Noted Prof. and blogger Scot McKnight just posted the following @ his Jesus Creed blog, which is an actual spin-off of In Defense of Virtual Church:
The good news for the world today is that virtual churches, Baptist churches, banana-tree churches, underground churches, Lutheran churches, communal churches, house churches, and yes, even tragically-hip Pacific Northwest alternative ‘pub’ churches are real churches. You may not want to meet in synthetic space–and I would not want to meet in a bar–but it doesn’t change the fact that when the people of God meet together for the purpose of glorifying Him, it’s a real church. Online churches are real churches with real people in real relationships with a real God simply meeting in synthetic spaces.
Here’s the grind: Virtual Church should be viewed as a means to an end, not an end in itself. If Virtual Church becomes an end in itself, I’m afraid it’s not “real” church—whatever that means!
Communal life is missing from Virtual Church. So how could it be real church?
Not a defense, but an admittance, needed. Period.
What is needed for “communal life”? Do people actually have to be near each other physically to share in communal life? What does this say about the relationships that we have that don’t have the ability to always be face to face especially when they play such an important role in our lives.
In the past I would have dismissed the idea of virtual church but recently I’ve begun to rethink it. I have some thoughts about it versus traditional forms of church but I’ll wait til I’m not on my iPhone.
Bryan L
Bryan L, yep, people have to actually have to be near each other physically to share in communal life. Think about the incarnation, God actually coming near us, in fact, becoming like us.
Relationships where we don’t have the ability to always be face to face are lacking. We know that from experience. I’m sure you’d agree.
I’m sure they’re some positives to the Virtual Church experience, but it shouldn’t be an end in itself.
But I’ll wait til I’m not on my iPhone.
Good example.
TC:
The problem I have with the idea that real church=communal life=being physically present is the reality of most churches. In most churches even if people are physically gathered together that doesn’t mean they are actually sharing in any real communion time or interacting on any real meaningful level with each other. Sure some do but most probably don’t and even those that do may only really interact with, what, 5-10 people at the most?
Is this that much more real just because people are occupying the same building?
What if people are able to have more meaningful interactions with other people through virtual church than they are regular churches (and not just because they don’t like regular churches or something)? Moreover, what if they’re able to actual meet more often because people don’t have to travel anywhere and can actually come and go as they please based on their schedule? You have the potential, with enough people, to have church going on constantly with people coming and going as their time frees up. Just look at how you use the internet and when you blog and comment on other blogs. Imagine a situation where you are doing this with church and you check in at various times during the day for various lengths and join other people in worship, studying and discussing the word or theology, praying for needs, or hearing a sermon and giving real time feedback and interaction, or just discussing the latest movie or whatever else happens to be going on at the moment. To me, that sound better than the way most “real church” is.
I can think of a number of advantages of doing church in this way instead of the traditional way.
The thing is that the internet age is here and it’s changing the way people interact with each other, whether we like it or not and in many cases it enables people to (1) be themselves with others in a way that they don’t know how to be in person, and (2) have more meaningful interaction with more people that they wouldn’t normally have in person (just think how many people are better friends on Facebook than they are in person or how texting enables people to “talk” to each other more than they would over the phone or in person). Things aren’t going back to the old way. This is increasingly how more and more people are becoming and learning to relate to each other (do teenagers know anything else). I think the best thing for the Church to do is to learn how to adapt, make the best out of it, and even learn how to innovate and be a leader in it instead of getting left behind like they do in so many other things before finally jumping on board.
Bryan L
Bryan L,
Thanks for your response. True that most church may not be enjoying that “real” church concept, but some are.
But even if most aren’t experiencing communal churches doesn’t mean virtual church is the answer. Virtual church is no answer.
Virtual church cannot and will never be the answer to physical communal gathering.
I simply do not see the potential of virtual church that you see and speak of.
It’s a dream at best.
Virtual church is a form of docetism – its ecclesial docetism, an appearance but not the actual reality.
I think it’s pathetic that social networks like Facebook have replaced real face-to-face exchange. It’s a terrible social commentary. Come on!
Sorry TC, but I have to side with Bryan. If you define “church” to only be where your members are physically gathered together, then your church is already dead. A living church is God’s people working out their faith in the world, not huddled together in communal life. Communal life is a means, not the end.
I am with TC on this. And I am going to use an analogy from my own career as a music educator. I teach drum set at three universities. One of them is 700 miles away, so those lessons are through video conference via the internet: They are virtual lessons.
The virtual lessons are great! For that school they provide something that they wouldn’t otherwise have, and I do get to interact with many great students that I wouldn’t otherwise have the opportunity to work with. I have adopted my teaching style to accommodate the virtual world. And the students learn…BUT… and this is a big but…it is not as good as being their live. Why?
1) The sound quality is not as good.
2) The interaction is not as spontaneous (lag and such)
3) DYNAMICS are somewhat lost!
4) I cannot talk with the students before or after the lessons, nor can I visit with them during the week. In other words, the lessons and any communal interaction are limited to that 30 minute block of time.
That is why TC is correct! Community isn’t formed by 1 hour a week at Church. It is formed through the interactions that take place in and around that 1 hour a week. That is what community is! Jesus didn’t meet with his disciples once a week. The lived, breathed, ate and walked together daily.
And I also agree with TC regarding Facebook. Facebook is a rather shallow substitute for human connection! In fact, don’t even get me started about Facebook!!
Virtual church can and should be used as a good substitute for the real thing when needed.
EE,
How else must we define church? Church in the biblical sense a called out, renewed body of Christ-followers, who meet regularly to worship, learn, etc. (Acts 2:42ff).
But neither am I saying that church should be limited to whenever we gather. That has been a misstep on the church’s part for centuries.
But virtual church is not the answer to the mess we’ve created.
Meaningful communal life is, which is best achieved when we’re gathered physical. No one said it was going to come easily.
Tomg said:
Thanks for the music analogy. I see your point. Exactly what I’m arguing.
And of course some of us suck at those face-to-face, but virtual church is not the answer.
We need to try harder in the power of the Spirit.
As long as we agree on that, then we’re okay.
Fair enough.
Tomg and TC, you guys are right about church/community. I would even go further in stating that it will be very difficult, even impossible, to be able to stand firm in our faith without community.Too many people are slipping through the cracks believing that they can be lone ranger Christians. There is no such thing.
I think there was plenty for me to respond to in your last response (and you know I’d love to, especially that clever docetism remark : ) but I want to focus on one thing in particular that you said that I think really gets at what the issue is here.
“I think it’s pathetic that social networks like Facebook have replaced real face-to-face exchange. It’s a terrible social commentary. Come on!”
I think this sentence itself reveals more than anything why you are against something like Virtual Church and don’t see it as legitimate. You are against those types of relationships (online) and you see them as an unfortunate concession, whereas plenty of people find them meaningful and don’t at all think their sad or pathetic because, in fact, they actually get to be connected to more people on a regular basis than they would have otherwise (because of time, distance, resources, preference or whatever).
It comes down to how you view technology like the internet and the way it has changed the way people interact with each other. Some people have no problem at all being really plugged in, and even prefer it in many cases, whereas others see it as a necessary evil. Which side do you fall on?
Bryan L
Bryan L, thanks for coming back to this issue. With an either/or, I see it as “a necessary evil.”
For people who see places like Facebook as a “real” substitute for that face-to-face communal experience, something is definitely wrong.
The hiccups we encounter with the face-to-face is part of the deal. Note all those “one another” texts of Scripture. How can a virtual experience truly fulfilled them.
There’s something about the face-to-face that the virtual will never be able to capture.
For more reading: http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/10/young-christian-authors-jesse.html
EE,
The Church of Facebook explains through (what I’d call) social psychology how the Facebook phenomenon arose (spontaneous order is his term — great story to begin the book) and what it provides for 300 million people (connection, not to be confused with community) and how it is illuminating so many things about life (like relationships) and how we are adapting to it in so many ways … and then he offers some warnings about how to live in a Facebook world as followers of Christ.
Thanks for the link. I read it. Interesting stuff! I agree that we need to take this virtual phenomenon seriously.
Pingback: CNN Discusses Virtual Churches « Near Emmaus: Christ and Text