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.
They shall know us by our blogs?
Is this a real threat? Do people REALLY believe they can replace the local church with emails and web pages? I guess for some it would make no difference. They do not connect with church (either by their church's fault or fault of their own) by walking in the doors anymore than they would by clicking their mouse. And that is a tragedy.
People who distance themselves from the Church (physically or internally) miss out on the joy and pain of intimacy. Maybe that's their goal, to avoid the pain. Pain of rejection, pain of rebuke, pain of lost relationships, pain of conflict. Doing life together is hard. But that is where I have experienced the love of God through the caring acts of friends. Life is difficult, but I don't know what I would do without belonging to a loving, caring community who points me to Jesus.
That being said, I believe churches come in all sizes and shapes. Far be it from me to tell people they have to belong to one that looks like mine, but a cyberchurch just puts one more wall between us and the community of believers . . . a firewall.
Posted by: Dustin | March 02, 2005 at 03:28 PM
Great post! I've put a link to it on my blog.
Posted by: Mark | March 02, 2005 at 10:28 PM
You know, we had this same problem a few years ago with our church softball league.
The team captain was faced with quite a tangle of issues when he asked, do the Christian softball teams meeting in various forms on the playing fields represent church? Are the regular players of any particular team a form of congregation? In other words Mike Slugger is one of the most populare team captains in the league. Do his players form a type of congregation?
Is the Christian softball league a legitimately alternate way of being a church? Or is the true definition of church limited to the pew and pulpit variety we are used to?
Eventually, one of the deacons from our church told him to quit taking softball so seriously, quit talking about Christian softball at such length that it got tedious, and please just play ball. The whole point is simply to play softball and not to keep measuring the team and where it stands in Christendom or how significant it is.
I always thought that was good advice, and since then, nobody has bothered to write on and on and on about their fear that anybody with a grain of sense or Bible knowledge would confuse a Christian softball team with a church, because, in short, nobody with a grain of sense or Bible knowledge HAS confused a Christian softball team with a church.
Posted by: Jeri Massi | March 04, 2005 at 06:24 AM
A really interesting post.
Your warning is germane, yet I think we need to be careful not to create a false dichotomy. While there’s no denying that sacrament and direct interpersonal relationships are essential to church, there’s an element of community that can perhaps be served better via blogs than in one’s own real-life church, both in support and challenge. There can be a very healthy complementary/supplementary relationship between real church and blog-church. The body of Christ *is* worldwide, after all.
It's also entirely possible for someone to be *too* involved in a real-life church, and for the wrong reasons.
As far as “cyber-church” being gnostic goes, I don’t see how interacting with other Christians and their thoughts via the internet meets the criteria for gnosticism. The internet is just another form of relational tool. It is *people*, after all – real flesh & blood people – who are communicating via the internet. If we extend your concern a bit further, then we must warn against books as well (except for those by living persons we know personally)...the Bible included! Yes the Bible is the living word of God, but someone who holes up with their Bible and barely relates to other people is as removed from the body of Christ (and rites for receiving God’s grace), if not more so, than the strictly cyber-church-goer.
Posted by: Bonnie | March 05, 2005 at 01:20 AM
Quick observation.
For those of us who regard the sacramental elements of the faith as indispensable, the notion of a cyber church is unimaginable.
Receiving Communion from an ordained minister is one of the two central elements of worship: Liturgy of the Word (which one might argue could be done electronically) and Liturgy of the Table (which absolutely requires a living presence).
Nuff said.
Posted by: John Ballard | March 07, 2005 at 03:52 AM
Alot of definition problems here. Fellowship probably is a better word for what Christians seek and engage in with other Christians on the internet.
Please, enough with the pedestrian gnostic rebukes. Theologians of every caliber have the "gnostics believed matter is evil" bit down, but they totally miss the fact that everything is material including thought and emotion. Just different degrees of materiality, i.e. more or less refined. This is a case where theologians are unaware that they are using categories from worldly philosophy (materialism, idealism) that are off-the-mark to begin with.
Posted by: steve | March 07, 2005 at 11:11 PM
Do you visit the mentally unstable in the the hospital? Do you visit the insane in his home? Do you visit the bike gang member in prison? Do you visit the violent bike gang member in his pub? Do you visit the ex bike gang member in his home?
Do you visit people like me that cannot make it to a Church in their homes?
Posted by: Douglas | March 09, 2005 at 11:02 PM
I think you right to say that the internet/cyber space should never replace the church. I think blogging is a tool that can possibly help us connect with those who would never darken the doorstep of the church. Maybe after an online relationship these individuals will feel the need to personally connect with the "real" church. Your last comment relating to the "cyber" and the "real" needs to be communicated to the e-seeker or e-disciple. Lastly, the thief on the cross didn't have time to go to church, to hear the gospel, between his conversion and death. Just maybe, through blogging, we can see another person repent and turn to God that might never would have heard the gospel clearly communicated to them.
Posted by: keith | March 22, 2006 at 07:45 AM
thanks so much of this cyber Ghostic church this is great blessing ,im very happy for this thanks so much
Posted by: FERNANDO D IMPANG,JR | February 02, 2008 at 03:47 AM