EBCem230

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

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) )

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?

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.

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.

*