Since we are still evaluating the reality & potential of church online the question just keeps coming up: “Of course, [virtual church] is possible. But is it biblical?”
The following is a response to me from Douglas Estes, author of SimChurch regarding his reflections on this post by Drew Goodmanson – Is Online Community real community; Questions about the virtual church?
A virtual church is just as biblical as a Baptist church, a house church, a Lutheran church, a megachurch, a Pentecostal church, a contemporary rock church or a traditional American fundamentalist church. Why? Because the Bible doesn’t prescribe one type of culture or ‘format’ for doing church. Period. I know that most Christians—even pastors and church leaders—will grudgingly admit this in public and not believe it in their hearts though it is the biblical viewpoint. Everyone who is passionate about the church views their version of the church to be the best, most right, most biblical, most blessed, and closest-to-the-New-Testament version of church as possible. This is not wrong but it does become a problem when we try to say that other people don’t have biblical churches (with the exception of churches whose theology/practice fall outside of historic orthodoxy). We can group current criticisms of online church into 2 main areas—and the first area, rightfully labeled, is denominationalism. This may seem kind of funny because I don’t mean that online churches are a new denomination; I mean that some people are reacting to them through the same lens (not our way = different = not biblical). Let’s consider the second area in more detail.
One important part of writing SimChurch was my starting point: I did not start with virtual churches. I started with the Bible and church history. A critical part of the research was investigating both with discernment to see if there would be anything to prevent an online church. The answer is no. And this is not an argument from silence (like those folks who say it’s okay to do drugs because they Bible doesn’t directly say we can’t), this is a ‘no’ from a close reading of the Bible and church history. In fact, anyone who has studied church history understands that God moves the church in seemingly radical directions at times. So far, most of the arguments against online church are the same types of arguments as those leveled at every new Christian group that has come along since Jesus left us.
Many of the criticisms I read seem to be written by people who are using the internet circa 1999. They forget that even older technologies such as Skype allow for a great deal of interaction, except fully physical (there is some physical because you can see the other person, wave, make faces, laugh, etc). More specifically, Drew (and others) cite verses in the Bible that deal with community and then argue that this community must be rooted in physical proximity (but not the SecondLife or Skype kind). I don’t want to (mis)characterize Drew’s argument here; and to be fair, Drew listed a few verses in a 200 word post whereas I wrote a whole book on this issue. Still, I need to point out a few serious problems with arguments like Drew and others use. SimChurch goes into much more detail, but let’s briefly look at the issues:
First, Drew lists 27 verses (all from the New Testament) that allude to community, or more specifically, what he calls “one-anothering.” These verses include loving one another (1 John 3:11) and the holy kiss one (1 Peter 5:14). In SimChurch, I defined a church as “a localized assembly of the people of God dwelling in a meaningful community with the task of building up the Kingdom.” Now, some people may tweak this but overall I feel it is a solid definition of church from a biblical and church-historical perspective (within a Protestant tradition such I come from). I think we can agree that church must be both local and a meaningful community. The problem comes in when we try to take the verses Drew cited and decide the physical extension of them. As with most of the Bible, these verses are communicating spiritual truth more so than physical truths. When the Bible tells me to love someone else, hugging is probably included in this but it is not the central meaning of the verse at hand (it is greeting). I can prove this: We don’t literally greet people with a holy kiss (at least I’ve never attended any church anywhere that does) at church. Why? Because we understand that the spiritual reality of greeting and loving another follower of Jesus is so much bigger than the physical expression. This is not to say the physical expression is not important; it’s just to say that certain physical expressions are just one aspect of it. Please note that I am also not trying to over-spiritualize this issue; I’m neither downplaying nor disregarding the physical aspect just pointing that it is only one part of what it means to have community. Again, consider people riding the NY subway to work—if you’ve ever done this, you know you unwittingly touch a lot of people due to the crowdedness of the train, but no one would consider a subway car (real) community!
Truthfully, none of the verses Drew lists speak to whether a church should meet in a building (been there), under a banana tree in a jungle (done that), or in synthetic space over the internet. In fact, as Drew admitted in his post, and any honest Christian will admit, we don’t get the type of community that the Bible describes in some/many/most/all ‘regular’ brick and mortar churches to begin with! But just because no one seems to love each other (or greet each other with a holy kiss) at First Baptist doesn’t mean we should declare it unbiblical or not a church.
Since this is a blogpost not a book, let me wrap up by saying that Drew is correct in his conclusion—we need to focus on creating biblical community. Chapters 2–4 in SimChurch go into great detail (for a non-academic book) on what church and biblical community is and how Western Civilization has so influenced this discussion as to make everything about community be tied to the physical where the Bible (primarily, but not only) ties it to the spiritual. In fact, it is the radically-skeptical Western worldview of Descartes and others that has shaped the definition of community for the average Western Christian far more than the Bible has (protests aside). In fact, we could say that if many of the virtual-church skeptics are correct—that to have real community with someone we must be in close, physical proximity with that person—then we cannot have community with God here on Earth because we can’t touch him either. Biblical community, and true presence, is far more nuanced than our materialistic, Western sensibilities can sometimes grasp.
Douglas Estes
Comments?
Quick comment because I ran out of time but I like what you wrote.
I find that people confuse the technology with the web. The web is a connection of people and the technology simply facilitates this. The web is not about the technology that drives it but the people who use it.
Of course you can have a web church because it will simply be a connection of people – like any church. The real question is how do you use existing technology to do it?
Chris
Nice Review. However, I am still struggling with idea of ‘online church’. I do agree with the strong ‘Online’ presence, thus providing a useful resources and teaching, and online community for Church members to participate (especially for those who are traveling.)
I have to disagree about ‘denominationalism’, I don’t think, its just a matter of being ‘our ways are right’. Some of the aspects of community will always be missing in an online church setting.
This is not to say it is outright wrong. I think there are many ways, I can be useful. Especially, where there are many restrictions or where there are lack of freedom or liberty to express or practice faith in public. We have heard many examples of Christians around the world, coming with innovative and interesting ideas to profess and practice their faith. (I have heard a testimony of pastor giving Baptism though cell phone, to a believer who lived in a very hostile area!) Christians have come up with radical ideas and expressions, often because they were not allowed to do so conventionally.
So, to conclude, I still have a problem with someone ‘attending’ an online church, where there are many churches (of various denominations and styles) down the road in neighborhood.
Just my opinion.
I participated in Second Life for over a year and although I have moved on to other activities (like writing a book). … I really appreciated some of the people I “met” online and continue to interact with them through various social networks… we have never met f2f.
There was a church there too and although I was busy elsewhere, I expect I could have maded equally meaningful friendships there… because like any relationship… it takes time, desire & commitment.
If people find like-minded folks online, why not? Does that mean they’ll never go to a f2f church? probably not… just like people still go to live theatrical or musical performances or meet with friends over a meal. These experiences continue to happen.
Church is people moving together in the same direction.
At least in an online church, there is usually interactivity … which is more than I can say for many churches today where the crowd is primarily operating as “spectator.”
JesusCourse – I’ve clarified the differences between www & the internet here before (even siting Wikipedia) but it seems folks just like to use the terms interchangeably so I don’t get stuck on the language… in fact, I think soon we’ll have an embedded understanding that whenever we make references we’ll just say “online”. I do also think that the web is, well, more than a collection of people…. I think it represents a fundamentally shifted communication paradigm, a redefining of our understanding of presence, a new way of thinking, etc. and with the semantic web on the horizon it could even mean more.
Would love some examples of using the existing technologies to do it in relationship to church online.
Chris – I, too, struggle. That’s why I like SimChurch. I’ve got more questions than answers and am really able to entertain both sides of the argument, seeing strengths and weakness of online congregations, reflecting on their limitations and facility, etc. SimChurch tackles some of my questions and explores them.
You mention the cell phone baptism. At the 2009 Christian Web Conference, Drew put up a picture of a Flamingo Road online baptism and people just went to town with it. They went as far as saying the person wasn’t really baptised and more!
I’m 100% in favor of going to the church in your neighborhood…. but I think there are some people who won’t. Yet, they will go online. In fact, they could even say that their neighorhood is online.
Irmgarde – Church is people moving together in the same direction. I like that. And we’d all agree with you that spectator Christianity has permeated the Western church model since we get enamored with great communicators rather than our responsibilities in the “priesthood of every believer”.
Chris – May I pick apart something you said (in love)? You mentioned that there is a regular church right down the road. Alot of folks, especially in the U.S., make this assumption … but it is not true in a lot of the rest of the world. In fact, it’s not even true in the US … there has been at least 1 town I visited in the US where there was no viable church for me had I lived there. I’m sure there are even more towns than that just in the US. As much of the world moves away from Christianity, the virtual will fill a role as one viable format for healthy biblical community.
I second Irmgarde and Cynthia’s thoughts on spectator faith. I believe, if done well, virtual church may help reform the church at large a little and help us to refocus off spectatorism and onto more active, biblical community.
JesusCourse – Yes, and an equally big part of the problem is that many people are thinking of the internet in terms of the past (AOL chatrooms), or thinking the internet will stay the same way as it is now. I’m really excited not for virtual churches now, but for where they could be in ten years or so.
Cynthia – On the story of the FRC online baptism showed at the conference you mentioned, this really saddens me that people would say that. This is the reason I wrote SimChurch because the church has a long history of attacking itself – think any pivotal moment in history from the Great Schism to the Reformation to Baptists to John Wesleys to anything else that will be a new form of the church.
For the record, since this may be lost in the din of debate, I too am 100% for people attending a brick and mortar church if they want. I don’t see (and I hate the rhetoric) that makes online church vs brick and mortar church. Online churches are just another type of church, some people will go to Baptist, some go to Lutheran, some go to traditional, some go to online. It doesn’t matter (much) to me, what matters is the growth of the attendee’s relationship with God through Christ.
Douglas,
I appreciate your thoughts and contribution on the subject matter. It’s going to be an increasingly interesting, intense and important conversation. I’m going to sit on this for a bit to reflect but will say I believe there is a false dichotomy in one of the underlying assumptions you make when you say “as with most of the Bible, these verses are communicating spiritual truth more so than physical truths.” Spiritual truths result in physical truths. Meaning, yes Jesus defined adultery at a heart level but it did not mean that there wasn’t still a physical truth to the commandment. The hard part is it doesn’t make sense to ‘debate’ the symptoms (eg. whether church can be done online) but our difference of how we see reality and the world. I would think those with a postmodern worldview, shaped by a post-enlightenment western culture would tend to agree with you. The the issue seems to be epistemological.
Drew,
Wow! Thanks for a fair and reasoned response. Many of the responses I get accuse me of being a Gnostic! I actually agree with your post 100%, and yes, the sentence you questioned I also struggled with how to write on a blog post (to convey what I meant). I am worried of me setting up a false dichotomy, too … though I feel we have already done that in the West but I don’t know how to take it down, if you get my meaning. So, out of context, I too would have problems with that statement. But as you said, it will be an intense debate, with alot of nuance (not good for debates!) For the record, I do think my book is a much more tight, reasoned response to this issue. As I’ve said before, I love the church and want it to succeed in whatever format. I know you love the church too so I’m happy to receive thoughts/criticism. God’s best to you.
I read both your blog posts and enjoyed the discussion.
I’m wondering what the reason is for doing church online. I understand that it’s the way of our culture. But I wonder if one of the main reasons is our fast paced, too busy for anyone other myself or traditional church mentality. Which, if so, defeats the whole purpose of giving your life away for others in community.
On the basis that we can have community with out the physicality of it because we have community with God when he isn’t physically present (though he is in his people), does that mean because I can commune with God in my thought life that I can commune with other believers spiritually in my thought life though physically absent? Obviously no and a little silly but perhaps that’s next logical step on a potential slippery slope and some day we don’t even need to *meet* online to have community.
Douglas, I appreciate how you seem to be sincerely laboring to stay true to scripture and historical church even though I don’t come to the same conclusions as you.
Doug –
“Chapters 2–4 in SimChurch go into great detail (for a non-academic book) on what church and biblical community is and how Western Civilization has so influenced this discussion as to make everything about community be tied to the physical where the Bible (primarily, but not only) ties it to the spiritual.”
I’d like to hear more on this (I guess I’ll have to read the book!)
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, beginning with 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.
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
Jesse,
Thanks. I would definitely agree with you that if one of the reasons for doing online church was to avoid certain aspects of church and biblical community, that that would be a problem and not be a good thing.
As far as reasons why, there are several. They all relate to a) meeting people where they are at and b) realizing that our world contains many marginalized folks who would need the intimacy — yes, you heard me right — that can come with some forms of the virtual church. One obvious example is most of the world (unlike the US) where the prevalence of churches is low. Another obvious example is people with debilitating diseases who can’t or won’t go out in a public setting. I have noticed a lot of testimonies from people like that.
What troubles me the most about this discussion has been the folks who are willing to write off these marginalized folks by say, ‘they just need to come to my brick and mortar church.’ If you read all the blog posts about this issue, I find this sentiment implicit in much of the negative reaction. More than doing anything to reach people, I feel that we should establish biblical community wherever possible to make even the least of these be able to take part. We need to lower the threshold of getting into church, not raise it. Thanks for your good comment – and may God bless you today!
Hi Cynthia,
Great discussion about Internet Campuses and Doug’s new book! I feel so blessed to be called to help reach those searching for God online… I’m looking forward to seeing what God does through this.
Blessings!
… coming to church, going to church, having a church, planting a church, all assumes location. Yet the concept of church, as such, is rarely stated in scripture. The building of church is referenced in conjunction with gifts to equip God’s people to do His work. Interesting the context for this in Eph.4 is to build up the “body” until it is unified showing full maturation to the standard of Christ. If Christ’s prayer was for the church to be one as he and the Father are one, an argument can be made that locations actually hinder this while online communities make it possible. Unlike the first century church, this debate and the premise of Doug’s book is only possible because of the technology which exists today. Gutenberg’s press, considered by many, the means by which the reformation spread so quickly and effectively was undoubtedly criticized in his day, by those assuming such a devise would cheapen the Holy Scriptures because some monk wasn’t painstakingly writing each letter by hand!
I think we all agree in the potential online communities and social networks can have in reaching those who would not darken the door of a brick and mortar church so, to question the honesty and understanding about the reception of truth, in such a world, is not harmful but rather necessary… Let the debate continue!
Cynthia,
I would agree, that there are those who would not attend “physical” church, for whatever experiences they may have with it in the past. And online church can be an alternative for them to be a part of it.
Chris – May I pick apart something you said (in love)? You mentioned that there is a regular church right down the road. Alot of folks, especially in the U.S., make this assumption … but it is not true in a lot of the rest of the world. In fact, it’s not even true in the US … there has been at least 1 town I visited in the US where there was no viable church for me had I lived there. I’m sure there are even more towns than that just in the US. As much of the world moves away from Christianity, the virtual will fill a role as one viable format for healthy biblical community.
_______________
Thanks Douglas. This is exactly my point was. That the Online church can be a viable and useful form of community for those who do not have access to/freedom for church.
After reading this post and Doug’s Out of Ur post, I really feel like I need to read the book to get the full argument before commenting. I’d hate to respond to a few relatively short blog posts (which by their nature can be easily dismissed) and miss fully understanding this significant movement in the church.
John – Thank you! (And not just about the book thing)! Here’s the problem with this discussion: the issue of online church is probably one of the most difficult discussions the church has faced in a long time, and one cannot summarize all thoughts on it in a blog post. So, please, send me your thoughts if you get a chance to read it. Blessings to you.
Douglas, Dan, etc. – Firstly: I’m not specifically for or against “online church or community”… I am however concerned that in debating the matter and as such being forced to take a “stand” for one’s respective points of view, we are in fact being lured into a position where the “best answer” is actually alluding us. Let me explain: The fact of the matter is that there are many opportunities being opened up by the internet and related technologies – this is true/a fact. So we should explore and seek to understand and leverage the possibilities as they unfold online. BUT (had to be one…) perhaps we should be careful not to make more of it than it should be in our attempt to explore, use, and justify the capabilities. (I see this in my work every day – I’m an IT consultant and one of the biggest challenges is to ensure that organizations retain the appropriate perspective – technology is an enabler, it supports the business goals and processes – it is never useful in and of itself – technocrats, “technology lovers” think otherwise, but eventually have to agree that technology is not ultimately useful without it being used in support of a greater human endeavor…) – “Church” in the “brick and mortar” paradigm has the same problem: the enabler (a venue to meet and share) has become the purpose for many individuals and even whole congregations. Jesus’ “church” as a “body” of believers who share life with each other and seek to find more “lost sheep” in response to the great commission should never have become “constrained” to a DAY and a PLACE! I believe that we should not be thinking “how do we get the marginalized and unbelieving into a brick church or online church?” – We should be encouraging each other as believers to seek and find those people “where they are”… St. Francis of Assisi said “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.” – Christian living should always, first and foremost, be about LIVING a life to His glory, which will support, affirm and encourage other believers and be a witness to non-believers in such a way that they eventually want to meet their Saviour the same way we did! Brick and mortar Churches was/is NOT the best place to do this and I believe we shouldn’t be thinking that the online world would be any better at it… “WE are the temple of the Holy Spirit!” WE should be getting out there to reach the lost and hungry, the sick and poor, fellow believers, and when useful in support of that LIFE, we could possibly make use of a church building or online meeting place…as a “resource” … anyway – that’s my opinion…