Comments on: Marriage is Like Video Sex via Skype as Online Church is To…

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:11:38 +0000

Again, like I said yesterday, we can use the same Biblical principles to guide the relationships built through technology. The question is the same…will we wake up every day and choose to love God completely? My wonderful and wise wife(Sharon) says, "it's about a choice you make everyday"
However, I am finding that explaining these thought processes to people who reject change in any form is challenging. I work with a lot of very small independent groups who struggle with how do they keep their biblical worldview intact and use technology without compromising.

By: John Piper pipes in regarding online church | nikao | a collective

John Piper pipes in regarding online church | nikao | a collective — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:39:33 +0000

[...] other bloggers have chimed in on the topic too. I can’t say that I disagree with Piper’s take and I [...]

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:54:07 +0000

I see 'Online Church' as simply a tool at our disposal to reach more people. There are people who are camped out in their homes on the computer far more than we may want to know. And this behavior makes it so traditional relational techniques simply will not reach these people. And I believe that this group is a growing breed. How can we reach these people if we have no means to interact with them? I see 'Online Church' or eVangelism as essentially a way to reach people where they are, and in this sense, physically where they are (at their computer). We can reach a whole subset of our culture that is nearly impossible to reach using traditional methods. As long as the technology doesn't change the message then the gospel is being spread.

By: stephenbateman

stephenbateman — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:50:25 +0000

For sure. I'm so glad people get to worship anywhere in the world. A point you bring up in your post is the anonymity, which is a super huge factor. But the constant question is always how can we move them from anonymity to community, but that question gets answered in *every* church.

By: Matt Huggins

Matt Huggins — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:00:14 +0000

I think that for every Piper questioning the benefits of adopting certain technologies for the Church's purposes, there are a great many more rushing headlong to do any and every thing possible via new media with little serious thought for the possible implications (or even a fundamental understanding of the Church's purposes). Many strike me as far more impressed with human technology than the (infinitely greater) power of the Holy Spirit. Quite a few have a strange tendency to dismiss Marshall Mcluhan's trenchant observations (or any other wisdom of the ages) concerning media without appearing in the least bit to have engaged with them. For some reason, they speak with a tone of authority in any venue available to them concerning the urgent need of the Church to adopt every shiny new flickering spasm of technology, often in the name of achieving the ever holy end of "relevance." It's time these folks grew up.

Much as I enjoy the many benefits of being plugged in (including much activity within social media), I recognize that the Internet is a medium far more likely to promote superficiality than depth, to emphasize carefully constructed masks over bared souls, to encourage transactions instead of relationships, to project power instead of weakness, to prize fame over humility, to make fans rather than disciples. Media are not neutral, but map to the power structure of the age in ways we rarely detect.

Am I saying the Christian should flee from such venues? Not at all. I am saying we need to stop drinking the koolaid and recognize the immense power of the many Christian disciplines we so sorely neglect in our time and place. We need to acknowledge more clearly the limits of all media. (Anyone old enough to remember the boondoggle of televangelism? Do you suppose any of the conversations we're having about new media took place in nearly the exact form when it came on the scene?) We need to exercise a better informed intentionality about the ways in which we seek to project the Church beyond the physical lives of its members.

By: Daniel_Berman

Daniel_Berman — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:11:19 +0000

Online community will never be replacement for face to face interaction, but why does it have to only be considered as such? Its not a matter of replacing one for the other, as much as adding additional relationships which did not exist before. Instead of asking whether online relationships can, should, could replace face to face relationships why not ask about the theological impact of being able to communicate and interact with believers around the world in addition to those you interact with in "real" life.

Remember folks, in heaven we will be interacting with believers from every single moment of human existence. We have 60 years, 70 years on this earth, if we are lucky to learn about community before we are dumped into it for real. Let's not wait to learn…..!

By: Bill Whitt

Bill Whitt — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:09:03 +0000

Some of my deepest experiences of worship have been at 7|22 (North Point’s singles gathering). Not that I was there… I was watching inside a little Windows Media Player window. Sure, watching a video online didn’t connect me to a fellowship of believers, but it sure did connect me to God and inspire me in ways that have been missing since they stopped that service.

As a worship leader, myself, I relied on 7|22 to fill my own well so that I could bring water to thirsty people on Sunday mornings. It was a great supplement to my personal worship life, and it vicariously improved the quality of worship in a church full of people, thanks to the spiritual refreshment it brought me.

How much better will North Point Online be? It aims to bring in the missing components of Christian fellowship and discipleship!

If my previous experience is any indication, this new venture won’t prevent people from going to bricks-and-mortar churches. It will inspire even greater worship in them and hopefully even new believers to them!

By: Adam_S

Adam_S — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:54:12 +0000

The problem is the slippery slope of Piper's argument. He starts by saying that he has serious concerns about online church, but what most people will hear is that online church is wrong and should never be done. I think most people really don't want online church as a replacement for physical church but as a supplement. And why would we ever want to keep people from additional expressions of church?

By: Simon Young

Simon Young — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:31:42 +0000

Totally agree with your 'medium/message' comments!

The internet is purely another medium… the message remains the same. Anyone who has been part of an online community for a period of time knows that you really do form REAL relationships with people on the other side of the country! No, you may not ever be able to hug them, or sit next to them, but I know people that catch up for a coffee over Skype and talk for hours! Simply getting to know each other and live life together.

That being said, at LiquidChurch.com we totally encourage people on our Internet Campus to a) invite others to watch the message with them (physically in the same room) and b) seek out others who watch online so they can start watching together.

Why can't an Internet Campus be a catalyst for thousands of micro-house churches around the world?

By: Mikes

Mikes — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:31:20 +0000

A fellowship as far as I know is really getting together and tapping on each other's backs and encouraging one another. Technology or via television can never achieve what an "actual" meeting together can achieve. My prayer is for the church not to reach this point!