Return to CreateDebate.comebcem230 • Join this debate community

EBCem230


Debate Info

19
18
VirtualTech (+) for Church VirtualTech (-) for Church
Debate Score:37
Arguments:28
Total Votes:56
Ended:02/24/12
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 VirtualTech (+) for Church (15)
 
 VirtualTech (-) for Church (12)

Debate Creator

jriley(21) pic



This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

EM230 Virtual Church Debate

Affirmative Position:  Virtual technology allows the church to creatively reach those unable to engage a 

physical church setting due to a variety of reasons.  To provide a solely virtual church experience is a 

modern way to fulfill the Great Commission of Mathew 28.  God gave us the ability to reflect him by 

creating amazing technologies, let’s use it!

 

Negative Position:  Virtual technology poses a great threat to the mission and function of the Church.  

Attending church from the safety of personal privacy encourages individualism and independence from 

God and his divine structure.   A computer generated person isn’t real and can’t replace the Acts 2:42 

experience.  Virtual technology will do more harm than good! 

VirtualTech (+) for Church

Side Score: 19
Winning Side!
VS.

VirtualTech (-) for Church

Side Score: 18
2 points

Our Lord Jesus Christ commands us in the great commission in Matthew 28 to go out and make disciples of ALL nations. He does not say we get to pick and choose who gets to be saved and who does not. One nation that goes highly unnoticed but extremely un-reached is the digital nation. Matthew 9:37-38 tells us that the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few and tells us that the workers need to go into his harvest field. The digital nation is a field overflowing and we need to be getting in there and sharing Jesus with them. There are people who literally spend all of their time on the internet. There was a time when I was in a state of severe depression and rather than spend time with family or friends I went online and through a video chat group only spent time with people I met online. Some days I would only get out of bed to get something to eat. Through this experience I saw how people can use the internet as an escape, but also saw many people who were just as lost as I was. If I was spending that time that I was recovering from my depression in a virtual church rather than in a virtual hangout and not doing anything really productive I would have found my way back to Christ so much faster. Through this experience I know that there is a massive group of lost people who essentially live on the internet. Virtual Churches are an amazing evangelistic opportunity and a chance to reach people all around the world. I will concede that churches may not provide the Acts definition of a church for believers because they do not offer the complete "church" experience. However, if a virtual church "pastoral staff" operated in the manner of using the church to draw people in share Christ with them and help them grow to a saving faith and then helped them find a local body to attend that would give them a better view on church life. Virtual churches can be a great supplemental church experience in the sense that you can get additional growth and teaching in addition to what you are learning in your churches. Rather than listen to a podcast of a church service or a sermon, why not attend a virtual church so you can not only get that lesson but also get it while in fellowship with others who are listening to the same thing you are? In short I believe that Virtual churches have many redeeming qualities, including reaching the extremely lost digital nation as well as providing a supplemental experience to the standard church setting.

Side: VirtualTech (+) for Church
jriley(21) Disputed
0 points

Jason, I agree that virtual church offers a great opportunity for evangelism to those lost who are part of the digital nation. However, it seems that virtual technology several truncates the church's ability to "ultimately" fulfill its function. As you rightly said, virtual church can only be supplemental in nature. Once someone is saved or helped online by a good group of "digital" pastors, what happens with that person next? How do these pastors help this person grow? How does this person participate in any of the four pillars of church life from Acts 2? It seems that virtual church experiences only create the same problem that "camping ministry" has, which is the inevitable challenge of "follow up" When you go to camp and have a great time and leave...THAT'S IT! How do would you suggest virtual ministries overcome this challenge?

Side: VirtualTech (-) for Church
JBowling(1) Disputed
1 point

With virtual churches as supplemental ministries they would still be involved in peoples lives and would require follow up by the people involved with the Virtual Church. Communication advancements like Skype and others could allow for one on one mentoring with people via the internet as well as continual fellowship through the virtual church setting. Just as camping ministry requires a bit of faith that the local church will follow up, so does virtual ministry. We cannot leave out the ministry of the holy spirit in peoples lives and the factor of faith that comes into play even in face-to-face ministries.

Side: VirtualTech (+) for Church
jriley(21) Disputed
0 points

Jason, how would you account for the vast abuse that virtual technology allows in light of "electronic anonymity"? In other words how can digital pastors really do effective ministry if people either hide behind a digital curtain or portray themselves to be something that they're not? It seems that the digital curtain would also breed an element of isolationism, only perpetuating a depressed person deeper into their condition. How do you supplement much needed real physical human intimacy we're all built for?

My last point is on the issue of "accountability". Digital church jumping seems all to easy to those who don't want to be accountable in the real world. How do you manage interpersonal conflict or administer church discipline in a virtual context?

"What do we call a church that not only fails to engage in, but makes a practical impossibility, the equipping ministry of the church? What about discipleship and leadership formation? How does one become an elder in a virtual church? What do we call churches without biblical eldership? Can true community be mediated by a screen, or is it forged in the times at table, bearing one another’s burdens, serving the poor and one another together, at weddings and funerals, births and deaths … all the stuff that happens when I turn the screen off." (Bob Hyatt http://www.outofur.com/archives/2009/10/ why_virtual_chu.html) )

Side: VirtualTech (-) for Church
JBowling(1) Disputed
1 point

First of all I think we cannot forget that the "digital curtain" is not the only way to portray yourself in a different light than reality. For those of us that have worked with youth we know what it is like to work with a student who comes off one way at youth group but we find them being a totally different person in reality, heck, I was that student! Yes, the internet can make it easier to be someone else, but we can't kid ourselves into thinking that everyone online is fake and everyone face-to-face is real and being honest.

Secondly, people who are depressed have a natural tendency for isolationism and a lot of them deal with that by putting themselves into things online. If we can minister to those people and help them find peace and joy in the Lord rather than other less productive and potentially harmful things I think that is doing the opposite of putting them deeper into their condition.

Church hopping and church discipline is an issue in brick and mortar churches as well, it all comes down to doing church right. If digital churches are doing church wrong, yet they have a large following what is worse, condemning them for their actions and turning our backs to them? Or getting involved in virtual church and making one that is built on solid Biblical foundations and purposing to give the people wrapped up in digital church a solid church experience? Whether we like it or not, virtual church DOES happen and people DO attend. Rather than debate if it's right or wrong why don't we debate how we can make it work as a viable ministry considering it is already one in play and might need some improvements?

Side: VirtualTech (+) for Church
2 points

[Sorry about the username. I'm Nanda.]

While modern churches are most assuredly, "good" churches, that do "good" things, including evangelism and the reaching of lost souls to Christ, one questions still remains. Are modern churches the BEST way to evangelize the world? Is there a more effective way to reach souls and fulfill the great commission? The answer is a hearty, "yes!" And the means of which we can now do so is through the advanced technology of our modern age. Virtual churches can reach more people with the Gospel, and reach them faster and easier than any other way prior to and including the 21st century. Also, virtual churches give an experience of community to both those who could not, and those who will not participate in a local community of Christians. We can truly reflect God by creating experiences that until now were unfathomable!

Matthew 28:19-20 gives to us a commission to spread the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ throughout the nations. Unfortunately, common sense tells us that to do this exclusively offline would severely limit the church's power of expansion. As Christians, we must seek to obey the Word of the Lord quickly, and from our heart instead of from what the people around us think. (Ephesians 6:6) We have all heard the Word, but will we do it? (James 1:22)

The issue of Christian community is one of the primary arguments both for and against the biblical rational of a virtual church. While the virtual church may not meet the requirements of a Christian community according to the Bible IN A WAY THE AVERAGE CHRISTIAN IS COMFORTABLE WITH, it can still definitely be fulfilled by other means. The Bible lists for us the requirements of any Christian community in Acts 2:42. The four requirements are; teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer. Teaching is stressed so much in virtual churches that no sane person will argue that teaching doesn't happen there! Fellowship is done through the technology of today. Attendees can talk, share ideas, and be social and real online instead of hiding behind the mask of perfection that so many in a literal church do. As for prayer, the prayer walls of many online churches have far, far more requests than do most any literal churches bulletin. While breaking of bread can only be sometimes done face to face, it can always be done emotinoal and spiritually in unison. Proponents often point out that traditional churches are far from perfect. Rather than being bastions of intimacy and community, traditional churches often allow people to hide behind shallow masks of perfection. Online communities, on the other hand, provide a safe environment for many people to share their struggles, develop greater intimacy, and form better expressions of Christian community. Christians and unsaved people HAVE to be met where they are at. The great commission is in NO way passive!!

http://marccortez.com/2011/11/22/is-an-online-church-really-a-church-why- we-need-better-arguments-ets-papers/

Side: VirtualTech (+) for Church
tholtan(4) Disputed
1 point

I am trying to figure out how the “great commission” is fulfilled by an online church. “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Matt 28:19-20. The word disciple used here is actually a verb. It is matheteuo and means Jesus’ disciple. It is an act of making a Jesus follower. I don’t think we can really accomplish this at a virtual church. How can you “live like Christ” from inside a fake world? Now lets say for arguments sake that you could do that some how. Now what? Next Jesus says to baptise them. That is impossible. People are smart enough to make a program that “virtually baptises” people. In these programs you can even fly. But are you actually flying? No. And that is how I see this. Baptism is a physical act that we do as Christians to show others that we are Jesus’ disciples. The other issue is the “Go”. Are these churches set up to go out and make disciples? How are they doing that? I will admit that many physical churches do not do this well, but that is not an excuse that a virtual church can hide behind. How are they bringing people in? It seems like a virtual church is more of a “we are here come join us”. But that is not what we are commanded to do. Now even if a virtual church is going out and bringing people in that isn’t what they seem to be about. The whole purpose behind a virtual church seems to be a place where those who can’t go to church will be able to. Should a virtual church go out and entice people going to a physical church to stop and start going online? These are just a few questions that I have. This reminds me of a famous quote “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”. Lets remember that eternity is at stake for some of these people. How we share the gospel and make disciples is very important.

I would like to submit that even though we may be able to teach online we are not fulfilling the great commission. God doesn’t call us to do/obey part of his word but all of it.

Side: VirtualTech (-) for Church
1 point

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you Matthew 28:19-20. This passage calls us as believers to witness to all the nations. Since many nations (and more all the time) have access to the internet; what better way is there for us Christians to minister to these people then through a virtual church online. A disciple is someone who follows the teachings of their leader. (Tyndale 384) Is it impossible to teach someone without talking to them face to face? Of course it isn’t, Paul taught Timothy from a Roman prison (see 1+2 Timothy). How much easier do we have it, to teach or disciple someone through the technology of the virtual church? We, as Christians, should count it a blessing that we have virtual churches so that we no longer have to travel half-way around the world to minister a person in South Korea, instead we can simply interact with them through a virtual church setting. Many people will disagree with me saying that there is more to the Great Commission than just discipleship. I agree, but it is just as easy, if not easier to teach someone through the virtual church than it is to disciple them, and as far as baptism is concerned is it necessary to be baptized with water? According to Acts 1:5 Christ promised His apostles a baptism of the Holy Spirit, is Matthew 28:19 speaking of baptism by water or baptism by the Spirit? It does not specify. Spiritual baptism is very possible in the virtual church; even water baptism is not impossible through the virtual church. Scriptures do not state that one has to be baptized by someone else.

The virtual church is new and different, so people are skeptical of it; just as the early church was opposed by the Jewish leaders. Yet look what the early church has grown into. Those skeptical of the virtual church should rather be awestruck by what the Lord has allowed us to create and use for the betterment of the Gospel.

Side: VirtualTech (+) for Church
aschlindwein Disputed
1 point

Yes Matthew 28: 19-20 calls us to go and make disciples of all nations. I agree with you there, also I agree that with internet being more popular it is easier to disciple someone from a far, but I would have to argue that it is not the best way. As we were taught in Biblical Discipleship (taught by Dean Glock, great class) part of being a disciple is living life with those who are your disciples. In many ways the virtual setting does not allow you to do this. How are you to live life with someone if, one, you are living in a virtual world that you aren't in reality living and two, you physically are not living life with someone.

I disagree with the idea of baptism virtually. I believe that baptism is only by water, total submersion, and not only by water, but as a public declaration of your commitment to the body of Christ. Sure you can get "baptized" in a virtual church, but where is the public commitment of accountability? Romans 6:1-14 talks about our baptism to Christ and how we are dead to sin and alive to Christ. My issue with virtual baptism goes back to my argument of honesty on the internet. Second Life is an escape from reality, plain and simple. If you are getting virtually baptized how are your virtual friends going to keep you accountable if they aren't even remotely sure of who you are. I realize I am being hypothetical, but come on there is limited openness and honesty in regards to the internet! Having a public expression of your commitment to Christ should be done in a church where they can honestly keep each other accountable and legitimately have a public to express their salvation to.

Back to the issue of discipleship:

Honestly I just believe there is too much junk, hardware, or technology between the person on either end of the virtual church when using it as a discipleship tool. That being said because technology is so readily available there is a "on my own time" approach to disciple-making there is not demand or urgency to the idea of making disciples for Christ. When you receive a text message in class, if you are a good student, you do not answer it right away, you answer it on your own time. That would be the same way for virtual discipleship. A new believer or a struggling believer is not always going to have the urgency of wanting to "get together" (in whatever medium you so choose) with their mentor at the ready. There no matter what are going to be things in the way when you are discipling someone, and what if the reason that person is on the computer is because he is addicted to it. An addiction to the computer whether, gaming, porn, or just a virtual escape is going to hinder the disciple-making process because you would be feeding into them more reason to have virtual relationships. There is something valuable to the physical touch of a relationship (friendship or otherwise). How are you to comfort your disciple when they need comfort if all you have are empty words and not physical remorse? In the development of a child or person in general it is extremely important for that child to have physical touch in order to mentally develop properly. We are created to have physical touch in our lives! God created marriage, God created sex, and sex is physical touch. (sorry, but its true) We all have a desire of physical touch whether that is in the context of marriage or simply a hug from a friend or a pat on the back well done from a coach (in this case a mentor). With this virtual aspect of disciple-making you lose all physical contact with your disciple and are lacking in comfort and genuineness with them.

Sorry to be lengthy.

Side: VirtualTech (-) for Church
mashawver(3) Disputed
1 point

I don't disagree that this world is perhaps over filled with technology, and that these technologies can create voids between people; but I don't think that these technologies shouldn't be used to disciple someone. To give a hypothetical example, say I knew someone in Nigeria and wanted to disciple them, it would be impossible for me to live life with them without using the virtual church. Granted I could fly to Nigeria and disciple them face to face, but that would only be for a relatively short period. Through a virtual church, I could be in contact with them on a daily basis, and even live a virtual life with them. The possibilities that a virtual church provides us with to disciple someone are endless. I could have a cup of coffee with someone or go see a movie with a friend, even if he lived on the other side of the world where he may not know someone who can disciple him where he lives.

I agree with your point that this society has become (as you put it) "on my own time" society, where everyone can respond to a text or email when they have the time. However how many people do you know receive a text and have responded within the next ten seconds; they respond because they want to communicate with the recipient over their text. The same is true of those who want to be discipled, they will be quick to respond, or to meet online. It is those people who don't really want to be a disciple that are the ones who lack the urgency to meet. These people are the ones who meet because they have been told they have to, or they know they should, but don't really want to.

Side: VirtualTech (+) for Church
1 point

It may seem odd to think that in some parts of the world there is not even one church around for hundreds of miles or even there might not be any place to have fellowship with other believing in the entire country. Since we are Americans we have no idea what it’s like to not even have some kind of church meeting. Here in the US we have Catholics, Baptist, Lutheran, nondenominational, and hundreds of other differences and variations in all of those denominations. If we don’t like the church we are going to we just get up and go to the next chapel across the street. For me it is hard to imagine a world that doesn’t have any kind of body of believers at all. And that is where the Virtual Church comes into play.

Virtual Churches have everything that a physical church has except, virtual church have the convenience of having the local like body of believer’s right in the comfort of their own home. People that go to Virtual churches have the convenience of being able to go to a meeting at a time that works best for the persons schedule, because some people are not about to get out of going to work on Sundays which is a typical day that people go to church.

Also there are people across the world that can’t get out of bed because of some kind of illness that prevents them from getting to a physical church. And so when we have a virtual church they are about to get to a church that will help them grow to be closer to Christ.

Some people live in a country where they don’t know the language very well. So until they are about to understand the language that the people in that country are speaking they can go to a virtual church with people that speak the same language as their own self. This will help them keep up with their own spiritual walk with the Lord Jesus Christ. And that is why I think that virtual churches are good for the growth of the church.

Side: VirtualTech (+) for Church
0 points

*

Side: VirtualTech (+) for Church
3 points

Virtual church simply hinders community. The purpose of a church is for edification, worship, fellowship, and breaking bread as it says in Acts 2:42. A virtual church hinders the idea of fellowship because one doesn’t have to spend any energy what so ever to fellowship with anyone in a virtual church. I visited Saddleback Internet Campus to see what this virtual church was all about and to be honest it was cold and very impersonal. I noticed there was a chat, so I decided to sign on and see if there was anyone there. I typed “Hello?” and there was no one that answered. The idea of community and fellowship was lacking immediately. I looked further into the site and noticed the past chat submissions were from an automated computer to tell about services, events, and other activities going on within the church. Looking further into the site, there are blog spots that offer encouragement and teaching, but again not fellowship. We as humans were created for human to human connections. God created Eve for Adam because “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.’” (Gen. 2:18) Clearly God thought that Adam needed someone to be with him someone to have community with so he was not alone which isn’t taking place sitting at a computer screen alone while you are virtually having a conversation.

The idea of being hindered in community from a face to face or human to human interaction relates to what I think is our fear of intimacy or honesty. Having a virtual church such as Sims Church or Second Life provides the opportunity to “go” to church as whomever or whatever we want. There is a shield or computer screen hiding us from the reality of who we are as humans or even who others are. This virtual church makes it easier for the church goer to be hidden in his everyday life and not be open or kept accountable to the church body. There are many times in the virtual world when one uses their avatar to look different way that reality or to escape the truth of reality and if that is present in the church setting who is to say we aren’t attempting to hide our impurities from God. Psalm 86:11 says, “Teach me your way, Lord, that I may rely on your faithfulness; give me an undivided heart, that I may fear your name.” The message this passage is showing us is, we need to be open and honest with ourselves, others and especially God. We are not to compartmentalize our life from reality or church. Church is a place we should be real with others and ourselves about the imperfections we might have and a virtual church masks the reality we could see in a face to face physical church.

Side: VirtualTech (-) for Church
rizeagain(2) Disputed
2 points

While I agree with your statement concerning the purpose of any church that you gleaned from the pages of Acts, I would like to challenge your point that a virtual church hinders the idea of fellowship. Fellowship is, according to Merriam-Webster;

1) A community of interest, activity, feeling, or experience; Or,

2) A company of equals or friends.

Virtual church attendees obviously share the common interest to be included in a virtual church (for a variety of reasons). During at least weekly meetings, they share in activities such as singing, dancing, and conversing about the sermon and each others life in general. Many online church attendees experience a feeling of LOVE from a virtual church that they simply cannot, or unfortunately, do not get in a brick and mortar church. Heck, loving one another is the second greatest commandment! (Matthew 22:39) Why should Christians avoid loving each other through the medium of technology if many of the standard methods of "doing church" are simply not working anymore! Brick and mortar church attendance is at an all time low! On the other hand, virtual churches are only growing! Virtual church members can experience church together in ways they could not normally do and with people they can not normally fellowship with! Furthermore, it is fellowship merely on the fact that virtual church constitutes of a company of equals. Since we are dealing with God's created order (Genesis 1:1), we are all equal, and equally short (Romans 3:23).

The rest of your argument consists of your personal feelings. Just because church doesn't FEEL like church to you does not mean that it is not church. Just because it does not FEEL like fellowship to you does not mean it is not fellowship! In regards to your comments about Adam and Eve, virtual churches are still making a human connection, they are just using a new medium. If God made internet in day 6, is not there a possibility that Adam and Eve would have interacted through the internet? (Food for thought?)

-All in love and the spirit of having a fun edifying debate!

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_chu_att-religion-church-attendance

Side: VirtualTech (+) for Church
aschlindwein Disputed
0 points

I don't recall saying it doesn't feel like church. It may have come across that way, but I simply was meaning to say that when I visited the Internet Campus it lacked the community (common interest, activity, feeling and experience) that I was expecting. In a physical church there is an automatic sense of community (in terms of feeling and experience) that you cannot grasp in a virtual world or internet campus.

I agree clearly there is a common interest in the idea of a Second Life or Sims Church, due to the nature of the game, but the accountability and physical people are lacking.

There is clearly a difference between internet campuses (such as Saddleback or iChurch) and virtual church (as in Second Life and Sims). The point I am arguing is from the standpoint of an outsider to an Internet campus. The internet campuses are just fine for catching up on a sermon or two and arguing on a theological blog, but to be fair, the community is lacking; you are on your individual computer talking to a person who is not physically there when you are (like email). Sure I can feel community because we share a common interest of computers and internet church, but as far as knowing who those people are individually it is not possible unless there another source of communication (telephone, instant chat, or video messaging).

Community can be any where if we look at it from a Webster definition for example, the lunch line, bathroom, or even the doctor's office. True community happens only when we are in fellowship with believers. How is that to happen when we are in the privacy of our own home practicing individualism and expecting to have fellowship with a virtual person doing the same?

Another thing on the issue of honesty on the internet:

How do you justify the virtual escape when it is in regards to an affair and the use of the same escape to practice "individual privacy" of virtual church? Is that same person accountable for the affair he committed yesterday when he is in virtual church today? Is that same person being honest or will he be honest when it comes down the the true fellowship and practice of the church? (just a thought)

Side: VirtualTech (-) for Church
mashawver(3) Disputed
1 point

I agree with you on your opinion about Acts 2:42 and the purpose it gives to the church, however the internet allows us as Christians to worship, edify, and fellowship on a greater scale, than has ever been possible or ever will be possible. Virtual churches allow us to meet with people from all over the world and to fellowship with other believers that we have never met, and probably will never have the opportunity to meet. The Great Commission in Matthew 28, commands us to go unto all the nations and spread the Gospel. In order for us to do that most efficiently we need to use all the tools we have available. Virtual churches are only one of the tools that we have today to reach people all over the world, many of whom would never set foot inside of a traditional brick and mortar church, but are interested in a virtual church. We must use Virtual churches to reach this people group who would otherwise be unreachable. Think of virtual churches as in the same way you would think of any other tool to reach somebody with the Gospel. The only difference is that with virtual churches you would be reaching someone through the internet, instead of talking to them face to face.

Side: VirtualTech (+) for Church
1 point

The question before us today is an important one. Can a virtual church replace a physical church? Can we go to church wherever we want and still accomplish what God wants us to accomplish? Can we attend a virtual church and still fulfil God’s divine instructions? The “Church” (the body of believers) is supposed to do certain things and live a certain way. Is that possible to do at a computer? I say no! Romans 12 talks about spiritual gifts that are given to believers. Among the things listed are prophecy, ministry, wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, teaching, exhorting, giving, ruling, showing mercy, speaking in languages, and interpreting languages. Whatever the specific use of each one was, they fit together as the parts of the body work together to make a functional whole. Some are impossible to do while sitting at home in your under-wire, in fact most are.

Now the bible doesn’t directly say don't attend a virtual church but it is implied. Did God send a “virtual Jesus” to die on the cross for our sins? Why is it so important that Jesus came in the flesh and was made human? Would He have accomplished the same things if He were just an avatar? Can we have virtual marriages, virtual baptisms, and virtual communion? Are these things just symbols that we are supposed to read about or actions that we are supposed to live out?

And how does this work? I go online and “create” (what God has done for us already) myself, who I want to be and how I want to look. I then live a life through my computer in a way that shows Christ and His love. I go to online church and find an online girl. Being good christian people we decide a courtship would be better than dating (besides online dating is really expensive) and then we have an online marriage. I decide one day “during” online communion that I need to be baptised. I “fly” upfront after and talk to the pastor about getting baptised. By the way who is this “pastor”? Don’t worry he is ordained, online of course. http://www.themonastery.org/ You should check it out. Is this what God intended for our lives? I don’t think so.

Side: VirtualTech (-) for Church
JBowling(1) Disputed
0 points

First I would like to argue that it is impossible to fulfill the commandments of God through a computer, I think we are more than capable of using technology to expand the kingdom of God and isn't that the most important thing we are called to do? You wittingly say how it is impossible to use our spiritual gifts while "sitting at home in our under-wire". However I do not see why you cannot use the gifts of prophecy (in the sense of speaking for God in the teaching sense), wisdom, knowledge, faith, etc. from your home through a technological medium; these are far from impossible.

Secondly I agree with the fact that we needed a real Jesus and there are aspects to church that there needs to be tangible, but after this point is made we go into way too many hypothetical situations and I do not think we have any real reasons for why Virtual Church is bad.

You start off with a witty comment of how by "creating" yourself you are taking something that God did into your own hands. I, however, see this as a way to be more personal with people you meet online. Having a representation of yourself to interact with makes it more personal, and if you do not like this concept then anyone with a Wii has to throw it out for creating yourself in Mii form.

After this statement is made you totally lost me going from living out Christ in a virtual world to virtual dating, marriage, etc. These are arguments for a different debate entirely and the whole situation is hypothetical anyway. You think it might be kind of sketchy that the pastor is ordained online, but aren't we all a kingdom of priests anyway? Are we not a priesthood of ALL believers? Just because one person has a fancy title or a piece of paper does not make them any less qualified than another believer. This may be where we need to make sure that there is good doctrine in the Virtual Church but that is an issue we will face whether it is online or not. This may or may not be what God intended for our lives but this is how people are living and I think we should not take that fact for granted because the Digital Nation is a nation that is needing Christ and as the church and the body of Christ we need to go out into everywhere there is a need for the Gospel and if that means developing a digital church I fail to see how God would not intend for us to take that seriously.

Side: VirtualTech (+) for Church
jriley(21) Disputed
1 point

I would support Travis's defense in regards to challenges of using spiritual gifts in a virtual context. A virtual context would severely "stunt" the implications of spiritual gifts because proximity is non-existent. Jason, you've rightly argued that the gift of "prophecy" could easily be implored through the medium of virtual technology (we have the medium of audio and writing) that is the very same concept. However, when looking at the majority of the gifts effectiveness, (like hospitality, encouragement, helps, shepherding and healing) seem to be dependent on physical proximity since they are all relational in nature. It would seem to me that a virtual context would severely truncate the implementation of spiritual gifts in ministering to others in a non-physical context.

Side: VirtualTech (-) for Church
tholtan(4) Disputed
1 point

Mr. JBowling,

I would like to take the time to thank you for your thoughtful ideas and statements. As Proverbs 27:17 says “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.” I look forward to the “sharpening”! I can see that we share a lot of the same opinions.

I would like to comment on your statement of priesthood. How would you define priesthood? It seems like you are saying that once we are saved we all become priests. Where do you find that in the Bible? I believe we are talking about two different ideas that could have the same title. I don’t believe just anyone should be able to or try to lead people in a church setting. I think they need to be qualified. Now qualification is not a result of a piece of paper, but the piece of paper could be a result of the qualification. As Christians we should “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15). Spending a few minutes filling out some information isn’t enough. There is a reason Churches spend countless hours interviewing candidates to fill the position of pastor. And they usually do this in person. When you physically meet someone you can really find out who they are. Body language is an important form of communication and you can’t get that through an avatar. We see in Ezra 7:10 “For Ezra had devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the LORD, and to teaching its decrees and laws in Israel.” This study is important. I am not an expert on how a virtual church gets a pastor, but from what I have seen it is very easy to get a “fancy title”, or the “pastors” tend to just start churches on their own. Where are the elders and deacons?

I am very excited that you agree that we needed a real Jesus! It is very important to understand that. Knowing that Jesus actually died on the cross for my sins amazes me. Now where we differ is the importance of function of the church. Shouldn’t a church perform marriages, baptisms (Romans 6:3-4), and communion (Acts 2:42). I believe we should. Why was Jesus actually baptised? Why didn’t he just talk about it and what it meant? It was a physical lesson that he was teaching. It gives it much more meaning and depth.

The last point I would like to make also involves our definitions. It is the definition of church. I just realized that I don’t even believe that virtual churches exist. There is no such thing. A church must perform certain things to be called a church. The believers must do certain things when they meet (Acts 2:42). It is impossible for a group of Christians to do this online. It just doesn’t work. Now is meeting virtually to proclaim Christ as our Savior and Lord wrong? No. But we should call it what it actually is. And that is a virtual Bible study. It is a tool the church can and should use, but it is only a tool.

Side: VirtualTech (-) for Church
1 point

Defending the negative position through the historical pattern of the early church:

The pattern of “physical proximity” of the early church in Acts 2:42 seemed to be their optimal medium. They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles, to fellowship, to Breaking of Bread and to prayer. The technology of writing and oral carrier may have afforded them a “non-physical” medium of such church practices. Yet, at no time do we see early Christians practice church this way except for instruction and exhortation (i.e. letters and messengers). However, it was not the primary medium for this. These functions were exercised through physically relating by daily sharing meals and hearing teaching in houses and the Temple (Acts 2:46, 5:42).

Secondly, the Apostle Paul preferred and prioritized physical proximity as the primary medium of Church function as well (Rom 1:10, 13; 1Th 2:18, 3:11; 1Ti3:14). He even makes a point to express to the Corinthians that he desires to spend quality physical time with them, not merely pass through (1Cor 16:5-7). Why did Paul want to visit Philemon in addition to writing him an important letter (Philemon 22)? John refuses to just use “paper and ink”, to interact with believers, rather he wanted to visit his readers personally (2 Jn 12, 3:14).

Lastly, Jesus chose not to write anything down through the medium of writing, rather he chose to go and speak to people and primarily taught his disciples through physical proximity. Would he have used a video feed or an Avatar to reach/teach people? He doesn't seem like this was acceptable for his methods during his ministry on earth.

Virtual technology completely hinders the ability to be physically near people and consequently undermines the integrity of the intended practicing pattern of the early church.

Side: VirtualTech (-) for Church
rparker(3) Disputed
0 points

I agree with you that God’s plan for the church is to have a personal face to face relationship with the saints in the church, but on the other hand I feel that Jesus wants us to reach out to people and meet them where they are at. For some people the place that you meet them is through the computer in a virtual sense were the people are more likely to open up to the gospel. This is because in the opinion of some people, they feel like if they go to a physical church they will be judged and so if we want to bring people into the church and from across the globe, we need to meet them where they are at. And that is part of the great commission in Matthew 28 is to go out into the world (the world meaning the people that are attached to their computer) and make disciples.

Side: VirtualTech (+) for Church
rparker(3) Clarified
1 point

Also I would like to make a point that when Paul was doing his ministry he would meet people where they are at. If he wanted to witness to a Greek he would become a Greek, if he wanted to witness to a Jew he would become a Jew. Also Jesus came to die for ALL people and if we want to go out and tell the gospel to ALL people we must include the people that are lost in cyberspace. For God so loved the WORLD.

Side: VirtualTech (+) for Church
tholtan(4) Disputed
1 point

I would just like to mention Hebrews 10:25 "not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching." It may be true that they might feel judged or that they actually are being judged in a physical church. But this verse doesn't have an "unless" in it. It doesn't matter how we feel. What matters is what we do. Are we doing what the Bible says or are we justifying what we are not? These people have a choice and confusing them with another "option" might not be a good idea. Also the "assembling" is a big part of this verse. It means gathering together in one place. Even if your "second" self is sitting in a room with other self generated people doesn't mean you are actually there. You are at home and hopefully you have pants on.

Side: VirtualTech (-) for Church
jriley(21) Disputed
0 points

Richelle, thanks for your good comment. I think the following quote has a strong argument against what your using to dispute "physical proximity". Particularly in light of Travis's point above.

"In other words, I have yet to be convinced that simultaneity equals community.

If "community" was the only reason we had church, there might be some validity to gathering online, in the same chat room at the same time, and calling that “church.”

But it’s not the only reason.

The worship, equipping, and discipling ministries of the church simply can’t take place through the internet. Pieces of them can, but eventually the jump has to be made. I met my wife online, for Pete’s sake! But if we had left it there? Arguing for the validity of “virtual church” is like arguing for the validity of online marriages. There are one or two vital things that get left out ...

A truly biblical Church requires that we heed the biblical call of Hebrews 10 to not give up gathering together and BEING PRESENT to one another in real, actual life. To break bread together requires that we actually be together, not just online simultaneously. Sim Church is a nice idea, but I would much rather see the proponents of virtual church argue for the effective use of technology as part of an overall strategy for connecting with people, while clearly and plainly telling them, “This is not church.”

To be a part of the Body requires you to be present, fully present, to others in a way you can’t be online. Internet tools may enhance that presence when you are apart, but they can’t replace it. And nothing we do as a Church should ever communicate that they can."

Bob Hyatt is pastor of the Evergreen Community in Portland, Oregon, and a regular contributor to Out of Ur. http://www.outofur.com/archives/2009/10/ why_virtual_chu.html

Side: VirtualTech (-) for Church