Was Mr. Hyatt being sarcastic when he said parenthetically, "A pub? That's a great idea"? I couldn't tell if that was sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek.

Greg:
Sorry, that's a bit of an inside joke. Bob Hyatt's church meets in a pub. www.evergreenlife.org

there are only two things i see of value in "simchurch/virtual church/whatever:

1. i can see online as a portal/gateway to actual embodied life together.

2. a stop gap in extremis wherein someone is isolated by circumstances/context and there is no available space for them. (and no, this doesn't mean you just don't like the churches in your town.)

Bob, would you be comfortable with saying that some aspects of church can happen online? Or are you arguing that nothing that happens online can even remotely be called church?

Bob,

While I agree with you 100% on what you have said here and take major contention with the idea of "Virtual Church" is it okay to ask if you have read the book? The comments in the previous post sounded like you had not and I wanted to know if you were critiquing the book itself or critiquing Doug's post. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You are right on track.

Normally, I leave my name here. I won't this time because of what I need to say.

Bob, you ask about discipleship and discipline. First, I do go to a physical church on Sunday (which has a strong internet church component to it throughout the week). But I'm also part of another community online that often feels something like what people describe when they talk about internet church.

For me, this community has been essential in helping me deal with the temptation of online pornography. It is very very helpful to experience a community in the same context as the temptation.

Is this community part of my church experience? I think so. Does it replace my physical church community? That would be silly.

This is a very interesting subject and one that I have been contemplating in relation to mental health.

I had a patient who had "virtual friendships." He had a severe form of OCD and would rewrite emails to friends until his wording was absolutely perfect. In this way, he was able to maintain a kind of perfection which is impossible with flesh and blood interactions. I tell his story in my book, Finding Purpose Beyond Our Pain.

I would imagine that the same is true spiritually in the church. We can more easily maintain a religious perfection without the face to face interactions that reveal our humanity. Slowly but surely, we are retreating into a virtual world where we try to minimize the pain that is so important for our growth as Christians and as humans.

And let us remember that the church together raises children and cares for widows and creates a family that transcends families.

Virtual programs are wonderful. Let us make them as effective as possible. Let us not imply that they can be the full expression of the community of God's people.

Great article...even being a tech junkie, I am very uneasy about "online church."

Don't get me wrong, I have and have had online forum friends that I consider great friends and pastoral peers.

However, there is no substitute for flesh and blood. I must have peers and friends that I can see, touch, feel, etc. We need to eat together. Cry together. Laugh together. Hug each other.

Online ministry should be a TOOL for us to help us do ministry, perhaps help people fill a "gap" of missing a Sunday (sickness, trip, etc.), but I'm not for online church substituting the gathering of believers.

"Bob, would you be comfortable with saying that some aspects of church can happen online? Or are you arguing that nothing that happens online can even remotely be called church?"

Absolutely. Many aspects. But in this case, the sum of the parts of online spirituality can never add up to the whole of "Church"- of Ecclesia- the gathering of believers for the purpose of teaching, breaking bread, fellowship and worship.

"is it okay to ask if you have read the book? The comments in the previous post sounded like you had not and I wanted to know if you were critiquing the book itself or critiquing Doug's post. "

Absolutely ok. I have not read the book yet- it's on its way to me right now. I look forward to giving it a more even-handed response! :)

This post was simply a response to Mr Estes previous post, which I felt took direct aim at some other things I had written here on Ur...

Bob - Thanks for your thoughts here. We're responding to Doug's post over at Rethink Mission as well. Would love your insights.

http://www.rethinkmission.org/church/in-defense-of-physical-community-part-one/

We.
The we, being you, me, the other guy, that woman over there, him right there, her over there are all...social animals.
Yes, I used animal, get over it.
We were designed to be social, we were given the methods of sociability, to interact, to communicate, to indicate temperment, pleasure, disgust, patience, but most of all love.
G-d intended us to be social, and with all the aforementioned exhibitions of that socialiness one would think this is a no brainer, and yet...

The virtual church is a mockery of church, and the way the church was meant to be.

Church, as we here in the United States have grown up with, evolved with, and participated in has far to long catered to the shadow's anonymity in the last pew.
The Church is a meeting of people, bad breath, body order, perfumed of every variety in all it's foul and wonderous entirety.
People entering a community bring all of their baggage with them, and by engaging in that community we ALL learn to accept others as they are, not as we want them to be.
Remember, we're to imitate Y'shua, not each other.
This virtual Church is, as it has rightly been pointed out, a logical next step for the continual existence of the shadow desiring a quiet entrance and a quieter exit from the congregation. No commitment, no way to be known, and avoidance of having to know anyone.
I call it a complete and total lack of trust in G-d, and perhaps, by permitting this...thinking...we, the Church, have given weight to the idea that we're only looking for carbon copies of ourselves.
The church is not a country club for like minded individuals in nice suits and dresses to gather, sip their drinks, talk about the events that make us proud to be members, and roar with approval when someone we admire says something profound enough to be repeated for the evening's dinner.
No.
We're a rescue ship, floundering in a stormy sea, hauling waterlogged individuals from the depths of this crappy life.
And there is one thing that I can gaurantee...any person draping the shadow of incognito over themselves will never, ever get wet.
And that is all because we, the church, allowed it.
This is why I think the virtual church should be drowned, buried, and never allowed to see the light of day...we already have something akin to it right now with the shadow's attending church, and it's not working.

Has the irony been lost here, or is it just me...

The debate of the "real" church vs "virtual" church is being debated through "virtual" means.

Wrestling through the issue of using the internet, through the internet.

I see...

Hi Bob,

I haven't read through all the comments so I don't know if this has been covered or not. As I read the book I didn't experience Donald as being an over-the-top apologist for online churches. He is the pastor of a brick and mortar church himself. I actually felt that he asked very real, pointed questions towards virtual churches and yet also stretched someone like me who was previously opposed to the thought of the validity of this type of format for a church meeting.

The discussion SHOULD be had, and Douglas' book is a GREAT starting place for that. I hope that others will read it with an open mind so that we can have good and productive dialog.

(my review of his book is here: http://captainestes.blogspot.com/2009/10/can-church-exist-in-cyberspace.html)

"Has the irony been lost here, or is it just me...
The debate of the "real" church vs "virtual" church is being debated through "virtual" means.
Wrestling through the issue of using the internet, through the internet.
I see..."

Yes- it's just you. Like I said previously- I met my wife online. But at a certain point, for our relationship to continue and our marriage to be "real", we had to enter and occupy the same non-virtual space together.

No one (especially not me) is saying that online interactions have no place. Our church has an entire forum devoted to online interaction.
But we see it as a supplement and help to real-space relationships, not a replacement of them. To that end e encourage people to use actual pictures of themselves as their avatar and their real names- because we want what we do in that space to enhance what we do when we're together.
And far from enhancing- the concept of virtual church seems (for some) to want to make space to replace and supplant those real space interactions by saying "this is really the same thing." It's not.

"Has the irony been lost here, or is it just me..."

The only irony here is the inappropriate use of irony in the context of this discussion...other than that...

"The debate of the "real" church vs "virtual" church is being debated through "virtual" means."

There is a world of difference between a debate and "church."
Certainly, we can discus the differences of intellectuality in a communal setting, face to face, and with the application of facial expressions, body adjustments, and various non-verbal cues communicate an entire array of unspoken personal thoughts.
Try that on the internet.
Certainly, I come off like an arrogant putz, and in person, I'm quite the same, however, my expressions communicate entire statements which no one here in this forum will ever see.
Consider yourselves fortunate.
Also, inflections of voice can contextualize snarky, serious, or humorous intentions, which would frame the discussion so that the listeners can evaluate the speakers demeanor.

So, once again, returning to the debate of church, there is no way you, me, Bob, Dave, Doug, George, Susan, Liz, Courtney, et al can express any believable amount of love, concern, care over the internet that would be of any use to someone suffering.

Certainly, we can write out some wonderful poetry that would bring tears to your eyes, and post videos that will leave you with a warm glow...but personal intimacy through the CRT does not the caring touch of another human being replace.
Church, all of us in this boiling cauldron we call life, is where we come together, hug one another, cry with one another, celebrate with one another, cheer one another, worship with one another, know one another.
The internet...yeah, we can debate till the cows come home, exchange ideas, information, even teach, but for meeting basic human emotional needs that we all have...virtual church is wrong. wrong. wrong.
Fellowship amongst believers is what helps us get through our days, our weeks, our months, our years, our lives.
The irony then is that we who should know better, the followers of G-d, the promoters of fellowship, lovers of brothers and sisters, still insist that we are not a corporate body, nor a fellowship of believers, just a random selection of like minded people bopping in and out as we like in our little social groups. Giving them as much credence as we do our music selections on our radio...if the music isn't to our liking...off to another station.

/sigh

Normally raises a great point: virtual church doesn't have to do much to offer more community than modern church.
80% of what our church does at a Sunday service requires no interaction (singing karaoke at a screen; listening to a monologue while staring at the back of someone's head); 15% with interaction that could be substituted for what I can do online ('social networking'); and about 5% unique interaction.

Let's be clear: all the limitations and legitimate critiques of virtual church can equally apply to most 'real' churches, most of which are virtually virtual church anyway.

Rahab- I'll just say what everyone else reading this is thinking- it's impossible to follow what you write and I tend to just skip over it. I'm thinking English is not your native language? God bless you for wanting to add to the conversation, but you are not really adding to the conversation! No one is answering because, frankly- we have no idea what you are talking about!

My comments and questions relate not to the virtual church as a supplement but as a substitute to a literal physical gathering of people.

Do we ever question the ethics or theology of technology? Because this what much of the debate should be focused on. Not that we should avoid questions related to the nature of the church. Has technology gotten the best of us or should it be the other way around. Maybe we should look at this a little more?

Rahab: I understand 90% of what you say. It is in weakness, even linguistic weakness, that the power of God can flow so that He gets the glory. It's long overdue for Americans to persevere at understanding others not in their box. American saints are trained to gush over expertise in speaking, but God does not get the glory there. The Holy Spirit will intercede for you to those whose hearts are open to God's design of power through weakness

@Tim

asking for basic syntax isn't gushing over eloquence.

feh...

oh...you're writing poetry/being poetic?

like stream of consciousness/flow type stuff?

i asked my wife, a woman, to read your posts...she thinks they're bordering on incoherent.

that being said, if you see yourself as poetic...well, that at least helps me see where you're coming from.

would you be willing to break it down and put your last post in "non-poetic" form?

that might be a way of helping people understand your contributions to the conversation.

Nathan- the poster to which you refer has been "deleted." It appears she's in need of some help- she's posting some pretty wild things all over the internet- some pretty slanderous. The editors at UR have wisely left out her "contributions" to this conversation (even though nothing she said on this thread went beyond incoherence).
But that does leave some of the comments responding to her looking a bit odd!

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.

At St. Pixels, one cannot change one's avatar or identity on a whim. It is set up in such a way that identities are stable over time. Church discipline does, in fact, occur. It is not the same as physical interaction, but it is profoundly, at times excruciatingly, real. We have experienced births, deaths, and weddings amongst our members. These things are not just things that occur once you turn off the screen. Joys and sorrows are shared.

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 will be in the midst of them. By that definition, He is truly present.

"Is online church a replacement for brick and mortar churches? By no means!"- exactly. My point precisely.
And yet, the simple act of calling it "online church" implies the opposite.

Look- no one is saying significant ministry can't happen via the internet. It can and does.

You say "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." This implies your definition of church is "worship+Fellowship = Church". I'm saying that biblically, that falls short.
"Obviously, sacraments (baptism, eucharist) cannot be served in a virtual manner." And there's just one way it falls short. I've listed a few others in this article. (By the way- what percentage of people logging in would you say are singing along and actually worshiping, as opposed to sitting passively and listening? I'd bet it's pretty high)

Again- significant ministry can happen on the internet- preaching, encouragement, etc.
But some very essential elements for what it means to be the body of Christ are missing when engagement is primarily online.
God is present everywhere. We CAN'T be. God calls us to be present to people in a local assembly for many good reasons that the internet just will never be able to replicate.

"Is online church a replacement for brick and mortar churches? By no means!"- exactly. My point precisely.
And yet, the simple act of calling it "online church" implies the opposite.

Look- no one is saying significant ministry can't happen via the internet. It can and does.

You say "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." This implies your definition of church is "worship+Fellowship = Church". I'm saying that biblically, that falls short.
"Obviously, sacraments (baptism, eucharist) cannot be served in a virtual manner." And there's just one way it falls short. I've listed a few others in this article. (By the way- what percentage of people logging in would you say are singing along and actually worshiping, as opposed to sitting passively and listening? I'd bet it's pretty high)

Again- significant ministry can happen on the internet- preaching, encouragement, etc.
But some very essential elements for what it means to be the body of Christ are missing when engagement is primarily online.
God is present everywhere. We CAN'T be. God calls us to be present to people in a local assembly for many good reasons that the internet just will never be able to replicate.

"My prayer...that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you...May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me..." (John 17:20-23)

The "virtual church" is STILL a good idea in promoting spiritual unity vs. the "brick and mortar church" that, sadly and ironically, perpetuates the divisions of Christianity.

I want to thank you, Bob, for the seriousness with which you take this issue. You really do have some very good points. There really cannot be Biblical eldership in an online community. St. Pixels has several pastors that are part of the community, but none of them function in that capacity officially. The services are essentially lay led, even if the person leading that particular service is ordained in a brick and mortar church.

But, if I recall correctly (remember, I am not a scholar, so please forgive me for my errors), the earliest churches also did not have elders. Church leadership came about pretty early on, during the time of Paul, but house churches did not always have ordination.

However, St. Pixels does equip people for leadership. There are studies, and people who are more learned than others in particular areas, tend to do more leading in those areas, although granted it is usually in an unofficial capacity. People are chosen for positions as moderators or hosts of various areas.

But, granted, it isn't the same.

I agree that simultaniety does not equal community. To be honest, I've had some experience visiting churches where the service consists of watching a large screen, maybe singing along with a worship band, and then exiting. To me, those experiences have always felt very isolating, even though they have taken place in mega churches. We are "meeting" together in the same physical presence, but there truly is no community nor relationships. It is primarily a passive experience.

Perhaps because of how it is arranged, and the size, I have not felt that same experience at St. Pixels. The largest attendence has been 50 people, and generally services consist of around 20 or so. This makes for a far more manageable group, especially when it is hampered (and yes, in some ways, it does hamper) by the lack of physical presence. But in a group that size, participation is possible and necessary. As to what percentage of people actually sing along, it is probably a fairly smallish number, maybe 30% or so. Of course, I've noticed more than a few people in brick and mortar churches not singing, either. In the prayers of the people, most people do participate. Probably about 80% or so.

Equipping for ministry is a trickier issue. In some ways, St. Pixels does an excellent job of equipping members for membership. People get experience in things (preaching, leading worship, conducting Bible studies) that they might not have the confidence or opportunity to do in real life. However, it does suffer from an inability to equip ministers for many areas of ministry (physical ministries, education of children, etc). That is a real limitation.

You are correct that online we cannot be truly present with other people in ways we can be off screen. But, in some other ways, we can be more present. I can worship with my community when I am traveling. When I moved, my church moved with me. I can be in dialogue and worship with people all over the globe, in a myriad of time zones. And frankly, I was able to be honest at St. Pixels about my spiritual struggles, largely because it was a virtual space. Hardly a ringing endorsement, but in some ways, communication and intimacy are enhanced, because we may be less threatened. I was able to talk about my problems with God with a pastor BECAUSE he was a thousand miles away. For thirty years, I had been too scared to be forthright or honest with someone in the same room. It was a pretty big breakthrough, one that has allowed me to expand, to be more real with people who are located in the same geographical space.

Quite frankly, I am more comfortable calling St. Pixels a church than calling internet outreach done as part of a larger congregation "church." At St. Pixels, this is it. This is what we have. This is our community and our congregation, and as such there is remarkable stability of membership and pretty extensive commitment to the congregation. (To receive membership, you must have been a registered user/ attender for six months.) Online outreach events tends to not have that same stability. It is something people utilize, rather than something to which they belong.

I can accept your premise that virtual church does not meet the ecclesiastical definition of church. It does have significant limitations, although, in practice it does feel more relational than most brick and mortar congregations, possibly due to the amount of fellowship and intimacy, and sheer time, that is shared, as well as the smaller numbers.

My question is then, what DO we call it? What term would reflect the ministry, community, and worship that online churches offer and create, but would not confuse members into thinking it meets all the Biblical criteria for ecclesiastical membership? In practice, members don't think of it as a replacement for brick and mortar churches, but many DO see it as their primary congregation (ie the place where they feel they experience the Holy Spirit's presence, where they feel they are growing in knowledge and love of God, and where they experience fellowship with other believers.) It is far more than a stop gap measure. I guess I'm wondering, what would be a better term?

Church is a place where people find peace and pray to god. I don't think that ON line or virtual church can give you this.

One thing that makes going to church special is the concept of "sacrifice". Online prayer communities can be called as just that, "communities". While online universities work, physical and spiritual presence is needed to make a church experience real.