The Digital-Church Manifesto
· Ecclesiology / Evangelism / Online Ministry / Theology · Posted by Stacey L Barr · 3 Comments
11.17.10
Not too long ago, someone posited me with a question: “What is an online/digital church all about?†What a great question! Out of the conversation that followed, I developed what I now call The Digital-Church Manifesto, my personal collection of convictions about what the Church should look like online.
(Credit: Bridge Element, CreativeMYK)
Before you go any further, you need to understand something about my personal theology about the Internet. The Internet is not a “parallel universe†in which some people live a life that does not intersect with the “physical universe.†In other words, your life online is not separate from your life offline. For more on this, you should read this and this conversation from earlier.
The Niche of the Digital Church
What I see as being the killer app for the Digital Church is the fact it can be used by God in many ways that physical churches and ministries cannot. Of course, the opposite is also true, but that’s another subject entirely.
- Some are uncomfortable stepping in a physical (NOT real, but physical) church.
- A Digital Church provides a non-threatening environment for seekers to learn more without “endangering†themselves.
- For some people, Digital Churches provide an opportunity to reach out in ways they are not comfortable doing in physical (NOT real, but physical) life.
- Some people enjoying being able to share dark pasts online that minister to others because they do not fear the judgment they might receive in the physical (NOT real, but physical) world.
- Some enjoy having the opportunity to be “fed†in the services when they pour out themselves each week in their physical (NOT real, but physical) church.
- This was a reality for myself and my wife while in a pastorate in San Francisco; we enjoyed (and needed) the opportunity to re-charge after pouring ourselves out so much in serving others.
- Some have the need for additional learning and growing opportunities not available to them in their physical (NOT real, but physical) church.
- Unless you find a mega-church (2,000+ weekly attendees) that has the resources available to minister to every possible need you may have, a Digital Church may be your best opportunity to have your specific needs ministered to.
The Digital-Church Manifesto
So, here is my Digital-Church Manifesto, which inculcates these four presuppositions:
We are the digital expression of the Church founded by the disciples after the Ascension of our Savior Jesus Christ; created by God, led by Jesus, anointed by the Holy Spirit, and stewarded by the leaders the Holy Spirit anoints. We are a fully functioning body of believers who share a common bond of salvation and of locality via the Internet through telepresence. We join our brothers and sisters in the local, physical church in the Great Commission of evangelizing the lost, discipling the found, and meeting the needs of people around us, just as Jesus did when He walked the earth. We are a body of God-fearing, blood-bought, Spirit-filled, freed-from-sin believers ready to crawl over broken glass to ensure the lost hear the Gospel, and ready to charge the gates of hell with squirt guns to see evil defeated. We are a local church, part of the Kingdom of God. Amen.
SteveS
Hmmmm
As I have said before, I would *love* to see a vibrant, effective expression of God’s Church in cyberspace. While I am also skeptical that telepresence is sufficient for a full expression of The Body; I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong and am happy to support anyone trying this.
In response to this post, I should start by saying that while God continues to ask me to serve Him in the context of institutional churches; I am a strong believer in the Simple/Organic church movement. So here are my comments on your points from that POV:
You say: “Some are uncomfortable stepping in a physical … church†– this is central to what Simple/Organic church is about. People will come to a gathering in a coffee shop or someone’s home that would never be willing to show up at a “church buildingâ€. *IF* telepresence can provide the full experience of the church online, then clearly there is value there.
You say: “Some people enjoying being able to share dark pasts online that minister to others because they do not fear the judgment they might receive …†Is confession from behind a mask still confession? I agree that people like the relative anonymity of the web; but is that a good thing? To me a hallmark of “real†church (regardless of physical or virtual context) is openness and transparency. I have seen people affected by Christians who did not try to hide their faults while recognizing that they *are* faults. Will an online community be as effective at that behind the cloak of usernames and URLs? Or does it cheapen true honesty if “no one knows you’re a dog.â€
You say: “Some enjoy having the opportunity to be fed in the services when they pour out themselves each week in their physical … church.†This is another focal point of the Simple/Organic church movement – getting rid of the clergy/laity divide so you don’t have a small number of people doing most of the work when you meet and therefore needing to be fed elsewhere. A key for me in any virtualization of the church is the degree to which it encourages and enables everyone to contribute according to their gifts ( 1 Cor 14:26-33) while keeping things done decently and in order and guarding against false doctrine. If a virtual church simply reproduces the pastor/sermon centric model of most physical churches, it has no value to me. One challenge in this regard for the web is that it is even easier to hide – to gain the benefit of the community without contributing and therefore without experiencing the growth that comes from contributing. Not sure how to address that.
You say: “Some have the need for additional learning and growing opportunities not available to them …†The Simple/Organic church movement puts its trust in the Holy Spirit to bring into a community what each people needs, both in terms of services and opportunities to serve. I think that would apply just as well in a virtualized community vs. a physical one.
Stacey L Barr
Great response! I’m glad you are excited to see a vibrant online community. I think it genuinely shows your commitment to the Kingdom since you know you are called to be part of a physical community. Like you said, I believe being part of an online community is only part of the picture. I would never suggest someone NOT be part of a physical community of believers, I simply think telepresence gives many the opportunities to connect with others they would not be able to do in the physical sense.
As for the simple and organic church movement, I see great value in it. We both agree that some are put off by the more “traditional†venue for church, which is just fine. Just as the simple and organic church movements appeal to the needs of some, I feel the digital church fills a similar niche. (I can’t talk down to the house/cell church movement either, since that’s what it looked like in Jerusalem in the first century!)
You pointed out a good thing as far as confession goes. Confession behind a mask is not confession at all. Perhaps the best way to explain this is the phenomena that “only in Christian groups do we shoot our wounded.†I have seen many who are devastated in physical churches when a sin of theirs becomes public. While I know that not all churches are like this, far too many are. In the context of online church, I have seen confessions made that made the community grow together stronger. As for anonymity, is there much difference between the person in the back row who raises their hand to the invitation and leaves without connecting, and the person with a username of “KewlDude3†doing the same? Both physical and digital churches are challenged with integration in that regard; just a different perspective of it.
While I would love to see the division of clergy and laity dissolving, I cannot honestly believe that will never happen. Even in the church of Acts, we see the “first among equals†leadership model develop. Peter was the first among the disciples, and the disciples were the first among the many other groups comprising the church. Even in secular settings, you will always see leaders rise up from a group, and others who simply prefer to be hands and feet, it is just a part of social psychology.
Now, let me flip that idea one more way. In order to achieve a homogenous group of clergy/laity, the group would have to be relatively close to each other in terms of spiritual maturity. As long as no one in the group grows beyond the others (or backslides), then the group could, in theory, become homogenous. If that were the case, then the evangelistic requirement of the group would dissolve, because no one of a lesser spiritual maturity would be admissible without disrupting the homogenous state of the group. This may be a decidedly over-simplified theory, but it crystalizes the inherent problems faced with that ideal.
I also agree with you that the Spirit will bring people to a community that can best minister to them. This is where I see the physical church in partnership with the digital church as being brothers and sisters in the Kingdom, ministering to each as each has need. The strongest underscoring of my theology of digital church can be summed up in that statement; I see no need for one to find a way to exist without the other!
SteveS
Many great points in your response (as always) – I truly love our exchanges.
You point on “is there much difference between the person in the back row who raises their hand to the invitation and leaves without connecting, and the person with a username of KewlDude3?” is VERY well taken. Yes, anonymity is easily achieved in any large context, which is why church is best done in smaller groups. The internet is a VERY big group.
As to the whole clergy/laity, “first among equals” point – there is SO much I could say and I don’t want to hijack your blog
. The short version is: 1) there is a difference between recognizing the gifts and experience of individuals in a community and creating hierarchy – I can recognize that someone knows more than me without putting them into a different category than me. 2) I have experienced a church community where there were no titles or formal roles and yet there was no doubt in anyone’s mind who to ask when some doctrinal question came up. There were spiritually mature people who we all trusted to make sure things stayed on track, and yet those people didn’t “lead” in the sense that most people mean it and often didn’t contribute much – unless things got out of order or someone said something which was doctrinally in error. Otherwise they let us learn to use our gifts and encouraged us as we did so. There was no sense of clergy/laity, leader/follower, pastor/congregation; but without any formal declaration we all know who the “elders” were – they just weren’t the focus of our gatherings.