bob.blog

I'm on a date!!

Uploaded by www.cellspin.net

I *REALLY* hope she said yes....

Dust Up at UR over Virtual Chruch!

Last week, Doug Estes, the writer of a new book called Sim Church posted on Out of Ur what was essentially a response to my thoughts in previous Ur articles regarding the idea of Virtual Church. He wanted to avoid responding to me by name, but there were too many pointed comments to avoid the conclusion. 

You can check in out here: "In Defense of Virtual Church."

I wrote and sent a response that was pretty quickly made superfluous by the (now) 87 (and counting!) comments on the original post. 

I reproduce some of it here. I hope you'll read it (and the original article that inspired it) and come back here to answer this question: What do you think of this debate? 

It's my contention it's an important one to have (in fact, I think I need to write a post on why!)- but I'd like to know what you all think. 

Here's my response to Mr. Estes:

October 27, 2009

Virtual Church is STILL a Bad Idea

Online churches are missing a few essential ingredients.

by Bob Hyatt

**Editor's Note: I apologize for the lack of posts in recent days. We've been experiencing some technical difficulties. -Url Scaramanga**

I was disappointed to read Douglas Estes’ piece last week on Ur, for a number of reasons, but chief among them is this: it fails to deal substantively with a single serious critique that has been raised regarding virtual church. In fact, Mr. Estes not only fails to address the critique, but he seems to fail even to understand it.

So in a spirit of Christian love and good dialogue, let me respond point by point!

First, Mr. Estes asserts that critique of virtual church can be boiled down to “Internet campuses and online churches are not true churches because they don’t look like and feel like churches are expected to look like and feel like (in the West, anyway).”

Respectfully, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, my concern about internet church is that it’s too much like what we expect (and want) church to look and feel like (at least in the West).

Video venues and internet church are the logical next step to the celebrity and consumer culture of America, and they represent a threat to both the overall maturity of the Body of Christ and our counter-cultural mandate. Celebrity elevation of pastors who have begun to franchise themselves and their “brand” around the nation should concern us for a number of reasons I’ve outlined elsewhere—they draw down people and resources from other church communities and they are unable to do mission-critical activities.

I’d say those are pretty substantial concerns.

Second, this article repeats what I see as the major scriptural argument in favor of virtual church—“Nowhere in the Bible does it preclude online church.” The argument from silence, as we all remember from high school debate class, is the weakest. And in this case, I believe the Bible isn’t silent. Let me ask very plainly...

READ THE REST AT OUT OF UR 

Sick and tired...

    Of this blog mocking me with it's un-updated presence. Only one thing for it then...

Time to start writing again. By a sheer ACT OF MY WILL... 

:)

Should Wives Submit to their Husbands?... Wrap up

(pt 1, 2, 3, 4)

So, if you've stuck with the series, you know the answer is "yes."

AND husbands need to submit to their wives.

The whole thing is rooted in three things-

First, the brokenness of this world, which leads to a lot of pain, but specifically in marriage leads women to want to rule their husbands and husbands to want to dominate their wives (Gen 3:16).

But (secondly) the Gospel breaks down walls, begins to reverse the effects of the curse, calls us to participate in that reversal, and serves as a great leveler of rich and poor, slave and free, and male and female.

And specifically (and thirdly), it calls us to resist the urge to dominate one another by means of mutual submission. 

Yes, Paul says- you Wives still need to submit to your husbands- but not out of duty to the Hellenistic ideas of male superiority, not out of social convention and the pater familias family structure, but out of reverence for Christ and a desire to witness to a watching world that your husband may own you (in ancient culture), but it's JESUS who is your Lord.

And Husbands (even more radically in Paul's day, and apparently in ours as well) you need to submit to your wives.

In Eph 4:21, Paul commands us to submit to one another. This is SPECIFICALLY tied to the marriage verses which follow. How? In the Greek, the whole thing is one sentence with just one verb- Submit to each other- wives in this way, husbands in this way. "Submission" and "laying down your life" are really two ways of saying the same thing.

So why only tell the men they need to lay down their lives?

Maybe because most women already GET that submission means laying down your life- Paul doesn't have to tell them that. Most women do it almost daily in marriage and mothering.

But he reminds the women that are tempted to forget that and he needs to tell the men,Your submission to your wife looks practically like this: laying down your life. Those who believe that marriage is meant to represent Jesus and the Church (it is), but take that to mean that submission moves only in one direction misread (I believe) what Paul is saying here and miss the very example of Jesus in becoming a servant Himself- both in death and practically, as an example to His disciples in washing their feet. 

Submission runs both ways- and we see this in Paul's explicit command (Eph 4:21), by the working of the Gospel and by Jesus' example...

Paul's overall contextual desire (at least in the Colossians passage most of this has flowed out of) is this: "And whatever you do or say, do it as a representative of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father."  His main concern is that we represent Jesus well- that our relationships, be they marriage,  parent-child, or  those we  work for/with, represent Jesus well. 

Now, the big complaint in the comments of this series is that the complementarian ideal of marriage isn't "offensive." Well... I've seen "complementarian"marriages that were both offensive and non-offensive, at least on their face. However... I think the idea of stressing wives' submission misses both Paul's command to submit to each other as well as his intent. Stressing wifely submissionwithout balancing it out with husbandly submission is, I think, inherently offensive, and violates the spirit of what Paul is trying to do.   

Overall, here's how I read these commands to wives- Paul's not laying on this over-arching ethos of womanly submission as many seem to think. He's speaking specifically to those living in a patriarchal, abusive-to-women society and saying "Women, believing in Jesus doesn't give you the right to give your husband the finger. And men your duty as a follower of Jesus trumps your rights as Roman citizens/pater familias. As a Christ follower, you still have a duty to submit to each other- as to the Lord!"

And to me, the marriage which best represents Jesus to an onlooking world is one which understands and lives out the principles which Paul lays out here- which, like most things, probably look pretty different in our context than it did in theirs. 

Do Wives Need to Submit to Husbands? pt 4

So. The big question- do wives have to submit to their husbands?

In some senses that’s the wrong question. Paul says in Ephesians, just before writing out similar commands to husbands and wives and children and slaves- he says-submit to one another. Husbands submit to wives? Yeah. Wives to husbands? Yeah.

Here’s what the Gospel says to husbands and wives- you are equal. You are in relationship with God. You both have a duty to submit to each other and to love each other. Your lives, including your marriage should reflect well on Jesus and part of that means it should be attractive and compelling- you represent Jesus.

If you live in a patriarchal society where women are considered property, submit to your husband and show him to whom you really belong.
So, ironically, in our society… those who read these passages and because of them demand that wives take on some kind of subservient role (and they still exist, believe me), that women cannot be leaders in the church, that they are somehow equal in value and yet cannot have the same voice as men in the life of the community- those Christians in an effort to remain faithful to the Scriptures, often end up doing exactly what Paul is arguing against here- their marriages and their communities run the risk of failing to represent Jesus well and so becoming a stumbling block for others.

Now-hear what I’m saying and don’t hear what I’m not saying. The Gospel has serious claims on our lives on the ways we treat others, on our relationship to sex, to money, to power- and sometimes those claims are going to be offensive.

But the point is, if anything about us is going to be offensive, it darn well better be the Gospel, and not our marriages, and so the church better give some serious thought as to how we treat our wives and even women in general.

It’s offensive enough to proclaim that Jesus is the Savior, because that means proclaiming that people are in need of a Savior, that there is a problem that needs to be fixed called sin, and no one wants to hear that. Let’s not add to the offense of the Gospel by missing what’s really going on here and saying that women are somehow second class citizens in the ecclesia.

The prevailing Roman society of Paul’s day, drawing mostly from the Greek thought of the Stoics and others had very rigid family definitions. There was the pater familias, the Man, the Father at the top. And the woman was not equal, not in rights and not in value. In Greek thought she was second class. And the children under her and slaves last of all. Aristotle put it this way: “For the male is by nature better fitted to command than the female… The free rule the slave, the male the female, the man the child…”
So- into the mess of that society, into a whole world patterned on that Paul says, “Wives, submit to your husbands, but do it so they know who you really belong to. Husbands, love your wives and even if the law gives you the right to treat them harshly, Jesus doesn’t. Children, obey your parents- not because you are inferior, but because it makes God happy when you do. Fathers, don’t aggravate your children- you may have a legal right to treat them however you want, but it makes them discouraged.
Slaves- live so that your master knows you have a higher authority in your life than him. And remember- though the law of the land considers you property that can be inherited, the Lord, Jesus Himself says He will give you an inheritance- a reward for serving Him.

Paul, in reiterating to these women who might think that freedom in Christ meant throwing off the "shackles" and no more submission to their husbands that no, they still have a duty as Christ followers to submit, is not defining the woman's role as submissive and the man's as dominant.

Do I submit to my wife? You better bet I do. I couldn't follow Paul's command to love her sacrificially, like Jesus, without submitting myself to her wishes, her desires. To claim that I can love someone sacrificially and yet try to keep "submission" out of it is silly. 
Does she submit herself to me? You bet. As a Christ follower, is she to love me sacrificially like Jesus? Yes. And that includes, even in this day and age though probably looking very different than it did in the first century,  the idea of submission.

For both of us.

Some concluding thoughts tomorrow...

(This series is from the bob.blog archives and is adapted from a sermon I preached during our time in Colossians. I'm heavily indebted to Walsh and Keesmaat and their book Colossians Remixed)

Do Wives Need to Submit to Husbands? pt 3

(pt 1 here, pt 2 here)

So- why all this talk about slavery? It’s nice to know, it’s kind of an academic question, but the one we're really interested in is the question about husbands and wives...

Can you think of any reason at all why Paul might want to say something without really saying it? Why he might want to choose his words carefully? And maybe say something between the lines?

I’ll answer that by asking: What does Jesus do?

He changes things.

But He does it in His own way- He transforms structures from the inside out- slowly, surely, like (as He described His kingdom) yeast permeating a whole lump of dough.

What He doesn’t do, at least not yet, is tear down our societal structures completely and start over. His revolution is a slow one that depends on changing the hearts of people, not simply imposing His will. Someday the Kingdom will come fully, but for now- he tells us that in Christ there is neither slave nor free- that He came to free the oppressed and we should be like Him.

And it only took us 1860 some odd years to work out what that meant in regards to slaves.

So- the one who came to set the slaves free says to slaves-don’t demand freedom. But do what?

"Work willingly at whatever you do, as though you were working for the Lord rather than for people."

Live in such a way that your master can never complain about your service and yet becomes completely aware that you have a higher allegiance- a different Master...That you serve Jesus first and foremost, that regardless of what your earthly master may think to be the case- you really are free.

And to wives who may have run their own businesses, like Lydia who was well-known for selling purple cloth, or a woman Paul mentions later in this letter who had the unfortunate name of “Nympha” but who had a church meeting in her house… to these women who in many ways were leaders in business and the church but were still considered by the society around them to be property, chattel, He says- don’t demand your rights, but live in such a way that everyone knows- it’s Jesus you really belong to. If you have a non-Christian husband who believes you are nothing more than his property, live in such a way that he can’t complain about anything, but he clearly knows- you belong to another.

This is subversive thinking at its best. This is nonviolent resistance to this broken world and its broken ways at its best.

See, we read this from a society where slaves are already freed and women are no longer property and we think: how awful, how regressive. And we completely miss the radical, freeing nature of what he is saying. And how absolutely seditious and dangerous it would have sounded to the society around them.

So. The big question- do wives have to submit to their husbands?

pt 4 tomorrow-

(This series is from the bob.blog archives and is adapted from a sermon I preached during our time in Colossians. I'm heavily indebted to Walsh and Keesmaat and their book Colossians Remixed)

Edifying Thoughts of A Tobacco Smoker...

 

"Whene'er I take my pipe and stuff it

And smoke to pass the time away

My thoughts, as I sit there and puff it,

Dwell on a picture sad and grey:

It teaches me that very like

Am I myself unto my pipe.

Like me this pipe, so fragrant burning,

Is made of naught but earthen clay;

To earth I too shall be returning,

And cannot halt my slow decay.

My well used pipe, now cracked and broken,

Of mortal life is but a token.

No stain, the pipe's hue yet doth darken;

It remains white. Thus do I know

That when to death's call I must harken

My body, too, all pale will grow.

To black beneath the sod 'twill turn,

Likewise the pipe, if oft it burn.

Or when the pipe is fairly glowing,

Behold then instantaneously,

The smoke off into thin air going,

'Til naught but ash is left to see.

Man's fame likewise away will burn

And unto dust his body turn.

How oft it happens when one's smoking,

The tamper's missing from it's shelf,

And one goes with one's finger poking

Into the bowl and burns oneself.

If in the pipe such pain doth dwell

How hot must be the pains of Hell!

Thus o'er my pipe in contemplation

Of such things - I can constantly

Indulge in fruitful meditation,

And so, puffing contentedly,

On land, at sea, at home, abroad,

I smoke my pipe and worship God."

Johann Sebastian Bach - 1725 (1685-1750)

From Ennui to Epic...

I was sitting with a new church planter yesterday, talking. He asked, "So how have you avoided burn out?" And my first thought, honestly?

I haven't. 

It's not so much burnout maybe as... rust. Ennui. 

As I thought and as we talked I came to think that what I'm feeling is something of the natural extension of the "church planters" personality- that entrepreneurial make-up that pushes us to new things, keeps us from settling in and being satisfied with the status quo... and maybe causes certain people to blow up their lives every so often. 

I've been feeling a desire to be challenged, to be not so much pushed, but pulled purposefully into something deeper, more difficult, more...

Don't worry- I'm not going anywhere. 

But I do think this next stage of my life is going to involve going deeper into mentoring others, building skills in listening and coaching which will express itself in writing and speaking more.

So- first things- blog more. This blog is like a withering plant- dry, dusty, in desperate need of revival. And that's just a symptom really of where my state of creativity is. Writing is a skill that gets easier the more you do. A writer writes... always™! 

Second- finish my book proposal for the video venue/internet church thing. I think the time is right for a critical look- Lord knows there's a new "pro" book every week... 

Third, in my pastoral work, I need to get more focused. I feel as though an effort to bring others along and hand off certain things has left me feeling a blurry and rootless as to my role. So, time to take a slice of the pie of our community and go deeper while continuing to try to bring new and existing leadership along. As it is now, I feel like an effort to step back and let others step forward has resulted in few people feeling pastored by me. It shouldn't be an either/or.

Fourth, my New Year's resolution to "kick ass" needs some, uh... resuscitation. Physically, mentally, spiritually... Ruts suck. Just say no. 

But I will say this- I'm well on my way to an epic beard!

Do Wives Need to Submit to Husbands? pt 2

Here’s what the Gospel says to both the powerful and the powerless- to those at the top of the pyramid socially and those at every other level-
Col 3:17- "And whatever you do or say, do it as a representative of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through him to God the Father."

First- remember that whoever you are- if you are a Christ follower, you represent Jesus. People are watching and they are wondering about this new group of people who do so many things differently. And some are worried about the radicalness of your faith and what you might try to do to society… so-

"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting for those who belong to the Lord.
Husbands, love your wives and never treat them harshly.
Children, always obey your parents, for this pleases the Lord. 
Fathers, do not aggravate your children, or they will become discourage.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything you do. Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. Serve them sincerely because of your reverent fear of the Lord. Work willingly at whatever you do, as though you were working for the Lord rather than for people. 
Remember that the Lord will give you an inheritance as your reward, and that the Master you are serving is Christ. But if you do what is wrong, you will be paid back for the wrong you have done. For God has no favorites."

It’s interesting to me that in this paragraph, he gives the most space, the most attention to slaves. Slaves and masters. Is the Bible pro-slavery???

This letter to the Colossians was carried from Paul in prison to the city of Colossae by a man named Onesimus. Onesimus was a slave… A slave who had stolen money from his master named Philemon who lived in the city of Colossae, had run away and ended up in Rome, and somehow ended up knowing Paul. Maybe he got a job where Paul was being held?

But however he met Paul, the result was that Onesimus became a follower of Jesus. And so Paul sends him back to Colossae with two letters. This one to the Colossians and the short little letter we know as Philemon, named after Onesimus’ master. And what did Paul want Philemon to do in regards to his run-away slave?

That is why I am boldly asking a favor of you. I could demand it in the name of Christ because it is the right thing for you to do. But because of our love, I prefer simply to ask you. Consider this as a request from me—Paul, an old man and now also a prisoner for the sake of Christ Jesus.

I appeal to you to show kindness to my child, Onesimus. I became his father in the faith while here in prison.  Onesimus hasn’t been of much use to you in the past, but now he is very useful to both of us. I am sending him back to you, and with him comes my own heart.

I wanted to keep him here with me while I am in these chains for preaching the Good News, and he would have helped me on your behalf. But I didn’t want to do anything without your consent. I wanted you to help because you were willing, not because you were forced. It seems you lost Onesimus for a little while so that you could have him back forever. He is no longer like a slave to you. He is more than a slave, for he is a beloved brother, especially to me. Now he will mean much more to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.

So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. If he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge it to me. I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it. And Iwon’t mention that you owe me your very soul!

Yes, my brother, please do me this favor for the Lord’s sake. Give me this encouragement in Christ.

I am confident as I write this letter that you will do what I ask and even more! "

What do you think Paul is saying here? Knowing that all his mail will be read by his captors, what do you think he just might be trying to communicate to Philemon by that interesting last phrase: “and even more.” I mean- past forgiving Onesimus, taking him back, treating him like a brother… what could possibly be left?

Maybe freeing him?

Can you think of any reason at all why Paul might want to say something without really saying it? Why he might want to choose his words carefully? And maybe say something between the lines?

So- why all this talk about slavery? It’s nice to know, it’s kind of an academic question, but the one we're really interested in is the question about husbands and wives...

pt 3 tomorrow-

(This series is from the archives of the bob.blog and adapted from a sermon I preached during our time in Colossians. I'm heavily indebted to Walsh and Keesmaat and their book Colossians Remixed)

So, what have we got to show...

Do Wives Need to Submit to Husbands? pt 1

Well, sure. :)

But before you take away my (Somewhat) Progressive Church Leader credentials, let me elaborate.

Two huge, huge statements Paul makes in the NT are these: 
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."- Gal 3
and
"In this new life, it doesn’t matter if you are a Jew or a Gentile, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbaric, uncivilized, slave, or free. Christ is all that matters, and he lives in all of us."- Col 3

Here’s the basic problem when we come at passages like this in Scripture. In a different time, a different place, a different society, we have a hard time connecting with how radically freeing Paul’s words (all of Paul's words) sounded to their original audience.

Paul drops an atom bomb on them. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, upper class, lower class- in terms of your relationship with God, none of that matters. You don’t have to be a certain class to be accepted by God. There is to be no Christian version of the caste system.

You don’t have to be a certain gender to be in relationship with God- God made men men and women women and while I don’t believe His intention is to turn us all into sexless neuters, neither does God say- because of your gender, men get THIS much of Me, and because of your gender women, you get this much of Me.

All the distinctions that humans excel at making of race, and class, and gender- These do not matter when it comes to talking about relationship with God through the person of Jesus Christ.

Now, imagine... You sit in first century Colossae. Some of you are Jews, some are Gentiles. It’s an amazing thing you sit in the same space, worshiping the same God. Thrown into that mix is this: some of you are men and some are women. In the midst of a society that segregates worship according to sex, especially those with the Jewish background, you sit in a mixed crowd. Amazing that the Gospel has done this.

And some of you are rich, some poor, some slaves, some slave owners. And yet, in this place, you all have a voice. Inthis community, you are all valued. Nowhere else in the world is this true that slaves and slave owners both speak and are heard- but it’s true in the ecclesia- the gathering of people following Jesus.

And so Paul writes these words to these people in thistime- people whose entire world has already been turned upside down by the Gospel and he writes these words. Slave, free, rich, poor- doesn’t matter. And I’m sure they are wondering some things, especially knowing that these letters get read to a mixed group- some of the people hearing this were not Christians. These letters got copied and sent on to other cities, to a wide audience. Paul knows that people are watching and listening. Men and women, rich and poor, mixing races, mixing classes, slaves and free… How far does this go? Slaves eating at the same table as free??

Is this a danger to the Empire? Our whole economy is based on slave labor. Our whole society is based on patriarchy. Are these Christians who don’t seem to respect either the Jewish or the Greek ideas of the superiority of the male going to try and destroy the whole fabric of our society? Are these people dangerous???

Yes…but not the way you think.

Is Jesus against slavery? Yes, yes, yes.

Is he for armed revolt and slaves throwing off their slavery and their masters? No, no… no.

He’s for a completely different approach. A revolution infinitely more subtle and harder to put down, to crush.

pt 2 tomorrow-

(This series is from the archives of the bob.blog and adapted from a sermon I preached during our time in Colossians. I'm heavily indebted to Walsh and Keesmaat and their book Colossians Remixed)

Alan Hirsch, Ed Stetzer and (Evergreener!) Caleb Crider on Multi-Site

Love all these guys... especially Caleb because I get to hang out with him as he and his awesome family are a part of Evergreen. 

This conversation needs to happen and we need to listen to these concerns. Those who say that people who question Video Venues do so because they are just jealous don't take into account guys like Ed. 

Stetzer: "Setting up movie theaters to project the graven-image of rock-star, celebrity pastors across the United States has some long-term implications."

Yes!

Hirsch: "Any model that makes the people of God more passive is a problem."

Double yes!

There Is No Virtual Ecclesia

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 coccon 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, here on Ur and in other places, 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 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

1. the Sacraments
2. Discipline and accountability
3.  Service
4.  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?