't do it.

Hope you are well Skye,

Mark

IM pastoral care:

lurkingJesusLover2648:

my gma died last night. :

virtualpastor:

SRY SS :

lurkingJesusLover2648:

nt good.

virtualpastor: JC cares

lurkingJesusLover2648: thx

Hot topic!

For the article in LJ that Skye mentions, I read Doug's book and appreciated it quite a bit. He considers virtual church legit, and he explores the issues involved and theology related to it. Certainly there is room for disagreement with his conclusion, but I do think it's worth noting that he's done his homework and labored well on the topic. I also don't think the best of that labor is yet expressed in this online conversation.

Bob: I'll send you my extra copy of Sim Church :)

Also, I think it's worth pointing out (again, per Skye's earlier comment) that the same issues that cause us to struggle with the legitimacy of internet church are THE SAME issues that plague many churches, such as:

- the primacy of content,

- the value of individual preference over community, and

- de-emphasizing church accountability and discipline.

I'm not suggesting that because most churches wrestle with these issues that internet church is "just as good as" physical expressions of church. I am suggestion that a conversation focused on "How do we address these issues in meaningful ways, whatever kind of church we are in?" might be more helpful than a conversation around "Is internet church legit?"
The latter conversation puts the lens of examination and improvement on all of us instead of letting us get by with pointing the proverbial finger at others. Just a thought.

I feel the need to comment just one more time and then I will shut up as we probably have exhausted this subject by now. Thank you for your continued engagement, Prof. Estes.

You seem to agree with my statement that "meaningful community escapes us unless it is flesh and blood" when you state "all aspects of nature engaged would provide for more meaningful community". However, you then go on to say its not necessary. I have to admit I am a bit confused. If we are all seeking more meaningful community, and I do hope we are, then why would we settle for anything less?

You go on to cite internet immersion baptisms as an example of this carefully constructed nuance you are arguing for. However, and I going to make several assumptions here because I have never actually seen an "internet" baptism, if there is a local body of believers who gather to baptize new believers in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with water and the event is simulcast across the internet...okay. Sounds fine to me. In fact, it sounds like you have a local church at that point. If, however, the pastor is in Nashville baptizing folks in the Gulf of Mexico then you have a problem. (And by the way, this isn't about baptism having to take place in a brick and mortar church building...no one here is arguing for that position...it's a straw man, let it go.)

This also isn't about a Western worldview that we've inherited. In fact, I would argue that your position is more a reflection of Western, Platonic thought which seeks to divide body and spirit. Our problem is not that we dwell too much on the physical, it is that we don't take it seriously enough. (See Gnosticism or the escapist Rapture theology of the last century among many others as prime examples) Throughout Christian history Word and Act have always been joined together. This follows the example set by our Lord Jesus Christ and his disciples and even goes further back to the earliest days of our Jewish forebears.

Again, I have to press the point...what we are talking about is an INCARNATIONAL faith. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." And, following Eugene Peterson, it seems to me that its only when we take the WAY of Jesus and combine it with the TRUTH of Jesus that we see the LIFE of Jesus revealed in us and in our local church bodies. Why would I want to settle for anything less?

This is really a great stuff for sharing.keep it up .Thanks for sharing,baby monitor

Good article. It lefts me thinking about it. Its such a well article.

At this point we MUST be done, because I no longer have any idea what anyone is talking about :)

Unfortunately, I appear to have come in at the tail end of the conversation, but I wanted to make one point, which I've made in previous threads, and get Prof. Estes' take on it.

First off, I have no issue with the concept of Internet campuses. The church I attend (and work at) offers online webcasts of services and has two satellite campuses.

My question is, if the church in general is already having problems with people who just show up, do their 90 minutes in the pews, and leave without having any interaction with fellow believers, then how does the Internet campus or "virtual church" address that? To me, it seems like it gives the ultra-casual church attendee another excuse to not fellowship with other Christians, further diluting that aspect of their walk with Christ.

Having just spent some time this weekend with a friend who is grieving, this thought came to me: how do you sit in silence with someone via the Internet?

To me, internet campuses of church are exactly the kind of commodification of the gospel that Skye Jethani and David Fitch, just to name two, have written about in this space. Get your great preaching/teaching online, get your fellowship with your friends, get your service with your local charity, listen to your favorite songs on your local K-LOVE.

There is no defense.
Not sure God's temple can be pixels. 1 Cor. 3.16
This is not even addressing the pragmatics. We are beginning to see a backlash against the virtual among 20 somethings. Seems that real face to face, knee to knee interaction somehow is more satisfying. Maybe that is why a phone was almost thrown across the room when a young woman who was in deep conversation got a text message. Just a thought.

Doug,

One day, when you die (hopefully decades from now), I will attend your virtual funeral. No really. I will totally log in and offer your family the comfort of my virtual presence. I know how much my typing will mean to them in a moment of loss. How the sound of my voice over the internet will comfort them in their grief. How my emoticons will bring a smile to their faces in the midst of tragedy.

This article is easily the sloppiest thinking posted on Ur (at least since my last article).

One point that may have been missed in all the comments is that the article was intended to debunk some myths about virtual church not defend it, but editors changed the title. That helps a bit, however, if people are giving these particular straw man arguments against the virtual church their ecclessiology isn't particularly well defined anyways.

The whole issue of the legitimacy of virtual church surrounds authenticity and community. The synthetic nature of gathering over computers isn't wrong because of its form, it is just too limited to be the full and beautiful bride of Christ.

Dave's last comments here are a bit snarky (I can say that because he is my friend) but they are accurate in their message. Any virtual church will miss out on an opportunity to have real community. It can be a tool to supplement or enhance a relationship, but it is just no substitute for living life together.

What a sad, sad reality. Vampire Christians: they want the blood, but not the body!

I would like to offer a differing perspective.

Online church has saved my soul.

Truly, that is not too strong a phrase. I am not a scholar, but I have been a seeker for most of my life. I have been an active participant in brick and mortar churches, but I never was able to make the leap of faith from seeker to disciple. In February 2008, in what could only be the work of the Holy Spirit, I was led to an online church called St. Pixels. (www.stpixels.com)

St. Pixels has many components. There is a chat room area which has both social areas (the porch and the bar) and worship areas (the sanctuary.) Every day at 9 pm British time, there is a service. There are services held at other times during several other days of the week. Obviously, sacraments (baptism, eucharist) cannot be served in a virtual manner. However, worship can and does take place. There is a congregational leader. The service consists of hymns or songs, a reading from Scripture, a sermon or message preached from a virtual pulpit, and prayers led both by the congregational leader and the community.

If these components of worship were held in a brick and mortar church, would this be considered a worship service? Of course! Therefore, it is difficult for me to say that this does not meet the criteria for worship. God is clearly present! His Word is proclaimed. Prayers are offered.

Furthermore, the church does not consist solely of worship. If it lacked a cohesive community, then I believe we would be justified in calling into question the ecclesiastical nature of it. However, members spend a great deal of time in fellowship in "the porch" or "the bar." We come to know one another well and to share in joys and sorrows of our community.

Members also participate in blogs, in which they talk about things of a personal nature. There is a "discuss" stream, in which larger, more generalized discussions (including the notion of whether or not we are a "real" church) are discussed. Bible studies are held, both in real time in the chat room, and through discussions on Biblical verses and books in the discuss forums.

Many members have met face to face. We are a truly international community, although the majority of the members are from either the UK or the USA. We have members in Australia, France, Africa, India, and South America. We have telephone meets.

In terms of serving one another, obviously casseroles are difficult. However, cards and gifts are mailed between members. We minister to one another. One of our beloved members, who was part of three generations who worship at St. Pixels, died earlier this week. The community is in mourning, but we have gathered together to support her daughter. Hundreds of prayers have been said. Fellowship and support have been extended to her daughter and grand daughter. Gifts have been sent. Telephone calls have been made. Members have discussed flying to be there with the family. These are real relationships that develop. Hundreds of hours have been spent getting to know one another. We are truly not strangers; we are brothers and sisters in Christ.

While I have heard the words of the Good News proclaimed from pulpits in churches across the country, it was not until I heard it proclaimed at St. Pixels, and felt it extended through the support of the online community that I have come to true faith and experience of grace. It has been at St. Pixels that I have come to understand the Good News.

A pastor (a flesh and blood pastor, from Illinois) met me there and heard my questions and searching. Thank God that he felt the call of John Wesley to preach the gospel throughout the world. He has spent literally thousands of hours in pastoral counseling via the medium of the internet. In the age of the virtual world, time and space have less meaning than they used to. If I am not mistaken, it is possible that this is also a feature of the heavenly Kingdom. This pastoral relationship, along with the support of the larger st. pixels community, has shown me what grace truly is. I have a relationship with Jesus because of the worship, prayers, and fellowship of virtual church.

Is online church a replacement for brick and mortar churches? By no means! Physical church relationships are vital. Nobody at St. Pixels have doubted that. Most, although not all, are also involved in physical church. But for many members, including several elderly or infirm members who have had difficulty getting to a brick and mortar church, online church has provided experiences of worship, study, and community that have served to proclaim the Good News. For some seekers, virtual church has served as a place of exploration that they experienced as less threatening than the brick and mortar establishments, and have led them to both knowledge and love of God, as well as encouraging them to find a brick and mortar place of worship. Evangelism is another ecclesiastical experience that is possible in virtual church.

Where two or three are gathered together in His Name, He is in the midst of them. He is truly, and surely, present in virtual communities.

Since the church which Jesus Christ himself built is synonymous with his divine identity as the "Son of the living God", i.e., immortal (Matt. 16: 13-28),revealed and still active at his perfect and diacritical death on the cross (John 8: 21-28; 14: 15-21; 19: 30-37; Rev. 21:22), for true worship of God (as he is: Spirit) and without any frontiers whatsoever (John 4: 21-26), the virtual church works for me!

PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow. It occurs to me to ask, are we all Christians here, or have a few pot stirrers snuck in? When the disciples caught some fellow preaching the gospel who hadn't been ratified by Jesus, they wanted to stop him. Jesus said leave him be.
Facebook has Christian Church Online, along with a few others. At CCO Christ is preached each Sunday, and that, along with other subjects the 335 members, so far, bring to the table are discussed. It is ministry. Of course we can't hold hands, share physical communion, but we do pray for one another, commisserate with, share the gospel with one another. The love is real.
Be at peace, my friends, it's all about love, and God is crazy about you.

Well Is not radio or television "church" a (relatively speaking) primitive,yet primary development from what Paul alludes to as the church in someone's house. This is quite "green" technology after all.In primitive radio or television "church" the shut-in may sing-along and listen to the sermon. In essence this is church by extension in abstentia. Laterhe/she may send in an offering or ask for prayer or even receive Jesus Christ if this is the pressing need of their heart. Now the advancement in technology grants an interaction in a virtual world. The logistics have changed from horse and buggy days where church was stained glass not monitor glass but the hunger and spiritual need that might attract someone to a gospel relevant program where the same gospel is preached as in churches is never antiquated. In fact the effort to attend a virtual church would affirm and define probably more precisely the hunger quotient of that participant than to attend a brick and mortar church as a routine tradition. The question is not the geographical route to "church" even through cyber space but the meeting with God and the level of God filling versus the emptiness of religious activity. I do not see any justification to knock any means whereby a person may be blessed by God. This could serve to clandestinely be an "underground" church for millions beyond North America who are denied the freedom to congregate in the name of Jesus Christ.Why should overly indulged North Americans complain? This is a missionary opportunity as I see it Those who do this see beyond their four walls. I attend a church( not in a church building) with only 20-30 people. We have canvassed local areas but it certainly is not a "pop" fire starter or Holy Ghost convicting of sin_ "I must get to this church now and repent" movement.Is virtual church a convicting force or salt and light? It could be all these or nothing. But both the producers and participants are meeting, the one with an empty glass-- the other with the water of life to fill up the empty heart.