Posted on 10/18/2009 7:57:14 PM PDT by delacoert
In the early 1950s when Robert Schuller and others across the nation combined a growing car culture with “Church,” they believed they were reaching a segment of the population traditional church wouldn’t or couldn’t. “Drive-In Church” allowed parishioners to hear a sermon, sing some songs, even receive communion and give—all without the fuss and muss of face-to-face interaction. Except for a through-the-window handshake from the pastor as they rolled away.
And while they may have been able to point to a number of folks who “attended” that otherwise might not have, the question of what was being formed in these car congregations through limited interaction, a completely passive experience, and a consumer-oriented “Come as you want/Have it your way” message, meant that (thankfully) after a brief period of vogue, “Drive-In Church” has remained a niche curiosity.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.christianitytoday.com ...
Church service on the internet is not church.
The recorded image of someone praying or prophesying is not the active ministry of the Holy Spirit.
The problem, in my mind, with virtual community and internet campuses isn’t that it’s not church... it’s that it is just church enough to be dangerous. Because it has all the easiest and most instantly gratifying parts of community without the harder parts, it ends up misshaping us.
In several recent threads the validity of prophet gifting on FreeRepublic threads is being debated. To wish I cannot help but respond -- the 'prophet' has a misshapen soul.
There is no virtual church.
The problem with the drive-in church model isn’t that it isn’t church—it’s that it is just “church” enough to be dangerous. What this almost-church does is park people in a cul-de-sac where they have access to the easiest and most instantly satisfying parts of church while exempting them from the harder and more demanding parts of community.
And while I’m glad such an absurdity has remained on the fringe, as I watch the discussion about “internet campuses” I can’t shake a certain feeling of deja vu.
Following close on the heels of the video venue push is that of the internet campus: real-time streaming of a church service, but with the added features of “live interactive features like lobby chat room, message notes, communication card, raise a hand, say a prayer, and even online giving.” At least 35 churches in America are doing internet campuses, with more jumping on board all the time (http://digital.leadnet.org/2007/10/churches-with-a.html). By one estimate, 10 percent of Americans will rely solely on the internet for their “religious experience” as early as 2010.”(http://www.denverpost.com/technology/ci_7228105)
Is this a problem? Something we should be concerned about or resist? Absolutely. Because it’s malforming for those involved (whether they know it or not) and because it’s sub-biblical.
The problem, in my mind, with virtual community and internet campuses isn’t that it’s not church... it’s that it is just church enough to be dangerous. Because it has all the easiest and most instantly gratifying parts of community without the harder parts, it ends up misshaping us.
In an internet campus, for example, I never need to listen to so-and-so tell me about their hard week (again). I see no needs around me and so feel zero compulsion to move to meet them. And that’s the problem. The lack of all of that forms me in a good way.
Calvin’s definition of “church” is where the Word is preached, the sacraments are received, and church discipline practiced. That’s a good summary of the defining characteristics of the New Testament ecclesia and a good summary of the main problems with internet church.
Is the word preached “at” an internet campus? Absolutely. In fact, the Word preached becomes the centerpiece. Church is boiled down to singing a few songs and hearing a message.
And while internet campuses provide a great sermon delivery vehicle, and even allow you to virtually raise your hand in response, what they don’t do is allow you to be known and missed. You can’t stand at the end of the gathering and ask for help moving. You can’t help tear things down and clean up afterwards. You can’t look after someone’s kids while they pray with someone else. You can’t take a visitor out to lunch. How can our community be a sign and foretaste of the kingdom when our method of gathering keeps us from ever physically serving, loving, or being present to one another? I know how participating in a congregation begins to make me more like Jesus. I’m unsure how that happens with an internet campus.
I know that “virtual” baptisms are practiced online. I know too that every week thousands in virtual communities practice virtual communion, if not together, then at least simultaneously. And I have to wonder, Why can’t they see that’s not enough? That simultaneous is not the same as together, and that taking communion in this way completely misses the whole point?
As for discipline and accountability, some say that online churches encourage more transparency in the chat rooms and virtual lobbies of internet campuses. But how is the pastoral care of prayer and recommending a good book, accountability, in-depth counseling, and church discipline practiced? Short answer: it can’t be. Because of the nature of internet relationships, only what people choose to reveal will ever be known. Internet churches are no help for the wife whose husband really needs someone to open a can of Driscoll on him—unless, of course, you can get him to wander into the virtual lobby.
As for equipping: How does one become a leader in an internet church? Is it being made a moderator of the chat room? What does it mean to “desire to be an elder”? How am I confirmed in my gifts in an internet church? How do I exercise them?
The internet may present a wonderful way for me to connect with the larger Church, but it can’t—and shouldn’t—replace connection with a local church community. My fear is that like the drive-in church, internet campuses have that potential to make half-formed Christians who believe one of the highest values is convenience, not service—what I can get, not what I can give.
In a world struggling to retain its humanity while being drowned in technology, and in a culture fighting to remain deeply connected to a few while filtering through thousands of Facebook “friends,” the Church can and should be a counter-culture. We should use technology, but we must not let it shape (or misshape) us.
Ping to the possibly interested.
In my experience, it is far easier to love someone who is just an internet name than a living, breathing person next to you. I believe a great part of the learning in church is to learn to love the person next to you, and not just people as a statistical abstract.
It also is a place where you can serve, even if serving means setting up chairs, or helping one of the living, breathing people move from one apartment to the next, etc.
God wants our lives, not just our posts!
“Church service on TV is not church. “
I disagree. I think it can be “church” for those who are shut-ins. There is nothing that prevents the Holy Spirit from being present both at the church and at one’s own home. I think some shut-ins who view church on a televion are probably more moved by the Spirit than some of those attending in person whose mind is on a football game coming up after the service.
Loving, serving, helping, living... these things have meaning in the assembling together of believers.
To be Christ's is to be known! Being known is putting ourselves in the real grasp of the Lord... to be loved, to be given to, to be forgiven, to be relied on, to be trusted, to have hope, faith and love activated in relationship.
Pretending to excert virtual Holy Spirit gifting or any Christian ministry on-line is sad and empty, misshapen.
How can anyone seek to operate in the gifts without being seen and heard, known and judged?
I am glad that shutins can find ministry from TV on Church.
There is NO vitual church.
While it is certainly true that people “met” on the internet are abstracts, showing only the parts of themselves they choose and appearing more as types and archetypes than real, living breathing people, it is, I believe, also not a good idea to quickly judge how God might use such meetings to His greater glory.
(Whew! I’m sure glad Sr. Mary of the Steel Ruler isn’t here to make me diagram that sentence!)
I have made several friends (some of them FRiends) online who I feel I know quite well, and the knowing of them has enhanced my faith and understanding in many cases.
FreeRepublic is lurked by hundreds of thousands every day. Internet services might just as well be lurked by souls searching for truth - Who is to say that God cannot use it in His grand plan?
Apokatastasis.
Unfortunately, the Schullers, Joel Osteens, Benny Hinns etc are outright frauds as are many televangelists that have blossomed into lucrative family enterprises.
I shake my head at the thought of all the vainglorious use of statistists...
2,000,000 millions listeners hear “God is showing me one right now who is holding their head in despair about cancer and He wants me to tell you He sees you and wants to heal you.”
500 then run to the phone in false hope.
It is sickening.
I agree
It’s obviously not impossilble to make personal connections on the internet, but lurking, by definition, is not being known. The ‘God can do anything’ canard really isn’t helpful.
The Church functions well when we really meet together. The internet does not provide an adaquate substitute.
It’s only a canard if you either close yourself to the possibilities, or have (for one reason or another) not experienced them first hand, and choose not to give credibility to those who have.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that I have a friend, met through the internet, who is loved by me just as fully and intently as anyone I have ever physically met, becoming a part of my family, and in turn being loved by its members.
Perhaps you are a more cautious spirit. I, and others like me, tend to be open until given a reason not to be.
Sorry.
I simply meant that the vague invocation of 'God can do anything' to support some loosely defined activity of God and impugn the faith of a questioner is a poor argument.
I do not doubt that Christian soul mates find on another and develop spiritually on the Internet through forums, email, IM, tele- and video- conferencing.
If you read through the OP though you will see that the thesis is actually
Some FReepers are coming to the Religion Forum representing themselves and/or advocating others as ministers of the NT five fold ministry... in the Internets realm.
I am hollering "STOP IT!"
If you are Christ's then be subject to the local assembly. Be known. Be subject to the Body of Christ. Be able to be criticized by the elders of the church. Self proclaimed Internet elders are not the ones you are subject to. Be in the church. Be in the church or be gone.
I am hollering "STOP IT!"
If you are Christ's, then be subject to the local assembly. Be known. Be subject to the Body of Christ. Be able to be criticized by the elders of the church.
Self proclaimed Internet elders are not the ones you are subject to. Be in the church.
Be in the church or be gone.
I agree with you, shibumi. I’ve met a couple of them here on FR and I would trust them with my life.
As far a being in a church or butt out, take your attitude to the Lord in prayer, you don't have the slightest idea who is His and who isn't...
I don't remember which prophet it was in the old testament, but he was complaining to God that no one on the earth was listening and he was the only one.....God answered him with "I have 5000 you don't know about".....so bug off
Let's be real clear on this, one is actually holding himself out as a "prophet" and claiming the "mind of Christ" and other blasphemies.
Yes, clear, careful and slow.
Jedediah is asserting prophetic gifting, and Quix affirms.
Where do you stand?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.