virtual church
I have been asked to speak at a conference called ‘virtual church’
It is a one day conference: 29 June 2006, Melbourne which will likely be held at Northern Community Church of Christ. Their web site blurb introduces the conference as:
“Internet · email · SMS · blogs · podcasts—new communication technologies are changing the way we relate to each other. At the same time, young Christians are creating new kinds of faith communities, new ways of “being church”. As we experiment, what are we learning about ourselves and about God?”
One of the links on the web site is to this article titled “how far can a Church go online?”.
“It all depends on how one defines “church”. Christians would probably describe it as the collective body of Christ, gathering together to praise God, taking part in the sacraments and the form of service enjoyed in their chosen fellowship. So, can that reality be extended to a “virtual” community in cyber-space?
In this age of the Internet, many churches advertise their services and events “online”. That is pretty normal and church webpages have become the current equivalent of posters in public spaces. But, what about complete Christian communities that exist only online; can these truly be called “church”? Could it be that the church is transforming itself so that whole communities, linked only in cyber-space, will be the new denominations of the twenty-first century? After all, we bank online, we shop online. Can we effectively “do church” online too? Or is church different?
Part of being involved in a local church is the personal interaction, friendship and support of like-minded people. It could be argued that cyber-churches are seeking to provide this for both those who have no experience of church - or the gospel - and for those who are disillusioned with organized Christianity.
For whatever reason, there are numerous people for whom traditional church no longer seems relevant; many of them feel more comfortable surfing the net than they would if invited to visit their local place of worship. So, is church transforming itself to meet a need? Is cyber-church an effective substitute, or replacement for the traditional community? Or is it an “extra”? “
The question of whether Christian intentional community can happen online is an interesting one. Some people here have mused that some of the elements of Church are provided by signposts and one person even said to me recently that signposts was like another one of our congregations at Northern. So what do you think?
May 11th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
well going along with the theme….the conference should be a webcast!
Hmmm I don’t know about being ‘church’, but it does allow for valid spiritual and relational components between Christians. And for some it may be all they survive on for a while….like me.
May 11th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
“Is cyber-church an effective substitute, or replacement for the traditional community?”
Probably not entirely, but it does seem to be a good meeting ground and cathartic for the injured and wandering sheep.
May 11th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
i’m speaking at this conference too!
May 11th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
I think there are elements of “church” that the cyber world does very well, namely those elements that are communicated by words, such as discussion of issues of faith life and doctrine, verbal encouragement and inspiration, the meeting of like minds (and very different ones!).These are good and important elements of being the community of Christ to one another. I suppose it is possible to pray together online too, though that is outside my experience. Other things require presence, our physical “being together”. It is difficult to see how an online community can administer sacraments or drop in a meal to a needy family or give a hug (sorry, cyber ones are nice, but it isn’t the same!!). If church is just a mind to mind experience, then the cyber world can do it well, if (as i believe) there is another quality needed as well :physical, bodily, incarnational .. Christianity with dirty hands as well as pious minds ..then the cyber church can only be a partial expression of our life together as the people of God ..
May 11th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Cheryl - that is very cool!
May 11th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
It’s interesting this thread has popped up… I was musing about this yesterday after a correspondent (who shall remain nameless) huffed that this site had almost no hallmarks of a Christian organisation… and threw in some less edifying descriptions. It seems to me the opposite… that it has a lot of hallmarks of the kingdom of God. The criterion for people to come to the Kingdom banquet in Matthew 22 were pretty simple… anyone willing to come and don the wedding clothes (”the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.”)
This online community is open to all… agnostics and zealots, liberals and fundamentalists, men and women, straights and gays, young and old… the broken and bitter and the upbeat… I find myself growing quite fond of the diverse cyber characters here, and they find a place in my prayers. It’s a place of honesty, for the most part… and engagement. It’s very diversity and openness makes it more “kingdom-like” for me than many “real” churches.
I agree with blestpickle that the gathered, flesh and blood church can do many important things no cyber church can do… but this site can do things no flesh and blood church can do too. I can see it as an expression of the wider church.
In relation to cyber prayer… if anyone would like to pray for me, please do… I’ve had a really crappy day!
May 11th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Janet, wife and i were very pleased to pray the Lord’s blessing upon you and your family, thank you for the invitation to pray.
May 11th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Thank you so much James and wife! I was very glad to have a real non cyber minister to come around today to pray with me while I had a blubber… but I really appreciate the grace of my cyber friends too. Blessings on you too.
May 11th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Thank you - the pleasure was ours.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
Well, its currently the only church that I participate in with any regularity. Im not saying its the full package, but in a world where some of us find it very difficult to fit in to churchs, cyber churches like this one are the only safe place where I can be open about my opinions, beliefs etc… and have them tested in the fires of debate and discussion, without going home feeling like a total loser and outcast for not lining up with everone else. however, this might also prove to be a problem.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Iron sharpens iron Monk, and maybe there will come a time when having tested our opinions and beliefs in the fires of debate and discussion #10, we may find ourselves with something to contribute to that “other” church. Or not~
May 11th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
For the last 6 months or so … this has been my Church! Thanks guys.
It has rarely asked for cash, it has never made me feel like a consumer or like merchandise
There are people here who have helped me ‘connect the dots’ when I had doubts about things …
I think soon, I will be ready for the real mainline Church - the fog and the hevainess has been lifted - and I have seen into, and walked through from the darkness.
Thanks guys, for letting me know that I am not alone … connected with people all over the globe each with a piece of the jigsaw.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
hmmmm…
I never doubted for a moment that this was anything but at *least* something *like* a ‘church’ (if church is defined as a community of faith). I was musing in Janet’s post, in which she refers to ‘new people’ coming in and huffing and puffing…
I’ve just come back from dinner with a couple of people from my ‘real life’ (as opposed to ‘virtual’) church. We weren’t discussing this specifically, but during the course of the evening we had a bit of a laugh about how people often come in off the streets into our services, and then approach whoever has led worship afterwards to critique the theology of liturgy, prayers, the aesthetic…whatever. I said that I had come to a point where I take the long-standing members of our community very seriously and will fully engage with them, but if someone who’s just walked in off the street comes up and harasses me about language I used or something similar, I’ll tend to cut the conversation pretty short these days (I got sick of being bailed up for 30 mins + by people that had never been before, who wanted to tell me how crap they thought my prayers etc were ).
Anyway…It irks me somewhat when people barge in, don’t take the time to get the feel of a place, impose their preconceived ideas about how things should be without being open to the possibility that there are alternatives that while looking unfamilar, are authentic expressions of biblical faith. I have experienced it as much here, on this blog, as I have in my physical church.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
I think this site rocks it’s boobs off, but I don’t think it can be church (if we take it to mean fellowship).
My reasoning: online, there is no real accountability or strong connection to other people. I think website comments tend to be more critical and debative, which is great for a website but doesn’t form the core of communication in real life relationships - which I think need to be selfless, encouraging and generous. I think online there is a tendency to “offer my point of view” as opposed to “treating other people how I’d like to be treated”. This doesn’t mean the tone is nasty, just a little unnatural.
You will notice that on this site everyone seems decent and intelligent - but I’m not sure that I would consider people here to be “friends” even if they’re friendly. Even the supportive comments tend to be based around agreeing with someone on an idea, rather than just appreciating them for being who they are.
So, church online? Only in the same way that people date and get married via the internet. It occasionally happens, but it’s kinda whacky.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Nite all
May 11th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
Can I attend this conference online?
May 11th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
Point noted Rollsy, but to my mind Lionfish has captured the essense of cyber-church, the “vibe” if you like. My observation is that most people here are attempting to both real themselves and to make a positive input into others. Even a lot of the seemingly negative stuff, is just people trying to work thru, “the fog and the heaviness”.
In the short time ive been fellowshipping with this cyber-church, ive experienced a great refreshing, and yes, some early signs of a “lifting of the fog”. Yeah; id call it fellowship!
May 12th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Yeah, I’d call it a fellowship, too, James. Why? Well, When I think of SignPosts and it’s many “members,” I feel a sense of belonging. Many of us share common or similar experiences and many of us share common or similar goals (very important in a fellowship or church). And…We all share, for the most part, a common faith in Christ (or at least we really want to).
Whenever the urge hits me to log on and find out what you all are saying and what’s going on, I get a bit excited and hopeful. And even if I’m having a bad day, just the thought of escaping to this place, where people understand me, lifts my spirits.
Here, I’m challenged by all of you, challenged to examine my heart and beliefs and actions. But most importantly, I’m challenged to find, to hold on to, and to make it back to God.
Let’s see….what was it that Jesus asked us to do?????
Go….make disciples (followers). Is that not what SignPosts is facilitating?!
For the many that have incurred terrible, ungodly abuse by the institutions of religion, SignPosts has become a mediator; a mediator between wounded men and women and their God.
Maybe you don’t consider that a church (rollsy), but I do. For me, church is not about four walls, three hymns, and a three-point sermon. We’ve all done that for years (God help us…). Since we were little children, we have been programed to believe what “church” is supposed to look like, sound like, taste like, etc. Isn’t it about time for us step outside the box and stop limiting what the Body of Christ is supposed to be? Why not allow God to be God and allow the Body of Christ to be the Body of Christ (whatever that may look like).
I don’t like the word “church” anymore. That’s a dirty word. And for most of the unsaved world, the same holds true. I don’t consider myself a part of or a member of “the church” anymore. I belong to God, not the church. I am a member of the Body of Christ.
Tradition is the real enemy here. Tradition would say, “Well, this is not church. This is not the way we’ve always done it.”
Fu@K Tradition. Tradition kills. John the Baptist and Jesus didn’t care much for the Tradition of their day……neither do I.
SignPosts is my current church (but I prefer the description “fellowship of believers”)
May 12th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
i wrote an article about 2 years ago titled “virtual church” its probably about time that i update it, but you can now access it via:
http://digitalorthodoxy.com/index.php?Do=ContentView&pageno=419
might be helpful, although its a tad old now…
i’m not speaking at the conference, so if anythings useful pinch it
May 12th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Thanks Darren - will check it out.
May 12th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Phil do you know about ‘The Saint’? It’s an e-group that started up when a bunch of us were doing anti-WEF stuff, and moved on into a place for Christian activists to share ideas…most of us knew and know each other in real life, but just didn’t have as much time to hang out as we’d like, so that’s how it started. It’s died now, but for a long time it was a place for discussion similar to this blog, and I certainly felt it was part of my ‘church’, as did many others (and we had this discussion on there, too).
Ship of Fools also started a virtual church a few years ago - I don’t know whether it’s still going??
It’s not ‘virtual’, it’s a hard copy magazine, but interestingly Zadok has always been endeavouring to provide some sense of community (so for me, something like ‘church’) - we’ve always tried to provide a space for reflection and community among the ’scattered people of God’ - something for the people who are attending churches they’re not so happy in, that aren’t meeting their needs.
May 12th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
add this one to the list http://www.myinternetchurch.com
this is actually an initiative of a church in perth called Metro Church.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Phil and Dan, might be a good idea to drop a post on the CWM site - http://www.christian-web-masters.com/forums/index.php
After all, these people have to look after a lot of Christian websites, and I have seen a number of posts in the past about evangelism on the net. Oops, should have looked first, there is a forum there JUST for that - http://www.christian-web-masters.com/forums/index.php?showforum=48
There are quite a number of Aussie webmasters hang out there.
May 12th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
How would a funeral service go in a virtual church?
May 13th, 2006 at 7:10 am
Perhaps we call all set up our microphones and do a live broadcast giving tributes to the deceased, as the body of said deceased slowly decomposed wherever it had fallen… perhaps in the home computer room?
Uggh… as stated earlier, there are some things only “real” flesh and blood church can do.
May 13th, 2006 at 7:48 am
Are you suggesting web cam with olfactory senses?
May 13th, 2006 at 7:57 am
Or a censer with a sensor until censored
May 13th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
TradingAshes & James,
Your ideas are fair enough, and I agree with all the good elements of what you described. And as far as tradition is concerned, I don’t think many of my friends (Christian or other) would describe me as highly traditional. Insane perhaps, but not traditional.
I have no real attraction to traditional church either at this point. However there is something about real, regualr face-to-face contact with people who you know that cannot be totally replicated online. I do think if you know them offline you can extend a natural relationship into email etc, but that is not really the case here.
What we have here are people engaging in healthy debate, sharing ideas and as you mentioned, working through ideas or recovering from negative experiences. These are all worthwhile excercises, and as such I stand by original statement that this site rocks it’s boobs off.
But … as good as it is, it’s not the same as real flesh and blood contact and the type of relationships that emerge when folks get to look each other in the eye. I don’t think that church exclusively means four walls and a steeple. It might be a pub or cafe or park bench. But it’s still different to a chat room.
Our discussions here are more premeditated and thought provoking perhaps, and I guess there is some degree of fellowship, but I don’t know that it is fellowship in the fullness of its potential.
For one thing, a website offers anonymity that would not exist in the real world. Sometimes a bit of anonymity makes life easier, but there are some undeniable character benefits from being closely known by people you trust. It’s vulnerable, but worth it (this coming from someone who has been just as disappointed in church leadership as the rest of this group!). Anonymity means you can express your opinion and even broadcast your values, but you have no external “brothers and sisters” (to use an old religous phrase) to help you practice what you preach.
On top of that , even though we can support each other to some degree on this site, it’s limited in what good we can offer outsiders as a collective. Obviously we should all love mankind as individuals, but in real life when people fellowship there is a unique opportunity to bless people synergistically.
Again I should stress, all the redeeming features that you’ve mentioned about this site are valid, but I’m not sure that it can replace church and offer the same value that would be represented in real life scenarios of “church” - be it St. Mary’s Cathedral, Pastor Jones’ Crusade Tent of Miracles & Wonders, Joes Cafe, or the Royal Arms Hotel.
May 13th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
add this one to the list http://www.myinternetchurch.com/
this is actually an initiative of a church in perth called Metro Church.
Yes, we’ve reported on the antics of WA’s leading wanker pastor Geoff Woodward.
Regarding http://www.myinternetchurch.com I contacted the wankers who operate the site, asking them what myinternetchurch’s position was on gay people…and they couldn’t be bothered replying.
Further inspection revealed that you can hardly do anything there without having to pay for it…..
It’s just another wanker church revenue-raising device.
May 13th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
You make a lot of good points Rollsy, most of which are also valid. There is one matter you raise that brings into focus the value of cyber-church, “even though we can support each other to some degree on this site, it’s limited in what good we can offer outsiders as a collective.”
I think Lionfish #12 empitomises the value of cyber-church. It gives the disheartened and the depressed and the disillusioned an opportunity to speak openly from behind the veil of anonymity. To speak of things that the “collective” might well have stoned us for. Im tempted to say, What makes you think we have anything good to offer outsiders anyway? And even if we do, what makes you think the collective has the slightest bit of interest … after all, most are too absorbed with the “vision”? But it might best not to ask.
To help heal and be helped in our healing process. Rollsy, we dont all have to be great evangelists or pastors helping the collective; maybe it is sufficient to care for the few scattered sheep we meet in cyber space!