As mentioned yesterday, we’re kicking off an in-depth conversation about online church. Over the next several weeks, we’re going to “focus on specific issues and aspects of online church one at a time. The objective is not to definitively prove whether virtual churches are legitimate churches or not, but to help the church become better by discussing where virtual churches have unique the potential to advance the kingdom of God and where they face challenges to becoming healthy, fully functional churches.”
I think the place to start this conversation is by looking at what specifically an organization must be and do to be a “real,” biblical church whether online or offline.
In his book SimChurch (affiliate link), Douglas Estes explores several definitions of church:
Estes starts by defining a church as “a localized assembly of he people of God dwelling in meaningful community with the task of building the kingdom.”
He quotes Martin Luther who defined a church as “the gathering of believers, in which the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered n accord with the gospels.”
John Calvin added to Luther’s definition saying a church must include correct church government and discipline.
In his book Purpose Driven Church, Rick Warren defined a church as having 5 specific purposes: evangelism, worship, discipleship, fellowship, and ministry.
So, which of these do you believe is necessary for a church to be a biblical church? And why?
- Evangelism
- Worship
- Discipleship
- Fellowship
- Ministry (Serving those within the church)
- Missions (Serving those outside the church)
- Sacraments
- Authority (Established/overseen by a denomination or similar organization)
- Government (A charter or bylaws establishing organizational structure within the church & membership process/rules)
- Discipline (correcting members who behave in appropriately and rooting out false doctrine)
- Gathering together on a regular basis
- Preaching by an ordained minister
- Sunday school or small groups
- Nifty Fifties
- Motorcycle ministry
- Others?
Please help spread the word about this discussion specifically to those involved in the development and pastoring of online churches. We’d want as many people and perspectives involved as possible. And don’t forget to vote in the poll in the right sidebar.
43 Comments
Neal, it’s good to see you jumping into the conversation. I appreciate the way you’re trying to keep the conversation focused just on the question being addressed in this post. And thanks emphasizing the value of holding off on making judgments about whether online churches are legit or not. 🙂
Brian, thanks for replying and clarifying your view of what a church needs to do.
William, you said “Of the items Paul listed: Evangelism, Worship, Discipleship, Fellowship, Ministry, Missions, Sacraments, Authority, Discipline, and Gathering should be included. Why? They’re commanded.”
Just for the record, I was just throwing out options to get the conversation going.
But to throw my 2 cents in… I do believe Evangelism, Worship, Discipleship, Fellowship, Ministry, Missions, Sacraments, Discipline, and Gathering are necessary. I actually don’t think authority (as in oversight by a larger multi-church governing organization) is necessary to be a “real” church. And when it comes to “gathering” while I do think it’s necessary, whether gather has to be done physically or not is something we’ll get into more tomorrow when we talk about the theology of presence.
One thing aspect of church that’s come up in the course of this conversation that I committed in the original post is prayer. It’s hard to imaging a “real” church not praying together.
Let me ride on your post a bit Paul.
Why Sacraments? Why Discipline? Why Gathering? Is it simply because they are commanded? Saying it a different way, why do you think that they are commanded? What was God thinking when he gave the instruction? Those things aren’t the goal, they are methods to reach a goal.
First to Neal… You won’t find Jesus saying we should assemble together as a quote. However, if you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, you can check Heb. 10:25 – … Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is;… Can this be done in ways other than physically today – yes. But Paul’s directive as a duty to one another was to meet together – not write frequent letters to each other which would be the best equivalent they had to the options available today in a virtual environment.
For comment two, I would suggest that regardless of how the church is organized (real world or virtual) for water baptism to occur a physical gathering is required of at least a baptizer and a person wishing to be baptized. You simply cannot do that virtually. Regardless of what some on-line role playing games can achieve, dunking a virtual representation of yourself in a pool just doesn’t work for me. Perhaps that betrays my age, but if so, so be it.
Even if you web cast the results to provide the witness to the world (which is the value of water baptism anyway) at least two people are required to do the work. A virtual church cannot function even in that capacity unless it can call on people in every community where a virtual member is located around the world to do the baptizing in some proxy fashion. I fully agree with Brian that they are methods to reach a goal and the way baptisms are performed today bear little resemblance to what they meant to a Jew in the early church. The mechanics just don’t port well to a virtual environment.
For Paul, I would say that any church activity should put Christ as the head from an authority point of view. That’s the primary reason I included it in the list. Outside of that, I would agree with you. That however, coupled with the smooth operating of the Holy Spirit, is an absolute requirement. If you have that, there will be harmony and consistent focus and direction regardless of how many virtual churches and physical churches there are. Without it, it will be worse than what we have now.
I’m too pessimistic to believe the majority of physical churches put Christ and His will first 100% of the time. I think the percentage is less in a virtual environment simply because of the lack of accountability factor. That isn’t to say there aren’t good examples that do and they don’t have to be denomination backed. Back to the “real” church question you asked first though, there was a direct line of accountability in the New Testament church. The church wasn’t perfect, and many of the letters Paul wrote took space to correct problems in one or another church. But the accountability did exist.
Any Christian who is well grounded in scripture will have no problem seeing problems that any particular virtual church might have. For a person who has never read the Bible or had any religious training, they may be led into error. The cost of a pure virtual church can be very low and risks having many people start one with motives that aren’t in line with Christ. A virtual church that is an extension of a physical church at least has a sense of solidity to it and hopefully a large number of people who have committed themselves in a time and material way to see its success.
My value on physical presence comes from my background. I was raised (and still am A/G). The gifts of the Spirit are something that is real in our services. I’m really at a loss to see how that part of the Bible New Testament experience would port to a virtual church presence. That isn’t to say you couldn’t have a lot of people gathering together and learning and growing on-line in Christ. But how do you handle the operation of the Holy Spirit on-line. I try to transcribe the interpretations we’ve had lately to messages in tongues, but even though I have the original foreign language message, I find it impossible to transcribe accurately. Since the speaker doesn’t know the language – what do you do when most people aren’t going to have functioning web cams and voice to text software that will handle any world language you throw at it?
Regardless, they are given as a sign to unbelievers. They work fine in a physical church service and achieve their ends. So do healing and miracles. Yes, if everyone had web cams a healing or miracle could be recorded and work in virtual space as well as directly in front of you. But when you discuss your theology of presence, this is something to seriously consider. It is much different and more trustworthy to see someone rise out of a wheel chair (especially that you know and know the history of) than it is to simply read about it on the Internet. We’ve only had that happen once that I know of in our services, but it did happen. While we shouldn’t be looking for God to perform for us, when He does, it is wonderful to get the best exposure possible. Having it happen right in front of you to someone you know works far better than anything you can do on-line. An instant replay doesn’t work there any better than it does in the TV industry.
My apologies if I addressed the question of legit at the wrong time, but it is the most important question. It is at the heart of what is tearing the physical church apart in so many ways today. The Anglican and Episcopal denominations (to name but two) are at loggerheads over an issue that is clear in both Testaments. You cannot pick and choose the parts of the Bible that apply to Christians. This isn’t an attempt to pull the direction a different way either – just an example. For any virtual church to succeed, it needs to be able to stand and provide just like the New Testament early church did in all ways. If it can’t then it can be an extension, but cannot replace a physical church. I’m afraid that too many people will be tempted to dabble in pure virtual churches and never really be evangelized for Christ.
I also agree with Pastor Lester. The more things move virtual, the easier to stamp out when the time comes. If people who aren’t sold out to God miss the Rapture, where will they turn? If they use the Internet, it will be easy to hunt them down. That is something that must always be considered regardless of the allure of a virtual setting.
I found the posts very interesting and encouraging, yet the idea of “virtual church” does field a sense of caution. It must be said that Paul tells us that he would “be all things to all people that he might win some”.
Human beings, maybe especially Christians, are resistant to change. That should not stop the development of new types of ministry that both fill a need and are made possible by technology and social or cultural change. As a missionary to Native American tribes, I know that Christianity works in any culture. We should not expect folks to change in order to come to Christ, but to be profoundly changed by encountering Jesus the Lamb of God, entering into an eternal relationship with him.
Amen, brother. That may be the crux of the discussion. Christians are resistant to change and, therefore, have stopped some of the essentials need to be a "real" church. I have services on Sunday afternoons at an American Legion post and have many people from other churches that attend. Why? Because we subscribe to God's Holy Word in our little "after Church" church. We accept everyone as they are and never judge them for their faults, their mode of dress (unless it is totaly obscene), welcome all faiths, and try to make God the cornerstone of every service. Then we serve a meal after each service in order that we all share a type of christian communion every Sunday. We also have a team that goes out to minister to gang members, bikers, addicts, and anyone else that can't (or won't) come to church.
William.
I’m beginning to think you’re more interested in proving yourself right than you are in engaging in a conversation with me as a leader of an online church. “Cannot, cannot, cannot.” Of course, what seems like foolishness or impossibility to you may be entirely possible with God.
If God has called my online church into being (as I believe) then it will continue to thrive and continue to bear visible, tangible, “real” fruit — maybe Pastor Lester is right and THIS is the true definition of a church.
And IF God has called my online church into being, then all the incredulous blog comments in the world will not be able to stand against it.
I guess we’ll find out, won’t we?
ABOUT AN ON-LINE CHURCH
I think Church-business cannot be carried out on-line, except “Evangelism.” All others have to be done physically in real time.
Now here is my concept of a Biblical Church.
WHAT IS A BIBLICAL CHURCH?
First, I would like to set this straight. There are two things implied here: (a) a “Biblical church” is a church that is based on the Holy Bible and it, therefore, faithfully tries to follow what the Bible says as a “Standard for Ethical Behavior,” and (b) the Church of the Bible that Jesus built upon the “rock, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”
The first is a church that is organized based on the Holy Bible and it may be established by anyone or by any group; and it makes sure that “Biblical spiritual ethics” are observed carefully through the following:
• Evangelism (covers preaching by an ordained minister or preacher)
• Worship (covers participation in Liturgical Rites and the Eucharist)
• Discipleship (covers ministries and missions)
• Fellowship (covers getting together and working together in camaraderie and brotherhood)
• Sacraments (covers practice of the faith)
• Authority (established/overseen by a denomination or similar organization)
• Government (desirably with a charter or bylaws establishing organizational structure within the church and membership processes/rules)
• Discipline (correcting members who behave inappropriately and rooting out false doctrine)
• Others (practicing “LOVE” as defined by Jesus and in imitation of Him)
The second is the Church that Jesus built. This is the Church where the Bible is based, rather than it being based on the Bible. This is the Church established by the Apostles on that Day of Pentecost after the descent of the Holy Spirit and 3,000 were baptized, formally establishing the Church ― the Church of the New Testament, later called the Church of the living God. It is probably the ONLY Church truly acknowledged by God. This is because Jesus said, “On this rock I will build My Church…” (in the singular). If there would be other churches, it follows that all of these others should be part of this “My Church” so that all of them will be one, just as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one; and all the Apostles and Christian disciples are one.
So, what is the difference between the two definitions?
Now, here is the difference as illustrated by my own personal experience. When I became a manager of a department in the manufacturing company where I was employed, I felt the need for more management-knowhow to cope with the job. I attended seminars and seminars on the various aspects of management and I found that afterwards I could indeed manage my department much better and pretty well. I even got promoted to Assistant Vice-President for Manufacturing.
Later on, with all of these qualifications, I tried to teach college and I found that I was allowed to handle only those subjects pertaining to my Engineering BS-degree, despite the fact that I was a practicing and a good manager. I was limited to these because my management-knowhow acquired from seminars as attested by proper certificates, no matter how good, is not recognized because the institution I got it from was not a duly accredited institution for such learning. It only appeared so because it was organized as such under SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) rules governing commercial institutions, but not accredited by the CHED (Commission on Higher EDucation) which regulated educational institutions of higher learning. So I went on and earned an MBA degree from a duly CHED-accredited university. Lo and behold, this opened all the relevant courses for me to teach, from undergraduate to graduate courses. Thus, I learned that qualification, recognition and acceptance ― these three ― are earned only from properly accredited institutions and not from just anywhere, regardless of what this “anywhere” may claim. Such is the difference and such is life. Oui, c’est la vie, c’est la vie!
John H. DiBautista, Philippines
John, thanks for your comment…
"I think Church-business cannot be carried out on-line, except 'Evangelism. All others have to be done physically in real time."
I ask that in the keeping with the spirit of this conversation you refrain from making judgments about online church at this point. Try to comment in terms of where online church can excel and where it faces difficulties or challenges. Thanks.
And I'm afraid I didn't follow the analogy of how your teaching/MBA situation and how it relates to online church.
Pingback: Online Church Part 2: Worship & the Theology of Presence « Christian Web Trends Blog by OurChurch.Com
Hi Paul,
About On-line Church: That’s exactly what I meant. I’m not making a judgment, I am making a comment. I think On-line Church could do well, even excel, in the area of Evangelism — to propagate and spread the Faith as Jesus commanded. All the other aspects of the Church have to be done personally, that is, with one’s physical presence, hence, cannot be done on-line.
About the Biblical Church: I don’t know how I can elaborate further on the connection between the Biblical Church and the Church that Jesus built (the Church of the Bible). To me there is a difference. The relationship between these two is similar to that of commercial establishments offering management seminars and a duly accredited Graduate School offering management courses. Both have the same ends; but to teach College, credentials from only the latter are recognized and accepted. I think the metaphor is clear enough without getting unrefined.
Many thanks for your comment, I appreciate it.
John H. DiBautista
Pingback: Kicking Off an In-Depth Conversation About Online Church « Christian Web Trends Blog by OurChurch.Com
To be honest, there are a couple of things here that I think have to be considered: First is "ekklesia" – the greek word from the Bible commonly represented as "church". Ekklesia is translated by the United Bible Societies as "assembly, gathering, congregation, church (of religious, political, or unofficial groups)". However, when you take the roots of the greek word (ekkleio – exclude, shut out), you realize the word itself implies an exclusive gathering which on the surface would seem to be mutually exclusive of what we commonly think of as "church". Yet, when you consider that we are to be "set apart" or "in the world but not of the world" it does make sense. Church, then, should be a "gathering or fellowship that sets itself apart from the common ways of the world, instead being focused to that which He would have us be." The key is that "church" should not be focused on being a "building where we go to see God." Instead, "church" is the gathering of people who mutually support each other in being God's people instead of the worlds. (continued)