eChurch - Still a Dubious Concept
Category: Faith...
Posted Monday, February 09, 2004 at 07:36 PM [GMT-6]

Last November, a post entitled "We Know More Than Our Pastors: The Rise Of Spiritual Blogging" came to my attention, and I responded to it here.

The author of the original post, Tim Bednar, received quite a bit of feedback to his premise that "spiritual blogging" is transforming the Church. In fact, he notified me via comment that he's updated his post in response to that feedback and additional contemplation. The updated essay (version 3) is found here.

I read the updated version with interest, as I disagreed with the original premise. Unfortunately, I find nothing to mitigate the hubris that characterized the first edition. Take this, for example:

Setting aside for a moment the fact that countless millions of the members of the Church have never even heard of blogging, let alone been influenced by it, there's no evidence that the concept of "e-church" is transforming anything, let alone the Body of Christ.

There are five basic purposes of the Church: worship, ministry, evangelism, discipleship and fellowship. I've always believed that if a congregation is contemplating engaging in an activity that isn't rooted in at least one of these purposes, then it has no business pursuing that activity. I think it's worthwhile to consider if and how the e-church can be useful in accomplishing these purposes, as the results will validate (or not) the premise of Tim's post.

• Worship - This can be defined as experiencing the presence of God - to recognize His holiness, majesty and love, and to praise and thank Him for His gift of salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ. Although we often think of worship as a collective endeavor, it's actually very personal. Worship doesn't require the presence of other people, and this is the one purpose that could conceivably be carried out online (however odd it might seem; I mean, why go to the trouble of using a keyboard to worship God when you can use mind and voice?). Is the loss of corporate worship a bad thing? I think it is, but that's just me. I enjoying worshipping in the presence of other believers, even though the actual worship itself is between me and my Lord. But there are plenty of good reasons to worship alone, and we need to be doing that as well. However, I submit that worshipping via blogging smacks a little of exhibitionism, although I'm willing to stipulate that it's the heart of the worshipper
  and not the mind of the onlooker that governs.


• Ministry - This can be defined as responding to physical, spiritual, emotional and intellectual needs in a way that bears testimony to the love of God for all people. This is more of a gray area in our discussion. Counseling can be ministry; listening can be, as well. Both of these can be accomplished via the interactive features of blogging. However, that encompasses only a tiny part of the universal ministry responsibilities of the Church. Blogging won't feed the poor, heal the sick in body, comfort the widows, clothe the orphans. At some point, feet have to hit the ground and hands have to handle, lift, caress, work, build. The "sanitary ministry" of blogging encouragement out to a hurting world, and expecting that will do the trick is a pathetic picture, and bears no resemblance to the sacrifices Jesus calls us to.


• Evangelism - This is proclaiming through words and actions the good news of God's redemptive love and saving grace. Notice the reference to "words and actions." The old saying - be a witness to God's love to everyone you meet; use words, if necessary - holds true. Now, blogging is a great tool for sharing the Gospel, no doubt about it. Granted, it's an "opt in" approach, where you have to rely on those who need the message to seek it out and read it, and that's a big shortcoming. But I suspect that many of us who blog are better writers than we are speakers (OK...I fall into that category; I'm sure you're brilliant at both), and in our writing we can make all the right points in just the right way in order to give the reader the best possible chance of making the right decision. And there's nothing wrong with that. Only it doesn't really recognize the reality that our words are nothing, except what the Holy Spirit makes them to be. And there's also the rather disturbing reality that what we do speaks much more loudly than what we say (or write). So, once again, while we can take some baby evangelism steps by being "spiritual bloggers," the real strides are made by those who are taking real strides...getting out and mingling with the other sinners, and showing how the transforming grace of Jesus can make a difference in life.


• Discipleship - OK, now we're getting somewhere. Discipleship is providing opportunities for spiritual growth and development, and for application of individual gifts and abilities as provided by the Holy Spirit. A big part of discipleship is teaching, answering questions, discussing issues from a spiritual perspective, challenging and encouraging one another. We can do that online, via our blogs! Except... Well, there's the tricky issue of credentials. How do we know that the faceless blogger who's instructing us in the arcane issues of theology really knows her stuff? Granted, we have that same issue in meatspace, but at least there we can watch the person and see if their demeanor and actions are consistent with their words. We can get to know the person in a more holistic fashion (if I may be forgiven the use of a new-agey term) if we can actually interact with them face-to-face on an ongoing basis. What's the term I'm looking for? Ah...relationship. You can have one online, but, really, it's not the same.


• Fellowship - This can be defined as providing opportunities for encouragement, Christian love and support through association with others. Of all the purposes, fellowship comes the closest to being achievable in a virtual setting. It's people reacting to people, and this doesn't have to take place face-to-face. In fact, I believe that the internet has been the greatest possible boon to those who are lonely, through no choice of their own, and who have found social interaction in an online medium. I'm often encouraged by those I encounter via this blog, and I hope I'm doing a decent job of encouraging others, as it should be a two-way street. This is especially important for Christians in "frontier areas" (that may be halfway around the world, or in Newark, NJ...anyplace where a believer feels isolated and alone in his belief). But (there's always a "but" with me, isn't there?), I worry about the possibility of substituting online fellowship for face-to-face interaction, when such opportunities are real and accessible. Blogging should not be a substitute for Christian fellowship, but rather an extension. (Again, physical limitations may overrule that ideal...but they really don't apply to most of us.)

So, let's recap. On an e-church-to-real-Church-equivalency scale of 1 to 10, with 10 meaning that the e-church provides a pretty decent proxy for a New Testament model of the Church, here's my ratings:

• Worship - 5
• Ministry - 2
• Evangelism - 4
• Discipleship - 5
• Fellowship - 7

Coincidentally (or not? hmmm....), our pastor's message yesterday morning was entitled "How the Church is Built." His definition of the Church is "people in whom Christ is working and through whom His work is done," and this definition can well apply to the online community. So it's not a question of whether a community of spiritual bloggers (if, indeed, there is such a thing) is a part of the Church. We're a diverse group, but, again quoting my pastor, "we're not held together by our theology, politics or programs...we are held together by our Savior."

Where I draw the line is at the point of suggesting that the e-church is somehow superior to, a successor to, or the ultimate evolution of what Jesus Christ commissioned and was modeled for us two millenia ago. God showed us what happens when man contrives to build a structure that he thinks will put him on equal footing with God, and the pride that crumbled along with the Tower of Babel is no different than that which gives rise to modern day statements of superiority in "how church is done."

In closing, I'll quote again from Tim's post:

Ecclesiastes 1:9 provides a better response to this claim than I ever could. With all due respect to Tim, there is nothing new under the sun, including the foolishness and pride of man.

Last night, our congregation held its quarterly observance of the Lord's Supper. We don't take communion frequently, like many churches, but when we do, we make a big deal out of it. We set aside the entire worship service, with every aspect focusing attention on the signficance of Jesus' shed blood and broken body. Last night, we formed small prayer groups of 2, 3 or 4 people and interceded for one another. The sound of hundreds of whispered prayers was a sweet and moving soundtrack of praise and worship. At the end of the service, we held hands across the room, and 700 voices joined in singing The Lord's Prayer...our tradition for closing our observance of the Lord's Supper.

If and when the alleged e-church can replicate even 1% of the spirit of that time, I'll gladly alter my opinion. I'm not, however, holding my breath.

I welcome your thoughts and comments.