Church Gone Digital

Anyone reading this post would obviously say that the internet has become a major part of culture around the world. The internet is probably the most used source for information, and the data it holds is greater than anything anyone a century ago could have possibly imagined. Due to the turn from newspapers and books to the internet as sources of information, a big question has aroused in the church. Is it a good idea to have church online?

There are a lot of people out there who don't go to church, but they can spend hours online surfing the web. God wants everybody to come to him, and how they come to him is not what matters most. If we want to bring in everyone, then we need to try to reach out to internet surfers and the sorts of people who basically live around their computer. Buisnesses, celebrities, politicians, and even porn have started to use the internet as a propoganda and advertisement base. Why shouldn't church follow suit? Besides, there needs to be some balance given to everything un-biblical that's found on the internet.

I'll admit, there are a lot of points about virtual church that have been critizied. The main criticism of virtual church is that it does not provide the community of people that a real church can. In a sense, this is true because you cannot physically interact with other members of a virtual church. However, as technology improves, we can now use web-cams for speech and visuals of church and church-goers. You can't give a person a handshake, but the basic essence of a good community can still be provided by a virtual church. As with most technology, there's always a man (or woman) behind the curtain!

Nevertheless, there was a great debate in our classroom over the purpose of virtual church. Both of the two major sides agreeded that virtual church should reach out to people online. Past that, however, were some arguements. On the one hand, virtual church should be used to teach people about God on the internet, and to provide those people with the comforts of Christianity in a way that they can reach it. The opposing side to this arguement is that virtual church should be used simply to call people who are not attending a real church into church. This side argued that to get the full effect of Christianity and the Christian community, people had to attend a real, physical church. Both sides have valid points, so I will leave it up to you as to which side you agree with more.

One of the other major points of criticism that we discussed was over the implemention of communion. Obviously, clergy cannot enact communion online. The result is that virtual church-goers must either administer communion themselves or not partake in it at all. This is one point on which the critics are correct, as it will be centuries, if ever, before teleportation technology is developed. However, there is still one small claim that supporters of virtual church can make, although it is a bit radical. This claim is that communion is not necessary, or at least not the form of it that is used in church. The basis for this claim would come from the bible, when Jesus says "do this, as often as you eat/drink it, in rememberance of me." This passage can be used to say that communion is remembering Jesus whenever you eat or drink. In this interpertation, you would simply break the bread and pour the drink to remember Jesus at every meal. Remember, though, that this is just one of many possible interpertations of the scripture and does not reflect the overall belief of this class.

To sum everything up, almost everyone agrees that virtual church is good as a way to reach out to internet surfers. Some people continue to say that virtual church should be used to teach online people about God in a Christian community, but others say that virtual church should only be used to bring internet surfers into a real church and real community. As for our class, all but about one vote for virtual church as a way to reach and teach internet surfers about God and Christianity.