The Cyber-Gnostic Church

I've started reading Andrew Careaga's book eMinistry and  he starts off talking about the cyber church.  He quotes one person who is into this "cyber-church" who says that it is like church but it is disembodied.

I think that is a fair description of what is happening on the internet.  More and more people are getting their spiritual instruction from the internet and more and more folks are feeling a sense of community amongst those they interact with in the cyber-church.  But the cyber-church as it is called is a far cry from the biblical church and we need to be very careful about confusing the two.

Tim Plett has a post on this very subject which dovetails with my own thinking.

I've been thinking about the Internet and blogs, specifically Christian blogs, and their impact on the church and what defines church. My question is--do the Christians groups meeting in various forms on the Internet (whether through blogs and their comment sections or message boards of one kind or another) represent church? Are the regular readers of any particular blog a form of congregation? In other words David Wayne of Jollyblogger is one of the premier Christian bloggers. Do his readers represent a type of congregation?
Is the cyber church a legitimately alternate way of being a church? Or is the true definition of church limited to the flesh and blood variety we are used to?
The cyber church seems to have some things going for it.
It does allow for fellowship in the form of ongoing conversation and discussion.
The cyber church provides teaching. I've received some solid teaching through the Internet.
It is a way of disaffected or alienated Christians to maintain Christian contact. And I would certainly say it is preferable to watching television. It offers a chance for interaction, which television simply does not.
The cyber church can be useful in the central task of evangelism. There is prayer and forms of one-on-one ministry through the Internet.
It allows for cross pollination of ideas.
But is it church--in the same way as flesh and blood congregations?
It comes close, but I don't think it quite meets the bar.

Ultimately, Tim concludes by saying:

The cyber church is near church, or church light. But in my humble opinion--and it is only my opinion--it falls short.

I'm pretty much in agreement with this assessment - it is this whole notion of being "disembodied" that gets my goat the most.  This is a very gnostic idea.

Gnostics believed that matter was inherently evil, while only the spiritual was good.  They sought to transcend the body to get in touch with the spirit.

The problem with this is that it denies the incarnation, and it denies the sensuality of the Christian faith.  When God wanted to redeem a people He didn't save us through a philosophy or a bunch of ideas.  He saved us through a person, a flesh and blood person.

Incarnational ministry that is modeled on Christ is an "en-fleshed" ministry.  The Christian faith is very much a "fleshly" religion.  Jesus took our sins in His body and suffered in His body.  He commands us to love one another and demonstrates how to love by washing the feet of His disciples.  James warns us about the emptiness of a religion of mere words that says "be warm and well fed," and does not meet the needs of the actual physical body that is cold and malnourished.  We are commanded to greet one another with a holy kiss (anyone ever experienced a cyber-kiss).  We extend the right hand of fellowship.  When we set apart someone for ministry we do so by the laying on of hands.  Our most sacred practices of baptism and the Lord's Supper involve the senses - we feel the water, we see the cup and the bread, we smell the bread and the wine, we taste them.  I love the description that the Heidelberg Catechism gives of the Lord's Supper - it reminds us that as surely as we see the elements with our eyes, touch them with our hands and taste them with our lips, so surely has the blood of Christ availed to atone for our sins.

All of this is very sensual stuff.  Grace is communicated through these sensual means.  So, I really don't see how you can call something a church which is not "en-fleshed."

On the other hand, Tim is correct.  There is much that we do in the church that can be done over the internet.  There is much good Christian teaching, there is true conversation.  There is exhortation and rebuke.  Evangelism can take place through the internet.  I have developed a great deal of affection for many people that I have never met through blogging.

So, to criticize the idea of a "cyber-church" is not to criticize cyberspace per se.  Cyberspace may not be the ideal place to get spiritual nourishment, but where can we find an ideal place for spiritual nourishment?   We go to where the people are.  We become a Jew to the Jew and a Greek to the Greeks and I suppose we can become cyber-whatevers to cyber-whatevers.

Let's just not confuse the cyber-community with real Christian community.  We need the incarnational, fleshly, sensual elements to be a real church and a real Christian community.