church relevance

CONNECT   SUBSCRIBE  

KentShaffer.com AcreScout LifeChurch.tv Center for Church Communication MinistryCSS Compassion Bloggers

SimChurch is a book by Douglas Estes of Western Seminary (San Jose, CA) and Berryessa Valley Church (San Jose, CA) that explores the answers to the question, “what does it mean to ‘do’ church in the virtual world?” I had an opportunity to ask Douglas Estes a question of my own:

What are the main advantages that a virtual church has that a brick and mortar church doesn’t?

Here is what Douglas said:

The average Christian in our world today is only vaguely aware of the coming role of the internet in being and doing church, and many are stuck on the questions of whether a virtual church is even real, or possible, or just a glorified video game. Most people can think up disadvantages (whether accurate or not), but if they see me praising the virtual church … it may seem crazy to them! Or cause them to wonder how much of my retirement I have invested in Google, Apple or Second Life.

To answer your question, we need an honesty-check: Are we willing to admit that any and every type of human church has both advantages and disadvantages? That traditional Lutheran churches and conservative Baptist churches and überhip ‘contemporary’ non-denominational churches and every other imaginable type of churches have strengths and weakness? I meet a surprising number of church-leader people who can’t wholeheartedly say ‘yes’ to that question. They’re convinced their version of the church is the one that God has blessed. If we can admit that all churches found in our world today have advantages and disadvantages, then here are three of the top advantages I see of virtual churches:

First, the most obvious is the increased reach a virtual church can offer as a congregation of believers. When I say reach, I don’t mean it will help Glory Church have more tithers members around the world. I mean that it will allow churches to reach areas where a brick and mortar church has a harder time reaching. We in the U.S. forget that our particular culture makes brick and mortar churches much more accessible than almost any other world culture (for a variety of reasons). In fact, virtual churches will not just increase reach in communist countries, but also post-Christian societies, cultures torn by war, isolated regions of our world, or places inhabited by busy upper-middle class workaholics. Part of this reach, I hope, will be within our own Western world—where being a Christian may one day have more to do with regular virtual connections with our church co-laborers and a lot less to do with one day a week performances.

This leads to a second big advantage of the virtual church: Its ability to redefine and even reform what church means in many parts of the world. Myself, I’m a pastor of a typical brick and mortar church in the US. If I had to pick one model to describe our church, it would probably be contemporary-attractional (though we subvert this at times). I say this because like most churches we are locked into Sunday performances; no matter how much I talk about being a follower of Jesus is more than this, actions do speak louder than words. Some folks would like to get rid of my kind of church to set up something communal but what the church needs (as always!) is some reformation, not destruction (as razing all our buildings to all meet in communes or homes would surely lead to). All this to say: The coming of the virtual church can retrain Christians in thought and practice to understand that church is not so much about a place or building but about the people who are connecting with the purpose of building up the Kingdom. (I see lots of people on blogs defend virtual churches by stating that church is the people … but this is inaccurate. The church is the people united by the presence of Christ on mission for the Kingdom. Just a few Christians hanging out at Seattle’s Best for coffee does not make a church, even if God may be there with them). So the virtual church can reform the church at large by reminding the church at large of the true nature of community (without demolishing the church at large, as some alt-church movements desire).

Third, and the thing that I am actually the most excited about, is the advantage the virtual church has to push margins. I need to say up front that I do not consider myself a margin-pusher, a radical, or anything close to that (far from it, actually). I’m just not wired that way. But as I was writing SimChurch, I really was struck by the testimonies of folks in virtual churches … and began to realize that many of these folks are marginalized-by-society people. And then I started to read a few Christian “trolls” (shouldn’t that be an oxymoron?) who would respond to blog posts about internet churches, implying that people who can’t or won’t go to a brick and mortar church are somehow lesser, weirder, weaker in their faith, or some other implicit negative descriptor. To be fair, many of these comments were not mean-spirited as in the political blogosphere, but there definitely was a strong undercurrent of ‘if you can’t go to a brick and mortar church, then there’s something wrong with you.’ To be honest, this torqued me quite a bit and got under my skin. Yes, a lot of testimonies from virtual churchgoers that I saw, read, heard, or heard about are in fact from people the world would write off—but why would the church do this? Just because a person feels uncomfortable in a Western-style brick and mortar church makes them unworthy of Christian community? If you met me in person, you’d know I’m not a bleeding-heart anything but to know that a real church with a real community could reach real people that Christ died for—people who have been marginalized by both society and church culture—does something for me. The church I pastor is an urban church, and I honestly know it will be very hard for us to reach the many marginalized people who walk past our church each day because they just don’t ‘fit in’ (and no amount of convincing myself they should fit—or simplistically thinking we just need to love them more—will cause that to happen). But a virtual church can reach them. And I applaud them for that.

For more insights on the pros, cons, challenges, and peculiarity of doing virtual church, read SimChurch.

Disclaimer: I received a free review copy of SimChurch.

Comments

There are 9 comments for this post.

  1. Douglas Estes on October 21, 2009 3:39 pm

    Kent - Thanks for the dialogue and the review. God’s best to you!

  2. Chris Sanner on October 21, 2009 10:43 pm

    This sounds like an excellent book that is going to have to be a must read for me.

    I do church online every weekend as well as attending a brick and mortar and I have had the pleasure to meet a couple of people who just do church online. From my very limited sample, they are usually just as sincere and often times, even bolder than a lot of typical brick-and-mortar Christians are. I don’t think there is any scientific reason why that would be, and it might just be my small sample of friends…but it’s painfully obvious to see there is great opportunity to reach people who desperately need Jesus who you could never reach otherwise.

  3. Judson on October 22, 2009 12:44 pm

    This is very interesting. I am trying to evaluate your post without bias and therefore I should purchase the book. However, the one thing that worries me (please note, I am only asking questions), would this provide opportunity for more of a “consumerist” mentality when it comes to corporate worship?

    The thing that first popped in my head is our western world being like this. It sounds like something related to “net flix” the Sunday Morning/Afternoon or Evening “Church” you turn on and turn off, like a DVD.

    Now, could one be at home and sing worship and take notes during the sermon? Sure, but it seems like a disconnect from “Community”; whereas, there would be more of a propensity not to tithe or fellowship.

    That is not to say it “can’t” work, just to say that is has more opportunity for people not to be engaged but treat it like renting a DVD. I guess it sounds like the “Western” mentality would love this but it wouldn’t be as real community, engagement ect - as it may be in those “harder to reach” areas.

    It almost sounds like a blog.

    Just my thoughts, but I want to read this for sure.

    Judson

  4. Bill Jaimez on October 26, 2009 10:05 am

    Judson I believe you are discounting the role of social media sites like Facebook and twitter. I am a worship leader at a “brick and mortar” church as well as a attender of a a couple of virtual or online churches. I have more fellowship and discussion with some of my virtual friends than with people I see every Sunday at my local church.

  5. Jesse Phillips on October 26, 2009 10:19 am

    Thanks, Kent. Love you, bro! You always have great content on your blog!

    I disagree w/ Mr. Estes on a few points and feel that this excerpt is very one sided and poorly argued. I would like to see a counter argument, if one is available?

    In his third paragraph (first point) he hoped virtual church would make church “less to do with one day a week performances.” - However, virtual church boils “church” down to watching a video of the service on the web. This all but eliminates the possibility of connecting w/ other Christians. IMHO virtual church makes “church” more about a once a week performance.

    In his second point - virtual church will remind the Church about the nature of community. Again, I don’t understand this. It seems to me that Virtual Church does more to disintegrate community. Now virtual church attendees connect less w/ other attendees, not more, it seems to me. And yes, the Church is not a building so why does Mr. Estes rail against the movements away from our building centered “churchianity” we practice in America?

    Finally, I would like to say that my impression of the Church in America (the one I’m familiar with - the one I’m a part of) is that we have some serious problems:
    1. we don’t love people much
    2. we don’t have much community together
    3. we have very little involvement of Christians in helping others, evangelism, etc.
    4. we look just like the world, we’re no different (not in silly things of dress and music we listen to), but we’re not sacrificial, more giving, more kind and gracious, patient, or any of those things.

    I must attribute these failings to how we’re doing church - limiting it to a weekly pep-talk, focusing on “new insights” and interesting thoughts on the scripture, but hardly at all measuring or caring-about practice of the scriptures, life change, etc. All we want is for our folks to come every week and tithe. We don’t care if they grow closer to God during the week, become a better Christian, love their neighbor or anything. If we did, we’d organize the church to bring that about. But we don’t.

    I see virtual church as the logical extension of what we’re already doing in church, only making it less personal, less community - more about hearing a message and less about connecting, ministering too and walking w/ other Christians. I feel we need more of this in the body, not less. Perhaps I’m mistaken?

  6. Discussions Continue About SimChurch | Greg Atkinson on October 29, 2009 2:53 am

    [...] Discussion on the Advantages of Virtual Churches at Kent Shaffer’s blog, Church Relevance [...]

  7. Tilasin uuden kirjan… « Korpialttari on October 30, 2009 2:35 am

    [...] virtuaalisessa maailmassa?” Katsotaan, mitä kaveri ajattelee. Muutamia ajatuksia voi lukea Churchrelevance.com sivustolta. Kirjan saat vaikka Amazonista. Aiheena virtuaalimailman hyödyntäminen [...]

  8. Collide Magazine » Blog Archive » Upfront Week In Review - 10/30/09 on October 30, 2009 3:07 pm

    [...] talks with “Sim Church” author Douglas Estes about virtual [...]

  9. Justin Dela Cruz on November 1, 2009 7:20 am

    thanks for the content. but lose the italics. makes it really difficult to read.

Write a Comment