Over at the Out of Ur blog, a continuing conversation has been going on about the book I reviewed in my last post, SimChurch. The author of the book posted a response to critics on October 22nd and then today a response to that response was posted by Bob Hyatt.  Both are interesting and continue the debate…

• In Defense of Virtual Church
• Virtual Church is STILL a Bad Idea

If you have read this blog before, you know that I have been a critic of online church. However, as a lover of technology and the Internet, I am always open to thinking in new ways about things and want to see how technology can be used to share the message of Christ.  But I am also a realist: I know that just because we can do church online does not mean that we should. So I read this book with an open mind and heart – looking for new ways of thinking about online church.

Some highlights of SimChurch for me included:

• a definition of virtual church as “a virtually localized assembly of the people of God dwelling in meaningful community with the task of building the kingdom.”
• the author taking on those who would use the church as described in Acts 2 as a way to discredit the virtual church.  The early church existed at a special time in history and we will never fully be able to recapture it.  Churches today cannot expect to do everything that the Acts 2 church did.
• the discussion of how our Western worldview clouds our understanding of “presence”.  Defining presence as the location of our bodies is not a God-given or Biblical idea.
• a challenge to Christians to be ever vigilant on how we conduct ourselves. Since everything we do virtually is recorded in some way, we should be completely transparent about our online lives. Identity and authenticity will be key issues in the virtual church.
• to be seen as real churches, virtual churches must begin to offer communion. The exact methods as to how to do it must be worked out by each individual church within their traditions and understanding.  Baptisms should also be offered.
• The online church will need to leverage their strengths to do things that physical-world church cannot do (or at least cannot do well).

Douglas Estes is a supporter of online church and in this book he makes a very good case that it is important that these churches continue to move forward and meet the challenges they will face head on. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and was encouraged to think deeper about online church.

Unfortunately, I am still not convinced that the participation in a church service accessed over the Internet and mediated via a computer is the same as actually attending a church physically.  In my experience, the types of worship, fellowship, and community experienced online is anemic compared to what one can get by fully participating in a physical-world church (not to mention the issues with communion and baptism). Now this would not be a big issue to me if it were not for the fact that these online churches never encourage those participating online to find to a physical-world church. I was hoping that SimChurch would address this question, but it did not.

Now let me reiterate, I believe it is imperative that Christians take to the Internet as a mission field and learn to understand it well. I wouldn’t spend so much of time helping churches do this if I did not feel it was important. Using the Internet should be an integral part of a church’s ministry. And being there to meet with and minister to those in the virtual world should be part of what they do. And yes, even providing the ability for someone to experience a church service online can be part of the ministry – but it should be made clear that every believer needs to find a physical community to be a part of as well.

Overall I think that SimChurch does a great job of exploring online church and its implications. If you are looking for a deeper understanding of this phenomenon, then I recommend this book.  And if you never have participated in an online church service, I encourage you to do so at the now over forty different Internet campuses available.  Just remember to also attend church in “real life” as well.

This weekend we launched Behind the Curtain, a new series where we’re looking beyond the weekend experience to see how the Church is making a difference around the world. We felt so passionate about sharing where God has been leading us during this season that we pressed the pause button on the series we had planned to do next, Five Easy Steps to Wreck Your Life. . . These are some of the ways that LifeChurch.tv is changing our methods, but not our message, to reach our culture.

As you may know, I am a big fan of Lifechurch, but also a critic. You can find my opinions about online church and Lifechurch.tv in general throughout this blog, but a good summary of my basic arguments is in this post.

The timing of this new series is interesting…with the Christian Web Conference coming up in a month and with its highlight being a debate on the use of the Internet to provide full church services – I wonder if Lifechurch is putting its arguments out there right now? It may just be coincidence, but it provides a great way to prepare for the conference!

What do you think? Can church be done in full online? Read the Lifechurch blog, read my posts, and then come to the Christian Web Conference to talk about it! Hope to see you there…

As many of you know, I have been somewhat critical of online church. You can see my posts here and here and here on that.  A summary of my arguments, which Matt alludes to, is that there are some components of “church” that cannot be fully accomplished online and that it is important that Christians understand the value of physical contact and face-to-face interaction.  However, in Matt’s article, he brings up a different argument that I am not sure I can fully support. Matt’s main point is that putting church online automatically excludes a large segment of those to whom we should be trying to reach. From the article:

It is important for the church to minister to the poor as the church¸ and to bring the poor into the church community. Some missionary agencies, for example, proclaim the gospel through and after meeting the physical needs of the impoverished, a strategy I think most effective. At best, it seems counterintuitive to include the absence of a computer and reliable internet connection as one of those physical needs.

While I do see this as a consideration against online church, to me this is not a primary argument. Be sure you read his full article here.

Let me take the other side and give some reasons in favor of online church. Though I fully believe that those who exclusively attend church online are shortchanging themselves and are not fully obeying the commandment to fellowship, there are still reasons for churches and ministries to be developing ways to use the Internet for church.

• First, to address Matt’s argument, as with any new technology, it is going to be those with means who will first embrace it and integrate it into their lives. This is a large segment of American society (not to mention many other countries) and is a large enough group to make this an extremely large mission field.
• Christians need to be on the forefront of technology. We cannot afford to not understand how to best utilize technology. For this reason, we must constantly be pushing the cutting edge and understanding the best way to communicate the message of Christ. I applaud lifechurch.tv and others for their work in this area.
• The adoption of mobile technology is moving quickly and is already the primary communication technology for a vast majority of the world, including those without means.  The next big evolution in online church is mobile church, and we must be ready to communicate Christ in new, innovative ways.

There are many other arguments in favor of online church, but these jump to mind after reading Matt’s article. Again, let me point out, I am firmly in the camp that church cannot be fully realized online and will be supporting a lot of what Matt has to say in the debate.  To me, it is acceptable to put some parts of church online, but the online service should always be accompanied by a strong encouragement for those participating online to find a local body to join.

I will be leading a session at the Christian Web Conference this fall, will I see you there? I encourage you to participate in the conference, register now!

… more than having a live streaming video — it’s adding live interactive features like lobby chat room, message notes, communication card, raise a hand, say a prayer, and even online giving. Some have on-going ministry during the week with attenders by forming small groups or service projects. (description from Digital@LeadershipNetwork).

I have written many times in the past, often critically, of churches trying to fit the square peg of a full church service into the round hole of the Internet.  Instead of re-hashing those arguments here, let me point you to a couple previous blog entries here and here.  You may also want to check out my interview with Shane Hipps, who has written on this topic. The bottom line of those arguments is simply that the complete experience of church (as exemplified in Acts 2) cannot be done online and, more importantly, churches that offer an online experience should have as their goal the integration of all participants into a physical church body, whether their own or another church’s.  Which leads us to Saddleback…

Over two years ago, in early 2007, I met with Eric Busby who was then heading up Saddleback’s web site.  During our time together, he made clear that Rick Warren did not want to have a publicly available online church service. At that time, Saddleback did offer the ability to watch their services live online, but they limited access to those who had registered and had a legitimate reason for not attending church physically.  So, when I heard that Saddleback had launched an Internet campus, I was intrigued.  Eric is no longer part of Saddleback’s Internet team, so I contacted Matt McGill, who is heading up the Internet campus, to find out what had changed.

Matt has been at Saddleback for fourteen years, starting out in youth ministry and now finding his way to leading Saddleback’s effort to do regional ministry through satellite campuses, including the Internet campus.  Matt explained that the change in philosophy about the online campus had a lot to do with Rick Warren’s growing celebrity status. Rick had stated years ago that he did not want to go on TV because he did not want to become a celebrity. This philosophy also led the church to limit the availability of Saddleback’s services online. But with the success of his books and growing prominence, Rick has become a celebrity despite these restrictions.  There had been a growing demand for more availability of the services online during this time, so the decision was made to open up the online service.

Saddleback’s online service is similar to many other churches’: six services streamed live each weekend, running live the entire service, with live chat, sermon notes, and an integrated online Bible (Lifechurch’s YouVersion).   They have also created some companion services, such as a blog and discussion forum.  According to Matt they will not be offering communion online (yes, some online churches do).  See Matt’s description of their online campus here.

As we continued talking, I asked Matt what his vision was for the Internet campus. His vision for the Internet campus is the same as for any of the physical campuses: to fulfill the “5 purposes”.  Saddleback’s five purposes are based on the Great Commission and the Great Commandment: 1. Love the Lord with all your heart- worship, 2. Love your neighbor as yourself- ministry, 3. Go and make disciples- evangelism, 4. Baptizing them- fellowship, and 5. Teaching them to obey- discipleship. To Matt, the Internet campus should be treated like any other campus.

The discussion then turned to the idea of doing church online. I asked him several key questions to try to understand how Saddleback sees the Internet campus in relation to their overall mission:

• Can an Internet campus could provide a true church experience, as exemplified in Acts 2? Much of the true church experience can be done online – but it is not always best facilitated there.
• Many believe that you cannot fully experience church online because it is impossible to have true fellowship through the Internet. Do you agree? Matt pointed out that it is also possible to not have fellowship even when you attend church physically.
• Would he tell someone attending church online that they were not getting a true church experience? No, he would not tell them that.
• Does having church online send the message that a church experience does not require physical presence? The goal is to encourage those experiencing Saddleback’s services online to eventually move into a local body, whether that be one of Saddleback’s other campuses, another Bible-believing church, or some other form of church. Matt was not quite sure at this point what form that encouragement would take.

I appreciated Matt’s frankness in our discussion.  It looks as if Saddleback’s Internet campus will be a place that will foster maturity and growth for those who participate, but also will send the message that to fully experience the Christian life one must get up from behind the computer screen and physically meet with other Christians in fellowship and worship.  I want to encourage Matt and all those involved in Internet campuses to be sure that they continue to think through what messages are being sent to those attending their services online: the medium is the message.  The Saddleback Internet campus is still in its infancy and I’m sure we will see many changes and evolutions over the next few months. Let’s all keep watch on what this influential church does with its Internet campus.

Now, before I go on, let me just stop and say that I think that LifeChurch is doing an absolutely amazing job of utilizing the latest technologies and working to understand their implications. From blogs to video to Twitter to Second Life, they have all of their bases covered. And I have no doubt that they are changing lives and impacting the world in a positive way for Christ.  They are an absolutely amazing ministry.  They now have thirteen physical campuses serving several different communities across the United States.  Each location is unique, but yet united together through the transmission of the main message via satellite. As their “About” page says: “Through satellite broadcasts that enable all of our twelve locations to be connected as one, LifeChurch.tv is a multi-site church that transcends metropolitan regions.” Their innovation is not just with technology: they also make all of their media resources available to other churches to use, at no charge. This is truly an amazing ministry with amazing people that God is using for His glory.

I ended my post last time by asking the questions:

…isn’t an ‘incomplete’ Christian experience better than no Christian experience at all?  There are many who would never go to “church” (or are unable to for some reason) but would be willing to attend a service online. Doesn’t that make it worth it?

These are probably some of the most compelling reasons to put church online. I know of several people who would never want to go into a church building with me, but would be willing to check out a service online. And I would feel very comfortable telling them about LifeChurch’s online campus. But I would also be sure to follow up with them and encourage them to become a part of a local church body (whether mine or another).  This discussion was brought up in our class during a conversation with Matt Anderson, the author of a chapter in one of the books we are using in the course. When asked about this specific question (“what about those who would never go to church otherwise?”), he responded that he understood this line of thinking, but also cautioned: “what we save them with is what we save them to.” In other words, if someone gets saved via an online church they will also see that church as “normal” and will possibly never move beyond that church experience.  Matt went on to state that Christianity is a physical religion: Jesus became man and interacted with us in the flesh. We are commanded to fellowship with each other. A Christian who “forsakes the assembly” is shortchanging themselves and disobeying God.

It comes down to this question: is a physical presence necessary in order for fellowship to happen? Shane Hipps, pastor and author of The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture, thinks so. In an interview I had with him for my class, he stated that for authentic community to happen, four components must exist: a shared history, permance, proximity, and a shared imagination of the future. He said that the Internet, primarily, can provide the last of the four, but is really limited in its ability to create the first three. He went on to say that “there is something energetically, spiritually that happens to a relationship when you are in the same room. And it’s fundamentally different than a disembodied relationship [via the Internet].”

Let me conclude by saying that I applaud what LifeChurch is doing overall. Their innovative work on the Internet is paving the way for other ministries to get online. Their willingness to share resources is inspiring.  Where I differ with them (and other churches with Internet campuses) is their decision to try to implement the full church experience through their Internet campus. Online church services provide a valuable service to those unable to attend a physical church and to those who would never enter a church on their own accord. But these folks must be directed to find a local body of believers, real flesh and blood, and it must be made clear that the online church service is never to replace attending physically.

I know that there are those who disagree with me. This is the place for a healthy debate. My students are wrestling with this issue as well and all comments are welcome.

Probably the most interesting topic so far is the debate on which areas of ministry can be performed effectively on the Internet. The first day of class we started defining the term “ministry”.  By using the early church as described in the book of Acts as our example, we found many types of ministry performed:  teaching, fellowship, communion, prayer, worship, ministering to the poor, evangelism, fasting, hospitality, and miracles. The discussion then led to the question: which of these areas of ministry can be done online? And the followup: which of these areas of ministry should be done online?

I asked my students to attend a church service at Lifechurch.tv between our first and second meetings. Lifechurch is a multi-site church that extensively uses the Internet as a means for ministry.  They have even created an Internet “campus” which attempts to provide a complete church experience for those who “attend” one of the services. It was this Internet campus that  I asked my students to attend. In class the next week, we recounted our experience there and compared it to our experience attending a church service physically.  We reviewed the different activities performed in a church service, such as worship, taking offering, preaching, prayer, and fellowship.  We all agreed that, from a technical perspective, Lifechurch does these quite well.  For worship, they show their band playing, with the words to the songs appearing on the screen as they are being sung. At one point in the service, offering is taken where a short message on the importance of giving is presented and the opportunity to give is presented (though you can give at any time via the “donate” button at the top right of the screen).  The Lifechurch pastor, Craig Groeschel, gave a Biblically-sound topical message in his latest series, called “True-ish”. Prayer happened throughout the service and at any point you could click “live prayer” to contact someone to pray with you. Finally, fellowship was provided through the “chat” window to the right of the screen (see image), where you could interact with each other in a text-based format. The chat window was lively and had quite varied topics going all throughout the service.

But after agreeing that the technical aspects of the service were well done, we started asking the harder questions. Was fellowship that was handled via “chat” sessions really fellowship?  One of my students noted that true fellowship is not just getting together only during Sunday mornings for a conversation, but it is seeing the hurt in someone’s eyes as they are leaving the service or running into someone later in the week and talking about what they are doing.  And what about worship? After agreeing that the music was quite moving and the musicians were talented, a student asked, “but did you find yourself singing along with it?” In other words, were you merely being entertained, or were your thoughts turned towards glorifying God?

As my students work towards their first assignment of developing a philosophy of Internet ministry, these are the types of questions that must be answered.  What parts of ministry are better handled offline, in the physical world? How do you integrate the online and the offline? As you may be able to tell from this blog post, I have my reservations about what Lifechurch is doing with their Internet campus. Their commitment to giving someone 100% of the church experience online, without directing that person to a local Christian fellowship, in my opinion, shortchanges that person and does not give them the full Christian experience and, more importantly, leads them away from fulfilling their duties as a Christian.

“HOLD ON!”, you might say,  “isn’t an ‘incomplete’ Christian experience better than no Christian experience at all?”  There are many who would never go to “church” (or are unable to for some reason) but would be willing to attend a service online. Doesn’t that make it worth it?  These are great questions that are difficult to answer. I will leave that for an upcoming post.