There Is NO Virtual Ecclesia
By Bob Hyatt |
| |
 (5)
|
|
| |
In the early 50’s when Robert Schuller and others across the nation combined a growing car culture with “Church” they believed they were reaching a segment of the population traditional church wouldn’t or couldn’t. Drive-In church allowed parishioners to attend, hear a sermon, sing some songs, even receive communion and give- all without the fuss and muss of face-to-face interaction beyond a passing usher with elements and a communion plate or maybe being greeted by a through-the-window handshake from the pastor as they rolled away.
And while they may have been able to point to a number of folks who “attended” that otherwise might not have, the question of what was being formed in these car congregations through limited interaction, a completely passive experience and a consumer-oriented “Come as you want / Have it your way” message (and yes, I’m aware those questions could be asked of MANY churches), along with perhaps the obvious absurdity of sitting mere feet from others and yet remaining separated by the cocoon of one’s own vehicle meant that (thankfully) after a brief period of vogue, “Drive-In Church” has remained a niche curiosity.
Please don’t misunderstand me- The problem with the drive-in church model isn’t that it isn’t church- it’s that it is just “church” enough to be dangerous. The people are there, hearing the sermon, giving their money, putting in their time... and completely missing some of the most vital aspects of what true “ecclesia” is meant to be. Far from “reaching” some who might otherwise not be reached, what this almost-church does is park them in a cul-de-sac where they have access to some of the easiest and most instantly satisfying parts of church while simultaneously exempting them from the harder and more demanding parts of community.
And while I’m glad such an absurdity has remained fringe, as I watch the discussion about “internet campuses” I can’t shake a certain feeling of deja vu.
Following close on the heels of the Video Venue push is that of the internet Campus: real-time streaming of a church service but with the added features of “live interactive features like lobby chat room, message notes, communication card, raise a hand, say a prayer, and even online giving.” At least 35 churches, among them some of the best known in America, are doing internet Campuses with more jumping on board all the time (http://digital.leadnet.org/2007/10/churches-with-a.html). By one estimate, as early as 2010, 10% of Americans will rely solely on the internet for their “religious experience.”(http://www.denverpost.com/technology/ci_7228105)
Virtually “rais[ing] a hand”? Is this a problem? Something we should be concerned about or resist?
Absolutely.
Why? Because it’s malforming for those involved (whether they know it or not) and because it’s sub-biblical.
When Shane Hipps earlier this year said of virtual community “It’s virtual, but it ain’t community” he set off a mini-blog storm of posts and comments, many agreeing, many defending their Facebook and Twitter time as real community. Now the advocates of internet campuses and virtual church are lining up to defend this growing phenomenon.
After giving this some thought I think I want to say that the problem with virtual community and internet campuses isn’t that it’s not church... it’s that it is just church enough to be dangerous.
What I mean by that is this: because it has all the easiest and most instantly  | | © Robert Mizerek | Dreamstime.com | gratifying parts of community without the harder parts, it ends up misshaping us.
No, in an internet campus I never need to see that person I “just don’t get along with.” I don’t have to listen to so-and-so tell me about their hard week (again). I see NO needs around me and so feel zero compulsion to move to meet them. And that’s the problem. The lack of all of that forms me. But not in a good way.
When I am taught week after week after week, more and more sermons, more and more content, and yet never asked by someone who sees me week after week and knows me how I am or am not applying what I am learning, I am being formed. But again, not in a good way...
Luther’s definition of “church” is where the Word is preached, the sacraments are received and church discipline practiced. I think that’s a good summary of the some of the defining characteristics of the NT Ecclesia... and a good summary of the main problems with internet church.
Is the word preached “at” an internet campus? Yes- absolutely. In fact, it becomes the centerpiece. Church becomes boiled down to singing a few songs and hearing a message. We challenge (or at least we should challenge) people in our communities not to let Sunday be that- to come with an attitude of service to God and to others, open and available to be used. To see the “service” as just one part of their worship, along with being present to others and open to knowing others and being known by them. And while internet Campuses provide a great sermon delivery vehicle, and even allow you to virtually raise your hand in response, what they don’t and will never be able to do is allow you to be missed. And to be known- to have someone who knows what’s happening in your life read your body language, see your tears in worship and know it’s time to come alongside you. You can’t stand at the end of the gathering and ask for help moving. You can’t help tear things down and clean up afterwards. You can’t look after someone’s kids while they pray with someone else. You can’t take a visitor out to lunch. You can’t be the Body in so many necessary and vital ways.
Missing from virtual church are these vital things - the Sacraments
- Discipline and accountability
- Service
- Equipping (beyond the Sunday sermon)
Now, I know that “virtual” communion and baptism are practiced. I watched one pastor “baptize” someone from their internet ministry via video. I had to laugh as the screen presided over this woman being dunked in a pool by a local friend- someone she actually knew. I just had to wonder- why wasn’t that enough?
I know too that every week thousands in virtual communities practice virtual communion- each taking their grape juice and bread bits if not together, then at least simultaneously. And I have to wonder- why can’t they see that’s not enough? That simultaneous is NOT together and that taking communion in this way completely misses the whole point?
As for discipline and accountability, some say that online churches encourage more transparency with people sharing things like “"I struggle with porn addiction" or "I'm considering suicide" or "my marriage is failing and I need help" online in the chat rooms and virtual lobbies of internet campuses. And while the anonymity of internet campuses may provide the same impulse to self-revelation and disclosure as does the internet as a whole, my question is “What next?” How is not simply the pastoral care of prayer and recommending a good book resource but accountability, in-depth counseling and even church discipline practiced? Short answer- it can’t be. And in fact, because of the nature of internet relationships, only what people choose to reveal (“I struggle with porn”) will ever be known. Internet churches are no help for the wife who’s husband really needs someone to open a can of Driscoll on him... unless, of course, you can get him to wander into the virtual lobby.
In the same way that internet campuses lack the mechanism for true discipline and accountability, they also lack the mechanism for true service. While I may be encouraged to serve other by a virtually-delivered sermon, and while some internet campuses have even organized short-term service trips abroad (yes, they found it necessary to actually all show up physically for those), what I can’t be encouraged to do in an internet community is take a meal to someone in my church community who’s sick or just had a baby, help someone else move or paint a house, babysit for a couple in need of a date night. How can our community be a sign and foretaste of the kingdom when our method of gathering keeps us from ever physically serving, loving, being present to one another? I know how participating in a congregation begins to make me more like Jesus. I’m unsure how that happens with an internet campus. All the little pieces that go into making the ecclesia “life together” are missing from virtual church.
And so too is the equipping piece. While content is delivered and digested, and some are even trying virtual small groups, the truth is that discipleship happens in the nitty gritty of life-on-life. While content can be delivered via the internet, character tends to be shaped in more incarnational ways, through presence and practice.
How does one become a leader in an internet church? Is it being made a moderator of the chat room? And further- What does it mean to “desire to be an elder?" How am I confirmed in my gifts in an internet church? How do I exercise them?
The internet may present a wonderful way for me to connect with the larger Church in ways not possible before- but it can’t, and shouldn’t replace connection with a local expression of Church community. We should have internet options like podcasts, forums and chat-rooms available for the home-bound and those otherwise unable to engage in a local community, but if we baptize that as an equally valuable and valid option for any believer we effectively cut the heart out of the growth to maturity we as a Church desperately need to see.
The Ecclesia of Jesus, the called-out, gathered together ones may find great utility in the internet and technological tools, but in a world struggling to retain its humanity while being drowned in technology and to remain deeply connected to a few while filtering through 1000+ Facebook “friends,” the Church can and should be a counter-culture that says- “We will use technology, but we will not let it shape (or misshape) us.”
The choice is either to show up physically and be formed through the harder parts of community and having to learn through life together... or log on and enjoy the easy access, low-commitment and low accountability world of the virtual pseudo-church.
My fear is that like the drive-in church, internet campuses have that potential to make half-formed Christians who believe one of the highest values is convenience, not service... what I can get, not what I can give.
How could it not?
Bob Hyatt is the lead pastor of the evergreen community, an emerging church community in Portland, OR. More importantly he is the husband of Amy and the father of Jack, Jane and Josie. |
| |
|
(5)
|
|
Physical, traditional church has not only the potential but the tried and true history of driving people screaming from God in frustration with petty politics, control trips, evil leaders and followers, etc.
How could it not?...to quote your closing line.
But that doesn't mean we need to tear down all churches. Nor do the shortcomings of online community and its possible misuse by some mean we need to ditch it entirely. And I know you're not exactly saying ditch it. But I don't hear you giving it its due. As other commenters have mentioned, it often is far more intimate than the traditional church setting. I saw a friend process the tragic death of a sibling online in a way that I would not have believed possible before I witnessed it. The key is, I think, the friend didn't JUST process it online. Friends in the parents' hometown reached out physically, in person. But online community allowed those of us across the country to accompany the friend through the grieving rituals too.
I just found a critical tone in this column that lent itself to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and I don't think you have to. Being shaped by community needs to happen in person, but online communities are a tool in that formation too. It's a both/and thing, not either/or. I've seen people come together online to then engage in very meaningful service to others.
I believe the church is in the midst of a dynamic change, and online community is a part of it. Not the whole, but part of it. An exciting part of it.
I appreciate your thoughts here. I think you miss a couple key things.
First, the drive in church is far different. Where the idea of driving a car to a movie was a form of entertainment, the internet is revolutionary, internationally, transcultural shift in our world. We can now communicate with people globally. This is historical in scope. So, for churches to explore the use of the medium is truly strategic in our mission.
Second, letters are not physical church yet Paul wrote them to instruct (preach/sermonize) to a group of people, hold them accountable and set up structures. It was the medium of paper. Today, I recently met a pastor who trains church planters in the 10/40 window through social media to deal with martyrdom. Somehow, I think you cannot ignore the significance of what is going on with the Church as these tools are employed.
We the people of God are the Church. The tools of the the new media simply are tools. Lets not fear them, and lets also caution as you do to not let them replace people.
I don't think our author is arguing against aspects of the Church being on the internet...just not en toto.
Good stuff and I am with you. There is something about the fact that Jesus physically touched the people he healed that resonates with me. Incarnation was about flesh to flesh and face to face.
bob, good thoughts as always. One word you didn't use, that I think cannot be divorced from our use of ecclesia, is "Visible." William Cavanaugh has done some good work on this end, or we could extend the work Willard has been doing and talk about "embodied." Too many disciples in the west are dualistic.. forming the spirit without touching the body... and we wonder why we are not transformed? Now we are getting close to a sacramental definition. If it ain't visible.. ain't incarnate.. is it really in Jesus at all? Maybe we also have a Christology problem here.. monistic and individualistic... maybe a rediscovery of the Trinity is part of the theological vision forward that can anchor a deep ecclesiology and help us in a new praxis of "body language."
Hi,
I totally agree that virtual contact is not enough. However I do think yuo are kicking out the community part too easily. I have a lot of chats with people in my own congregation through my blog and through facebook, people I know for ten years, 20 years, and never talked to untill we started chatting on Facebook. There is often no time on Sunday morning to hang out with everyone, and several people DO have time around 23:00 during the week. This IS community because now when I see them in the Sunday service, I feel more connected to them then ever.
Another example, you write "No, in an internet campus I never need to see that person I “just don’t get along with.” I don’t have to listen to so-and-so tell me about their hard week (again). I see NO needs around me and so feel zero compulsion to move to meet them. And that’s the problem. The lack of all of that forms me. But not in a good way." and "You can’t take a visitor out to lunch. You can’t be the Body in so many necessary and vital ways."
I have decided from the beginning that I add everyone on my Facebook that I know, even if I don't like them. Through Facebook I am put to the choice to respond to someone's status even if I disagree, dont like them, etc. I see MANY needs there that I never heard about in real life conversations. And I choose to respond.
I also invited serveral people for dinner ir to go for a drink and chat, BECAUSE OF our contact through facebook.
So I wouldn't totally ignore the community part that's there. I would integrate it (real and virtual life) rather then split it and call either of them the right thing to do. It needs to be integrated, just like in the old days people wrote letters, AND made phone calls AND met each other.
Henri
|
How could it not?...to quote your closing line.
But that doesn't mean we need to tear down all churches. Nor do the shortcomings of online community and its possible misuse by some mean we need to ditch it entirely. And I know you're not exactly saying ditch it. But I don't hear you giving it its due. As other commenters have mentioned, it often is far more intimate than the traditional church setting. I saw a friend process the tragic death of a sibling online in a way that I would not have believed possible before I witnessed it. The key is, I think, the friend didn't JUST process it online. Friends in the parents' hometown reached out physically, in person. But online community allowed those of us across the country to accompany the friend through the grieving rituals too.
I just found a critical tone in this column that lent itself to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and I don't think you have to. Being shaped by community needs to happen in person, but online communities are a tool in that formation too. It's a both/and thing, not either/or. I've seen people come together online to then engage in very meaningful service to others.
I believe the church is in the midst of a dynamic change, and online community is a part of it. Not the whole, but part of it. An exciting part of it.
First, the drive in church is far different. Where the idea of driving a car to a movie was a form of entertainment, the internet is revolutionary, internationally, transcultural shift in our world. We can now communicate with people globally. This is historical in scope. So, for churches to explore the use of the medium is truly strategic in our mission.
Second, letters are not physical church yet Paul wrote them to instruct (preach/sermonize) to a group of people, hold them accountable and set up structures. It was the medium of paper. Today, I recently met a pastor who trains church planters in the 10/40 window through social media to deal with martyrdom. Somehow, I think you cannot ignore the significance of what is going on with the Church as these tools are employed.
We the people of God are the Church. The tools of the the new media simply are tools. Lets not fear them, and lets also caution as you do to not let them replace people.
Good stuff and I am with you. There is something about the fact that Jesus physically touched the people he healed that resonates with me. Incarnation was about flesh to flesh and face to face.
I totally agree that virtual contact is not enough. However I do think yuo are kicking out the community part too easily. I have a lot of chats with people in my own congregation through my blog and through facebook, people I know for ten years, 20 years, and never talked to untill we started chatting on Facebook. There is often no time on Sunday morning to hang out with everyone, and several people DO have time around 23:00 during the week. This IS community because now when I see them in the Sunday service, I feel more connected to them then ever.
Another example, you write "No, in an internet campus I never need to see that person I “just don’t get along with.” I don’t have to listen to so-and-so tell me about their hard week (again). I see NO needs around me and so feel zero compulsion to move to meet them. And that’s the problem. The lack of all of that forms me. But not in a good way." and "You can’t take a visitor out to lunch. You can’t be the Body in so many necessary and vital ways."
I have decided from the beginning that I add everyone on my Facebook that I know, even if I don't like them. Through Facebook I am put to the choice to respond to someone's status even if I disagree, dont like them, etc. I see MANY needs there that I never heard about in real life conversations. And I choose to respond.
I also invited serveral people for dinner ir to go for a drink and chat, BECAUSE OF our contact through facebook.
So I wouldn't totally ignore the community part that's there. I would integrate it (real and virtual life) rather then split it and call either of them the right thing to do. It needs to be integrated, just like in the old days people wrote letters, AND made phone calls AND met each other.
Henri