Welcome to First United Church Of 192.168.0.1
*These are my opinions in a rather shotgun style*
1. Small Groups are a reaction from the local church to the lack of organic community within their walls.
2. The actual church “building” creates a limit as to how large the church can grow.
3. The actual church “building” dictates how most churches do ministry.
4. Most people who attend church do so with little if any of their true lives being shared.
5. Relational Depth can only be achieved my the willingness of the loudest person in the room to silence themselves.
All these are the nuggets that are floating in my head right now.
Why?
Because I’m wondering something.
People email me all the time telling me that Ragamuffin Soul is “their church”.
At first I resisted this and told them to go find one.
But I know they have not.
And they are here everyday.
Sharing more than they have in any church building their entire lives.
I look at the above opinions on the American Church and see those issues not existing online.
1. Organic community is what has to happen in order for online tribes to foster.
2. Walls are gone.
3. Walls are gone.
4. The anonymity of an online tribe gives people a feeling that they can be instantly vulnerable and speed up the loss of anonymity.
5. You can skip a screamer in a comment section or chat room. I can’t do that in an offline small group.
So as I process these things…I wonder.
What would a focused church that exists solely online look like?
I have no idea.
Is this something that is even possible?
I think so.
No. I know so.
What do you guys think about this stuff?
Do you even think about this stuff?
Los
if you are anonymous, are you completely vulnerable?
I think about this stuff all the time
And yes, not only is it possible, it is happening. What is most exciting as we wake up to that fact, and can start act in partnership and with purpose – what will be possible.
I'm in.
Do you need to be completely vulnerable to be a part of a community?
While it is true that you can block out a screamer and people tell more online-there is still a lack of human touch that is so important to survival (()) doesn't cut it.
how about authentic. can someone be anonymous and authentic and how would you know?
Love #5 of your opinions. I think I tend to be that loud one some times and I probably need to shut up and let others get loud. Stop talking and start listening. Great post Los.
Do you need to know?
I think part of my community is the ability of my girls to look at me and say “you THINK you do this or feel this way, but we see you everyday act in a way that contradicts that”…you can't get that online.
Online no one could read my face to know when I am saying I am fine when I am not.
Online, no one can see in real time how my children act and see how I am contributing to it.
Online, you can skip a screamer, but you miss the opportunity to be forced to deal with hurtful people because they are in your small group(ministry, etc)
Online, you can even pretend to be real. In real life, you present evidence.
An online church makes me sad…and makes me even more sad that for some people, this is their best option. I have lived in a town where I honestly can't recommend any churches to those who still live there. Online is better than nothing- but IMO, should not be the end goal.
is it possible to be vulnerable when you can 'unplug' and disregard any feeback? i guess what i'm saying is…. is it really vulnerability without real life accountability? i love the community blogging can bring. but i think it's incomplete if nothing happens in real life.
vulnerabiliy and authenticity-it would seem to me- would be difficult to maintain or achieve in any setting if you are never 100% sure of the other people you are engaging.
Or maybe I just have trust issues
No one says you have to stay anonymous. I actually think it adds to the speed of becoming vulnerable.
YES!
Exactly.
Yea. I guess I have the “insider” perspective to all this.
I see WAY too many people coming in and out of my church without engaging one bit.
Brandy.
I could take every one of your statements and turn them on their head.
All of your online issues are happening everyday in offline community.
Just sayin.
Good thoughts though.
I'm much closer to some of my online buds than my casual friends at church…my fault, I know. Nevertheless, it's true.
Hmmm, I don't think I need to know someone's name to know whether they are being authentic or not. Of course people can lie, but the anonymity of the web allows people to be MORE authentic with their issue because they will actually bring it up, and ask for help – which can be provided.
Again. I have been in enough offline groups to know that just because you are offline, does not mean you are vulnerable.
I guess having 4 guys in the past month tell me about emotional and physical affairs they are having and trusting me to lead their hand as they admit this to their offline worlds has me doubting the need for “face time”.
ditto
online church is an idea that i only discovered this year. i still can't wrap my head around lifechurch.tv, but also.. i've yet to log on during their service/broadcast.
however, i do think this can work. basically, if there is a need – and it seems like there is – then it can work, we have to make it work. it's not for everyone tho. i personally prefer the regular american church, even with it's walls (fig and lit), fakeness, and attitude, because i've been lucky to find a handful of genuine people who know and love me for me (and vice versa). but i know that's not always the case, and it wasn't easy for me to get there.
so yeah, to answer your questions – i think it's possible and yes think about this stuff (lately).
good post, los.
I think there can be authentic community developed in an online setting, but it can't completely take the place of handshakes, hugs and warm personal interaction. I think it can foster it and certainly create a foundation and base of understanding among those who interact with each other online. I don't think it can completely replace face-to-face meeting though.
I think that anonymous vulnerability can be dangerous. Sure, it gives people a safe place to open up, but if there is no accountability or any weight to what they are being vulnerable with, then will the ever be change? Growth? When no one knows who you are, it's quite easy to spill your crap out on the table.
i challenge this thought that online relationship and community is fake (not real life). Real people are really connecting, really sharing their lives, and really finding life change in these mediums.
I think we are going to have to move away from broad generalizations in how community happens online or off to see what is really possible, and what to do with these new opportunities.
I would totally agree that it can't replace face to face, nor would it need to for it to be a church.
authenticity and vulnerability are required for accountability. I think church online is a starting point or an addition to, but the depth of relationship I believe God wants for us eventually requires more than the net can provide.
I think that an Online Church is something that should be supplementary to a moving, doing body. I think Brandy said it best when it comes to the human component of relationships. I have loads of great relationships that are based online because of networking and such, but there is nothing like being in a group of a few guys who ARE able to be vulnerably and to wade through the mud together. Nothing.
cd
Good stuff.
So I see the face to face stuff being really important.
So what if you have monthly gatherings in your town with your church?
And where in scripture does it talk about the need to be in physical contact?
Great stuff guys.
Keep being open minded as we discuss.
Maybe vulnerable isn't the right word for this discussion anyways.
When, online or offline, is anyone really truly comforatble with being vulnerable?
I would rather focus on transparency or “willingness to share” then vulnerability.
It's true that we learn and grow in our moments of weakness, but I strongly think that true vulnerability is something shared/experienced in the very smallest of small groups, specifically between 2 people.
Ragamuffinsoul.com is a community no doubt about it. I love being a fringe member of it, but I don't know that someone who makes a comment on a post will ever be completely vulnerable to anything, maybe because of the anonymity.
I do agree however, that a continued interaction in a community such as this creates moments of openness and trasparency, that in a lot of offline situations can't happen.
good post.
Well, the question is why aren't people safe offline to be vulnerable?
Mainly because of the judgement they would feel and experience. Through the Live Prayer we offer during our live experiences we have hundreds of people coming for help, to share their hurts, to get prayer for things that if they mentioned in a normal church, they would instantly be categorized as “one of those people.”
The opportunity of being online, and being able to be anonymous is that people can share and find help on their terms (as it should be) instead of on ours.
Are people only allowed to be vulnerable on our terms?
Not saying this is even a close example to what an online church would look like.
I think the video conversations that I have on a weekly basis take it deeper than the comment section of a blog.
That is for sure.
hmm I think there is the assumption that the ragammuffinsoul.com community only interacts through the comments on blog posts. I am positive there are a lot of one on one conversations that occur in the smaller contexts that you are talking about.
This is the same as an church that uses a building to gather people. THe intimate conversations don't happen in the sanctuary or lobby, but in a coffee shop some other time of the week.
I hear you Los, but then again…
Would an online marriage be just as good as a flesh-and-blood one?
What about on-line parents? Is it comparable to living in the same house- or city for that matter?
In the military we were able to video-chat with family. It was good but not nearly as awesome as it was to see them in person.
I agree, connection can happen online. I just wonder if we're missing out on the intangible that comes when we live our lives in proximity to one another.
Thanks for tossing this out there…
I've been thinking about this lately also. I am looking to put a group together for firefighters in my area. With most of us working rotating shifts, having a meeting one day a week (at church), we would almost certainly miss a few guys that couldn't make it. The thought of using the web to stay connected in discussion for our group daily and meeting once a month at a central location for “face-to-face” time is a great concept. Now I just need to look more into it to make it a reality.
I think the interesting thing is that instead of dealing with the fact that churches aren't living out who Jesus called us to be, we create a “fake, real” community.
When my friend Laura's sewer pipe broke, she didn't go online to blog to someone across the country. She called our pastor who called a plummer in the church who fixed her pipe.
When I moved this past summer, I blogged about it, but the people who made a difference were the ones in my church who showed up at 7 in the morning and hauled my stuff in 112 degree heat.
Is making authentic church community hard? Yes. But it's worth fighting for and striving for because it's real. It's real hands and real feet and real faces. Yes, people can be fake to your face, they can play like everything is okay. But they can do the exact same thing online. I don't know if the people who post on my blog are actually struggling with what they say they are. I have to take a leap of faith, bigger than if I meet you in person because I have no background, no nonverbals, no tangible emotions.
I love this community, I love reading blogs and twitter and keeping up with people online. But truth is, if I were gone, would you notice? Would you call me and ask what's up? Would you do like my home team did and knock on Lea's door just to make sure she's okay because she said she'd be there last night and didn't show and we got worried so we gave up our Saturday to find her because we care enough about her to DO something, not just say something.
That is a very important question, when it comes to why people aren't safe, and I'm not sure if there is a clear cut answer for that, as we all have seen.
I think judgement is a huge part of it, and possibly the fear of rejection and such. Also, I think the Live Prayer deals and the online church in general is a great tool and platform to use to reach people, but I believe it ultimately needs to lead to real people being with real people, living life together.
My problem is not with the idea of an Online church, its the problem of anonymity. Anonymity leads to the constant opportunity to blow smoke.
Think about the people in our small groups who don't trust and aren't vulnerable. They usually don't have people who are investing in a real way in their lives. As in, someone isn't seeking out being with them or really knowing them on a day to day way, where they can learn how they act and how they live. That seems to be the one hole in it. You can't be with someone in this way online.
As long as the anonymity is fleeting and leads to real relationships that are focused on growth in Christ, then so be it on their own terms.
True. But I think it is the sweeping generalizations that get us in a bit of a tussle.
God has called a married couple to have a real life sexual relationship.
There is that ESSENTIAL part of a marraige that can not be had online.
I guess I can't find, in scripture, any need for PHYSICAL interaction for a church to be a church.
Life change and making disciples are the goal.
I see that happening online all the time.
And if I could get my wife pregnant online, then yea. I think she would be down with online marriage.
Just kidding.
1. My online world holds me very accountable.
2. Why are so many people more worried about holding everyone else accountable? I understand that's A role of the church, but it certainly not the LARGEST/ONLY one. Methinks people like the “judgement” part of their job even though that's not really their job.
3. A relationship is what you make of it. Online, penpals, or sitting next to one another on the train. Reach people where they are. If they are here, in the web, then that is where you will reach them.
Good for you.
I only wish most people had this same experience.
And I LOVE that.
I don't even think that would have to disappear.
I think that stuff would breed offline.
People do need to be real when in this sort of relationship.
But does your church facilitate this on the weekends?
When it does leadership training does it require a 100% in both of these areas?
Does the church have to make all these relationships happen to be a church? Or can it just teach that they need to exist? Can it be the place that individuals make these connections, and realize the value in them, and then express them in the best way they can?
People don't have these intimate connections to their entire church body as a whole – but they happen as people get to know one another.
The idea of a difference between a person's online and offline personae will gradually fade. It is a generation issue. People can appear “authentic” in an offline group and still be pretenders. The point as I see it is to create spaces for authenticity to grow. This can only really happen as the leaders are themselves authentic and challenge the group members in this regard. Everyone who's been in an offline group knows how to play it safe with prayer requests etc and I think that we all get that. The challenge that I see for online groups are different. Someone sharing some authentic/intimate about their life online is not necessarily the same as doing it in an offline group. This is true for a number of factors: anonymity (as already discussed), but also because some folks just can't keep up with the conversation in an offline group. I've taught college courses both on campus and online. I've some students that were in both and some of them were much more interactive online that in the classroom. The interface just worked better for them. Online community can and does form, but you need different metrics if you plan to measure it. It seems that a lot of this kind of conversation has the two proponents talking past one another and not finding a common ground or purpose.
The joys of modern technology. Acts talks often of the early church meeting together, but defining “meeting together” is what we're talking about. I have some close friends I know only online or a couple phone calls. But I recognize the gaps in our relationship from having some solid close face to face friends.
In both online or face to face interaction individuals must decide how authentic, open and real they want to be. Because of the limits of the format, online relationships take more time and effort to gain the relational context face to face interactions provide through physical means.
Both still require a next step to take a relationship beyond the surface and ultimately, that is where I believe God wants us to pursue. Doing that online simply requires more effort and diligence in an area people rarely pursue in more organic and simpler formats.
IMHO I think the desire for a community both offline and online stem from a sense of commonality. I attend a church every Sunday and aside from a few people I normally don't interact with anyone. Reason, I don't feel I have anything in common with them other than the fact we attend the same church. As for life groups, at our church they have one young married group that meets at a time that doesn't work for us. But if I come online I can find a million little groups that work for me.
I said that to say this. An online church will work. There is a need just like there is a need to have tv church. This is the 21st century and the way things are done are changing. It doesn't have to work for all people, but if it brings one person closer to God then in the end it served the purpose that is set forth for all church's.
Los, your opening salvo reminds me Doug Pagitt's Reimagining the Church. He does talk a good deal about how space and organization affect how the church community forms and what shape it talks For instance, at their church they meet in the round with the speaker (not the same person each week) in the middle without a mic. Also, there are mic's hanging from the ceiling that pick up everyone during the discussion time. The thing I have to settle in on is that every church cannot be all things to all people and each church needs to know its mission and shape community / organization / relationship around that reality.
Care to give some examples. I think people need to hear more than Tony and I giving them.
Well, if you are challenging the ability of only online connections to actually do something then you need to look at our president elect. Online connections are proving over and over that they can DO a whole heck of a lot, and at times much more than could be done without it.
“And where in scripture does it talk about the need to be in physical contact?”
Try to book of James or Hebrew 10:25
Those are great thoughts.
Obviously I think offline church works.
I work in one.
But I also think anline would work.
It just needs someone smarter than I to figure it out.
Great stuff.
Yeah, being in face to face relationship with believers is important, but an online church could facilitate an environment for people to connect and have that where they are.
not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and(B) all the more as you see(C) the Day drawing near.
This would be your assumption that “together means “physical”.
It helps to know what the purposes of the different aspects of a church's life are, i.e. it would seem that the purpose of weekend services at Buckhead (not picking on anyone here) would not be to foster intimate and authentic relationships. That is not to say that they have no part of it, but that is cannot be the primary purpose of it. Thus, if Joe Shmo walks in the doors on a Sunday morning looking to be able to strike up an in-depth conversation about life, the world, and everything he will end up disappointed. But, if he is there for a communal worship experience and to hear teaching from the bible, he will leave satisfied. The challenge is that people come to different “communities” with different needs and desires.
I don't think it's an either/or I think its a both/and.
Yea, I definitely agree with that. It doesn't matter where we gather. Community is community.
However, I don't agree that anonymity is a control issue. I think its a trust issue. Anonymity allows the anonymous to not have to trust anyone. Sure, there is a surface level trust, but there is no risk involved in being open. Worst case senario, they have to avoid some emails or leave a certain site.
Anonymity may be a control issue for the person being anonymous. They want to be in control, so deciding not to trust people and deciding to not allow people to fully know them puts them in control. Just a thought.
Examples would help
I agree. We are all still figuring out the contours of an online church. I've been to some of the lifechurch.tv stuff and I've enjoyed and participated. It was different and takes a bit to overcome the paradigm shift. In the end I think that online and offline will complement each other, not one overcome the other.
Online community/church is basically my only church. I live in Beijing, China and the church i attend doesn't have English so i go simply for the benefit of my Chinese friends. It's a sacrifice i enjoy making. My true growth and community come out of conversations i have online. Los, the online church has already begun, i just think that sometimes you have to live where there's no other option to truly understand and grasp it's value.
The “personal” relationships that develop in the small group setting create community. As my wife and I have moved they have allowed us to make the cities in which we live our homes with our “friends” that become our local families. That is not something that I believe is possible in the online world.
I just finished a video chat with one of my oldest friends and we talked about some pretty sensitive stuff but it would have been so much better to be in two chairs facing each other. The video served our needs but it was not what face to face would have been. I see on line church much the same way acceptable, workable but not necessarily the best for “personal” community.
Wow, tons of reaction here! I think it comes down to the same baseline that off line church comes down to, the level of success in your life will depend on how much you engage yourself.
It is just as easy to disengage in off line church as it is with on line church, so I don't really get all the concern over accountability and vulnerability and all that.
Worry about yourself and putting yourself out there to connect with others (no matter where they stand) in an effort to be agents of change for the kingdom.
before i sign up.
what denomination is this online community that you speak of.
jk.
I think the “leaders” of online communities – especially ones with large followings (i.e. ragamuffinsoul.com) are the ones who reap the biggest benefits of it and would probably be the ones most happy to see it become a “church” of sorts…
I've seen large community leaders use their “followers” to gain things like lunch – babysitters – places to stay for vacations – etc…
All nice gestures by the adoring fans but I wonder if the same requests were put out there by other members of their “community” if they would be as willing to bend over backwards to help?
It's almost like a prosperity blog of sorts sometimes… like how can it benefit me – the operator? That's how I see some of them… and I just don't know how well that'd translate to a “church” on the web.
May as well be broadcasting on Public TV at 3:00 AM with the prosperity gospel at that point.
oh i totally agree. i'm not saying being offline means automatic vulnerability. i guess i just think it can be a little to easy to hide online if you want to. but then again, online church wouldn't be right for or feed everyone, but those that it would be good for would benefit. just thinking out loud i guess!
maybe that's more what i was thinking. that online church can be a GREAT thing, but to add face to face interaction would make it even GREATER. and i think more powerful and more impactful. but that doesn't take away from the good that could come from online stuff.
Great thoughts. Keep thinking outloud!!!
eh…
Let's see . . . if 192.168.0.1 is a class C network the it has a limit of about 254 hosts . . . so why not make it a class A network then we can have about 16 million host (or so). I know . . . I know . . . you're probably thinking a 10.x.x.x network is not nearly as sexy as a 192.x.x.x network but we do want our church without walls to be able to grow into a mega church one day don't we?
in short, speaking historically and theologically, methinks there is more to church than vulnerability, or relational depth (although a very significant part). if we limit it to that we just have a social network. people on myspace do this. for example, what about the sacraments (e.g. eucharist, baptism)? for this reason, i do not think “church”, in the fullest sense, can be accomplished online.
Methods change, message does not. Throughout church history we have always seen resistance to new things coming into the church and new ways of spreading the gospel. Does anyone that reads this blog really believe that the church from 20 AD would sing three hymns, have announcements, pass the offering plate while someone played or sang a solo, had 40 minutes of preaching, then 32 versus of Just As I Am sang during an alter call??? Hymnals are vanishing before our eyes today . . . the sooner we all get this church without walls concept the sooner we can get about the business of transforming this world.
An interesting point. Paul was not content (though he commanded the authority to be so) with simply writing letters to the various churches he began. Similarly, Jesus did not simply sit back and teach when the people came to him. He went to them, he healed them, he ate with them, he related to them and their problems.
Similarly, in an online community, there is room for honesty that is honestly not found in many other places, there is room for deep sharing and conversation. But that, in itself, is a poor substitute for gathering around a table and dining with friends, or gathering a night or two a week for communal worship. Singing together, baptizing, taking the Eucharist, marriages, these all need to be celebrated in a physical community.
It takes more work with significantly more risk to do this in person than online, which I suspect is part of the draw to these online communities.
wingnut
A few months ago, some readers of my site offered to let me crash on their couch for three days when I was out in Oklahoma. I kept saying “why did you let an online friend, stay in your offline home” and they kept responding “This is Acts, this is the book of Acts.” I kept hearing them say, “This is church, this is church.” I think the lines between offline and online church are getting blurred which is good with me if honesty, and love and brokenness are what becomes clearer in the process
Jon.
I've been in online communities of varying sorts off and on over the last 11 years and I really enjoy it. I think even a purposeful and/or organic online community of believers is great, valuable and worthwhile. There's a richness to meeting people in person you first interacted with online.
I encountered a time recently when our church family sacrificed their time and effort in a physical, tangible way to help us in a time of need. That simply can't happen by online interaction alone.
for me the ultimate question is this: as a result of The Church existing online, are people getting saved? since the answer is “yes,” the debate over whether there should be online church (or if it should be called a para church) becomes a moot point to me. the only option at that point is to be the best online church…whatever that may look like.
taking the existing model of the brick and mortar church and demanding that the online church look exactly like it, to me is going backwards; instead, shouldn't we begin with making the online church a community that blazes the light of Christ by using online resources to make it as bright as possible?
as i first learned at the austin stone community church, community doesn't happen b/c you are trying to create community–it comes as the natural result of people on mission together; therefore, if our great mission as a Church online is being the hope of this world, community will naturally follow, or organically happen.
and it certainly is happening.
I see that you all are being very vulnerable with each other here (!). Interesting, I must say. However, the face is lost. Online stuff is good, but should encourage others to do face to face stuff. I love online communities, but they definitely lack in some areas. Shouldn't we work through the “hard stuff” of offline “stuff” that makes it difficult to have group activity?
No, don't leave the web. Yes, encourage offline connection.
Ha. Well Mr. Anonymous N. Anytime you need a place to crash, look me up.
That was the most brilliant rubbish I have heard all night.
But brilliant none the less.
I have been thinking about this all night (even during my kids choir concert-thanks for the distraction [grin]).
I was comparing my online communities to my real life communities and how relationship work in both cases. And I keep coming back to after so long (for me) the online relationship can no longer progress and continue to grow with out face to face connection.
Just skimmin' the comments it looks like the line in the sand may be drawn by gender.
I have been able to have real, authentic community online (several blogs, Twitter, old Pastors.com forums). I do so without hiding my identity, and by being totally honest and transparent. I have been able to be more open and vulnerable in these settings because I communicate better in writing than I do verbally. I can organize my thoughts better, and say thing in a manner I may not have been able to in a face-to-face setting.
The reality is that online community is here to stay. It is a culture shift that isn't going anywhere soon. Why shouldn't the church be a part of it, and leverage it for redemptive, disciple-making, relational purposes?
How am I anonymous when I left my email address? I was being authentic and transparent, no?
All I am saying is I wonder how much of the upward love for the operator would really flow sideways within an online community.
But you must know what I am saying is true – methinks the Los doth protest too much…
Hey Carlos…I'm in ministry in my church in my much smaller community. I can say with so many of the different relationships that I have, MOST people are not real, or authentic, or vulnerable, or honest or even remotely open within church walls, regardless of the setting. But, you put people in the right, healthy environment with the right leaders, then the process can begin.
If online is all you have….GO FOR IT. My online relationships are so amazing to me and would fly out to someone in a heartbeat if they needed me. Our hearts are exposed. But, we are not anonymous either.
So, if someone needs to be vulnerable and honest and can trust this place that they have come….again, GO FOR IT.
Wish it were clear cut and black or white, but it's not.
Great stuff though. I truly wish in the part of the South where I am that people would be the real deal. Its a frustrating thing.
i've directly benefited from the generosity of the ragamuffinsoul community. perhaps one day you will experience it for yourself.
Ragamuffinsoul.com is most definitely a community and a church to some degree. Although I don't engage it as such (a community), Los does promote the authenticity and vulnerability of a Christian in action. Could a church exist solely online? Absolutely. Is it for everyone? No.
P.S. 192.168.0.1 is not a publically routable IP Address. In other words, it's a private IP that can't exist on the Internet. I thought I would make that distinction since you want a public, open community instead of a private one.
the book of acts.. the early church. is it a stretch to say that face to face to contact is important if for no other reason than because they had it then? they shared food, they shared resources, they met together in the temple courts, they they prayed together, praised together… and they were physically in person together. (acts 2:42-47)
im certainly not saying i have a theological issue with online church but i think it is a vital that the online church world works in partnership with local Christ centered community.
yes, God is obviously using the online world to do a new thing & its so cool to watch it unfold, especially here in the ragamuffin soul community, but i think it could be a dangerous path to walk down with the intention of calling this “church” as an exclusive term without encouraging & valuing a face to face community of believers as well.
also… key verse in acts i wanted to point out acts 2:44 “all the believers were TOGETHER & had everything in common”… its clear in the context that together meant physically in person.
Good word. That's a good word.
I definitely dont think ragamuffin has come even remotely close to being what I see an online church being.
And in Acts there was no internet.
So of'course they were physically together.
I think I see it as the gathering place for a community of believers and taking it offline HAS to happen but I don't think offline has the be the primary way one communes.
I love your thoughts!!!
yeah, you tell him girl.
interestingly enough, I'm “one” of those people who has been blessed by @loswhit's loving and gracious community. they did “bend over backwards” to help, many who have never met me before.
you can find the dirty and shameless things about online community if that is what you're looking for… just like in any brick-and-mortar.
or, you can find things that would completely rock your world, if you but give it a chance.
we need the somewhat negative comments just as much as the positive, but if you stop there, you're toast.
I haven't read through all the comments, so I may be repeating an idea someone else has already brought up
BUT…I agree with the both/and scenario in a sense. I really cannot imagine a church that exists solely online. What an awful community! To only be able to read what a person is going through? I'd much rather be there with them, and honestly I think common sense answers this question.
Real community happens in just that….reality. Online community is but a shadow of the real thing. I think we are meant to experience church with each other in a real, tangible way. I want to be able to laugh, cry, dance, sing, and live life with people in a way that isn't behind a computer screen. And I think anything other than that is cheating yourself out of some real fellowship.
On the other hand, I think online church could be an -ok- supplement to real church. Can you imagine only being able to have church online, and then being able to step into reality and experience church face to face with other believers? It would be overwhelming! Yes, there is no substitute for face-to-face church and community.
Also, just because the same problems exist in both the offline and online church doesn't logically mean that they are equal. I see the problem being that you can't really, definitively solve the problems with the offline church that are glaring you in the face.
As I've been reading through all of these comments, this is one piece that has been missing for me as well. My church family will gather tomorrow to celebrate the life of a sweet eight-year-old who died this morning and put our arms around her family. A few dozen of us crowded in a house last night to bless a couple being joined in marriage. Last week we took meals to a family whose child had surgery. I really appreciate this and other online communities of which I am a part, but none of you will come sit with me when my child is sick or run to the store for me when my husband is out of town. Although many do not experience this kind of faith community, that is part of the church that is beautiful and should be an aimed for.
This is another point that has been in my thoughts as I read these comments. A major point of church assemblies is worship of the Creator. As we've seen through this site, it is definitely possible to do this online, but man oh man, it's nothing like being in the midst of a thousands voices raised to the Lord – or even a dozen. So until video technology takes us to some new levels to feel more like we are with the people who now live in our 17″, I'll visit online, but keep my residence face-to-face.
This is a bit of a random comment, but there is a segment of the population for which online life and church works well because of personality preferences. There are those who are not verbal processors, which makes writing an easier form of communication. These people will be able to more clearly articulate their thoughts and feelings, thereby feeling more comfortable to opening up.
In other words, I just wrote three comments on this post that, had we been in the same room, you would not have heard.
Well geesh… I don't know that I need to be “told” or anything… I was just trying to weigh in on things I had witnessed with online “community.”
But the response is kind of exactly what I am talking about and it actually makes the “community” look and act more like a “club.”
For example – why does the operator of an online community go through and remove a bunch of the people he follows in his community? Were they not cool enough? Not part of the chosen few?
I mean – every church has it – online or offline – the “pastor's circle” or “ministry elite” that not everybody is welcomed into.
And what I am seeing – at least from what I have really studied the past few months in regards to online communities, social marketing and how the church uses it – is that it is benefiting the guys running it the most.
It's just an observation. Not meant to inflame or attack. But if I went back through the months and months of comments I saw – and then followed back through the profiles of the people reaping benefits – the majority of those people work for the church. And I am not saying there is anything wrong with that.
It's just curious. That's all. For me at least – I'd love to hear from the guy who works 50-60 hours in a factory or retail or fast food or some totally non-churchy job somewhere who is reaping benefits from an online community.
Transparent. That's what I'm being. Looking for truth. That's all.
you actually went a long way toward proving his point with that diva-toned response. just my opinion.
I am someone that told you that this community here at Ragamuffinsoul is my “church”. For me personally, stumbling upon this blog about 2 years ago really did change my life and through it I am now talking to God about 1,000% more than I used to and witnessing that to people in my offline world.
Is it ideal? No. I should go to a physical building and shake hands with my neighbors. But I don't.
However, when I did got to a building, I didn't talk about it. I just didn't. But this site, and the sites I link to because of it, I talk about non-stop to my offline community of friends and co-workers. I wasn't comfortable saying to a co-worker, “my pastor made this great point last Sunday”, but I am totally comfortable saying “look at this awesome post”. And sometimes, I have told someone about a funny post that has nothing to do with “religion”, but I know they read the other posts as well. One of these people is an atheist.
And in the big scheme of it all, I NEVER would have sponsored a child in Uganda because of something someone said in a 15 minute speech at a church building, but here at my online church, I saw how important it is that we love the whole world and help the whole world and I sponsor. I saw it for days on end through the videos and it was so in depth.
Is online church ideal? No. Is online church happening? You get your sweet booty. And I for one am changed because of it.
Wish I had put my post here…I am an office manager for 4 restaurants, a non-churcy job. Please read what I wrote about the benefits I have received.
freakin' awesome.
I'm sort of new to the world of blogging so I was wondering if people could expand upon the concept of “online relationships.” People have referred to online vs. offline relationships in the comments section and I'm just wondering what the online ones look like.
I concur in large degree with what Rachel's saying.
I think online community – whatever shape it takes (be it church or non-church interest groups) – is fantastic and I think some level of authenticity and genuine interaction can be achieved. But when the “rubber meets the road,” nothing can take the place of tangible human interaction. And, Los is saying – I think – that this interaction can grow off-line.
I've been involved with a non-church interest board for about two years and I've met a few of the folks over the last year and a half. My wife has been active in a chat network for about 15 years and has met people from that group twice.
She and I met online 11 years ago (we've been married 10 years this past October). We met people from the chat network and room on a few occasions.
With each of these interactions, it really meant something to actually meet and get to know people we knew from our online experience. My wife says that this human contact enriches the online post-face-to-face encounters and I agree.
In an earlier post, I referred to a situation where the body of Christ rallied around us in a time of need.
About two months ago, I was laid up on the couch with an infection in one of my legs, and one of our friends was concerned it could be highly contagious. Turned out it wasn't, but out of love, she and another friend wound up rallying another seven people – including some church leadership – to show up at our house after 10 p.m. and clean or keep me company.
We'd been feeling somewhat disconnected and out of touch with our church family, but those feelings dissolved instantly and I believe bound us all closer together.
Sacrificial love and service cannot be acted out online, but the relationships through which these actions can be carried out can be started and enhanced online.
It seems to me that trust and control go hand-in-hand. When you trust someone, you are willing to give up control. When you don't trust, you rarely relinquish control and do everything possible to maintain what control you do have.
I think this is your point so I think I am agreeing with you.
I've said it before but I think it's worth repeating here. This is one of the things I LOVE about North Point's strategy. It starts with a basic recognition that it is about relationships and continues by trying to create safe environments for each stage of the relationship, from “street” (online communities such as this — even though I know this isn't a NPMI ministry as such — and the BMP), to “foyer” (Sunday church), to “living room” and then “kitchen” (in most cases, literally in the kitchen).
Can online communities by-pass that process and jump straight to the kitchen? For some people, yeah it just might. But for others, it probably won't work too well.
To me, the important thing is knowing where your particular online community fits in. Is it aiming to be a “street” level ministry, attempting to form basic connections for those who are scared to connect (I would pin this site into that category)? Will it shoot for the “kitchen” level ministry and help people be accountable, etc? Or will it fall somewhere in-between. Like most ministries, the danger is in trying to be all things to all people.
And for what it's worth, I don't attend North Point so I'm not a homer.
he was talking about reaping benefits not being a diva.
And a screwed up sarcastic diva i am.
trying to work on it.
From Cindi…below…
I am someone that told you that this community here at Ragamuffinsoul is my “church”. For me personally, stumbling upon this blog about 2 years ago really did change my life and through it I am now talking to God about 1,000% more than I used to and witnessing that to people in my offline world.
Is it ideal? No. I should go to a physical building and shake hands with my neighbors. But I don't.
However, when I did got to a building, I didn't talk about it. I just didn't. But this site, and the sites I link to because of it, I talk about non-stop to my offline community of friends and co-workers. I wasn't comfortable saying to a co-worker, “my pastor made this great point last Sunday”, but I am totally comfortable saying “look at this awesome post”. And sometimes, I have told someone about a funny post that has nothing to do with “religion”, but I know they read the other posts as well. One of these people is an atheist.
And in the big scheme of it all, I NEVER would have sponsored a child in Uganda because of something someone said in a 15 minute speech at a church building, but here at my online church, I saw how important it is that we love the whole world and help the whole world and I sponsor. I saw it for days on end through the videos and it was so in depth.
Is online church ideal? No. Is online church happening? You get your sweet booty. And I for one am changed because of it.
Thanks Cindi.
Los, chewed on this all night and here's my jumbled thought process.
Cool thing about the internet and ragamuffin's spot on it is that people actually treat it like a real space. I think it's very possible because of how unique RSoul is.
I'm a lead worshipper at my church and i don't know everyone who attends the Journey so i don't think the disconnect factor among “members/attenders” is as big of deal as we think.
I love the idea of being able to come home one night an know that there will be a community waiting for me in my own house to encourage and build up that is consisted of people around the nation! maybe this is a step towards the unity the church has needed for a long time?
To me it seems that an online church would replace one technological setup (large buildings with 1000s of seats, microphones, and speakers) with another technological setup (physically distant people peering through webcams and keyboards). Both have advantages and disadvantages, and it would be a mistake to think of either as the telos of human relationship.
In the Northpoint/Buckhead model of small groups…community is the main goal. There are other churches that look to small groups with the goal of Bible teaching and discipleship. If community is the goal…then #1 is dead on…if spiritual growth is the goal…then #1 may not necessarily be on the mark.
I am concerned in the 21st Century that the hunger for “authentic community” has surpassed the hunger for God. Either way…community or disicipleship…your #1 opinion is thought-provoking…and disturbing. I see where you are going with it…but is virtual community…actual “authentic” community? Also who gets to define what “authentic community” actually looks like? On the other side of the coin…can discipleship…and exampled in the Scriptures…really take place with only online communication? I believe it's possible…as Paul created very much community and discipleship via written correspondence…bu there was also direct human interaction.
Good post…much to think about…much to consider. In the end…I'm still not sure “authentic community” can happen without actual physical interaction at some point. Then again…maybe I just need a hug.
Exactly. Very well said.
I agree with the connection side. But isn't part of a church community how we impact the world around us – not only individually, but together? That's my challenge with the idea. What's happening beyond individual transformation? Maybe that's enough. But I'm not sure…
I joined pinkhairedgirl's online life group.
Best experience I've ever had in a small group setting, especially in a mega church.
I felt compelled to be more precise in my prayer request because I had limited characters in the chat. People put up scripture & we had to look it up. I actually opened my bible & looked it up. That was a first in a small group. Usually just the leader did.
I found a whole new level of involvement & responsiblity. Love it.
1 Corinthians 9:22
22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.
Maybe the “online church” is another one of those “all things”
yeah, I was replying to you, but it put it under artgood's reply. I was calling you a diva, in the spirit of Christian love and edification
that's all good but it can't stop there. we need to be physically connected. like I said before, i can't help but think online church shouldn't be anything more than supplementary
exactly
I'm sorry, I don't think about this, but you've got me eagerly anticipating the first angry screamer in our small group…maybe Alyssa will go into labor there???
In my opinion, the word “church” needs to be redefined as two or more people gathered together in any place, instead of a building called “church”. You should read this: http://www.amazon.com/You-Dont-Want-Church-Anym...
Books could be filled on this topic, anyways here's my 2 cents worth:
I lead an online campus for a church. An online campus for a 'real' church with 'real' foundation and walls and what not. With 'real' people for members. We're an extension of that ministry. We are a small community, but none the less we are a community. We do things together. (Define that word as you see fit. ) We explore God's word together, we pray together, we worship together. Things all pleasing to God.
We have a service (call it what you will) every week. Here is what I challenge myself to do:
1. Communicate the Gospel as clearly and accurately as you know how.
2. Make yourself as available to these people as 'technically' possible.
3. Pray like mad for God to pick up the slack.
Along with others in here, I argue that online community is valuable, and an avenue worth driving. I've seen it in action, and seen lives transform because of it.
We exist to engage people that aren't being engaged for the Glory of Jesus Christ. We encourage “real life” Church attendance every week, and assist people in finding a local church when needed.
To suggest God can't move in the online circle is to put up more walls around Him. The Holy Spirit can and does move through online community.
I can't change anybody. Whether on or offline. I'm just as broken and sinful as the next person. Eternal Salvation is what God does. So I'll let him work through me in the online circle.
There are billions of people plugged in to the web that need to hear the message of Christ. So I say flood the internet with God's glory. Pray like mad for his spirit to work in the hearts of the people that are reached. Pray like mad for radical authenticity. Pray like mad for Christ centered relationships to develop. Pray like mad period. God is down with the web.
Until there is an International server meltdown causing the internet to die, fire away for Christ.
I also think communion is a big part of “church.” Jesus said do this until he comes again. Can it really be experienced if we are all in our bedrooms breaking and drinking in front of our webcams?
I also see part of church being communion. Jesus said do this until I come again. Is the experience that same if we are breaking and drinking in front of our webcams and not together as the body of Christ?
Love the topic and grateful for the conversation. In fact, I read all the comments before commenting myself.
I am sitting in the cafe of a huge, well-known megachurch. Lots of people here tonight. Lots of good people, Christ-following people, who work and serve here.
But community is next to impossible in that huge church when all you are doing is sitting in a big auditorium with thousands of others. You have to narrow your scope. Small groups are a good way to do that.
But what happens when things aren't working out?
For a long time, church wasn't working out the way I wanted it to. I was hurt and angry. I left and stayed at home, and wandered far away from God (but never far enough to shake Him).
By “random chance” (I don't think it was random at all), I came across another blog. I stuck around, and somehow a virtual community arose there. People fellowshipped in threads, with several side conversations taking place alongside the conversation around the thread's main topic. People connected online, and emailed each other to network and fellowship, and where possible met offline. At that blog (and I've never seen it anywhere else), a small group of people began to pray for others' needs, and others picked up on that. People prayed for each other all over the place, admist all of the other goings on there.
Over time, that blog's focus shifted, but the community remained.
I believe that as surely as there is a God, He used that community to help me work through my hurts and anger, to connect to the body of Christ, and then to connect back into a local church.
Now, my offline church is very important to me, and when I cannot connect with the people there, because of work or other issues, I feel it.
But I will be forever grateful for that online community and that blog, for being there when no one else was, and for how God used them to work in my life.
Even though I've made many mistakes online, I see God's hand at work in my life. I now believe that online community can be a tremendous asset to believers. It can challenge them, encourage them, equip them.
Chris, I agree with your convictions…I argue that online community is great and can be a wonderful supplement to offline community, but people need that face-to-face, physical interaction. What worked for the church through the 1990s will work for us now and going forward (though I'm sure all the dead saints in Christ would have blogged, Twittered and Facebooked if they had the opportunity in their day). For what it's worth, I wonder if part of this is from folks who can't connect with one another inside the existing infrastructures…and in the process, they're so focused on the community they're not focusing on Who the center of their community should be.
Baptism service. Just make sure you take out the water damage insurance on your MacBook pro.
Is that why you've been having all these IT problems lately, Los? You baptize your laptop.
Seriously, though…. How do you take communion? Do baptism? Those things are foundational to the church. And I think that ordained ministers are the ones to administer the sacraments. I'm old school like that.
The comment about online versus offline marriage, though it was brushed off as a sweeping generalization by Los, really hits the nail on the head: the only reason exclusively online church ought to be considered is when offline church is impossible. Online will always be at best a supplemental form of church, in my opinion.
The main problem that I see is that on the internet, people tend to push the person they want to be, not the person they are.
That creates a huge problem for authenticity.
I agree. When I first contacted my roommate for college several years ago, we spent the whole summer emailing each other, at least twice, sometimes three times a day. It was awesome. I thought, “This is it! This will be my best friend in college!”
However, when we met face-to-face and actually had to interact for real with each other, it was different. Totally different. She had projected herself as an outgoing, fun-loving person when in fact she was very shy and rarely went out at all.
I also projected someone who I wasn't. I didn't do it on purpose, but I'd get caught up in the moment and say or be someone I wasn't. It was so easy to deceive, to be someone better and funnier and cooler. When she lived with me daily, she saw I wasn't the same.
Chris, amazing insight. If our main goal is community instead of Christ, we've lost it all. We've lost what Church really is.
One of the reasons I personally had trouble finding a small group was that it was just a “Hey, let's do coffee and call it a Bible study” kind of group. That's a social club. I can get that anywhere.
If fixing our eyes on Jesus isn't the main goal, if it's just to feel warm fuzzies and “ooh, I belong!” than we're not really church.
I thought about this post this morning.
I have a three year old daughter with special needs. It is tiring, frustrating and lately, very discouraging to watch her struggle. Most people do not understand what the issue is, they see a little girl with “behavioral problems”, quite frankly, I am sure there are some who think she is a spoiled brat.
This morning, she was having a meltdown and spirialing into her behaviors. After three long days of this, I was at a breaking point., about to join her in wailing and kicking my legs too. A friend, a person who is around her alot, who knows and who cares, very gently made eye contact and mouthed the words “You are a great mom”. So then I started crying for another reason….
I agree that authetncity is sorely lacking in churches. I agree that you can “know” someone for years and not really know them. I agree that online is a good tool and can be someone's best option for church. But I remain firmly convinced that I would not be able to get what I got this morning in a brief moment of kindness online. And I also firmly believe that an online church could enable people to become more isolated than we already are.
I say lame-o.
Online buddies aren't going to help me move. i need people with trucks in my life.
And someone to call at 1am to come watch my kids as we rush to the hospital.
I meant lazy above also. What did Keith Green teach us…”Jesus rose from the dead, and you, you can't even get out of bed…”
You all can debate discipleship, authenticity, blah, blah…but I emote myself so much better by typing and video…grow up, get yourself out there and face the real world.
LifeGroup Online – Wednesdays at 8:30pm (CST) at pinkhairedgirl.net.
Today, I've seen that particular online community minister to me where my offline community has not. Not one phone call, not one email, nothing.
And they say online community isn't valid. What do they know???
my $.02?? The need for organic community is a big yes. There are one or two churches that exist solely online and reported have a great deal of community that builds among the folks that “go there”. One thing I get stuck on is this: One reason we use electronic media, online communities, txt msg's, etc is for its neatness and convenience. Two qualities that are antonyms for life. Life is messy and is rarely convenient. I am curious how conflict is dealt with…we don't grow without working through tension/resistance.
not sure if my input makes sense. But i like your thinking. Outside the four walls is always a good direction for the church to move!
i have been turning over this thought for about a year now. i truly think it is possible. i see examples of it. The first step, as i understand this more, is being aware and intentional about knowing that this could easily happen with any successful blog. Seth Godin has already coined a name for what is happening online (tribe) and I think this model can reach a lot of people. I do think as an online community develops there needs to be ways to mobilize the tribe offline through offering ways for parts of the tribe to come together and do things to help the community, or offer challenges that get the members of the tribe to connect their online experience with offline impact… just some thoughts. i am processing this stuff too.
i haven't read through all the comments, so someone may have already said this….the definition of church is gathering together. thats what the word means, that's why people called them that, that's why they called themselves that….they gathered together. It’s impossible to gather people in cyberspace.
One othere thought: how can we accomplish most if not any of the NT church commands unless we're together?
Just my thoughts….thanks for bringing this up Carlos…it's something that needs to be talked about/thought through.
We often think “If we build it, they will come” about offline churches – that if it looks good, has enough space, bells and whistles… people will show up. Not usually the case. Something else has to happen. Just like the venue didn't come before the movement in the book of Acts. The Spirit and the “wind” must move people to where the lost can still be found and the redeemed can grow in faith together – online AND offline.
So, I'd be weary of some giddy venture capitalist grabbing a few developers and setting out to start a revolution. Instead, we could pray and pay attention to the revolution(s) already happening and hope for them to spread online.
This is what makes Ragamuffin Soul what it is – it's a movement that started offline (in you, Los) and likely would have found a way regardless of wires, web, and whatever.
Great post! I hope this can happen too!
Man, what a great post. I think this series of comments in itself proves that the line between life online and offline is fading. Anyone that denies this and STILL joins this conversation, should reevaluate their statements. The online church is not going to reach everyone. It's not intended to, but it will reach some. Some will call it community. If they do call it community, then it's community. That fact is not contingent upon us to validate.
Side note: I can't wait to answer the question: “What denomination are you?”, with “Safari”.
In my opinion, the problem with the organic community model on one end, or the affinity model of organized small groups on the other, is that without serious correction, they both cater to the “I hang with people like me who I like who like me back” mentality. Path of least resistance. Which isn't NT church at all.
And while the web thing is a kind of community, and is better than nothing, and maybe better than what people've been getting in church (which is sad), you can't seriously think web community is enough, or be fully what Jesus had in mind, can you?
Ok…why do I always show up to the comment party a day late?!! I know ya'll have been waiting for my 2 cents so here it is:
The church exists for a couple reasons…not just one.
1. To lead people to grow. (can't make 'em do it.) Growth happens naturally, and relationships are a primary ingredient for it to happen. Does it happen online or offline? Well relationships become authentic and go deep under one condition (chunks of unhurried time- you define the chunk) Can't happen running in and out of service or small group each week, can't happen logging in and leaving a comment or two here and there. That's why taking a trip or a retreat w/ people takes your relationship to a whole new level almost automatically. You can 'fake yourself' for a few hours, but a few days? Some of the real you has to emerge… So chunks of unhurried time are ESSENTIAL, whether online offline- whatever. There are many church buildings that never provide these conditions for people to grow, just as there are many people who NEVER take advantage of what the building has to offer.
2. The second thing is that the church is Christ's body here on earth. We're supposed to be moving together, insync. Like…we're actually supposed to be doing something on this planet. Is this possible online? Yes. Is it possible offline? Yes. Does it happen often enough in either arena? No.
It can happen online, might require more strategy and require a lot of coordination…the Compassion Bloggers trips are an example of that. It can happen offline as we come together and the local church impacts the life OUTSIDE of its walls. We're all aware that it requires money to create a message and a place where people will come and encounter God (especially in this generation) But the outsider will always see the church as feeding itself when we focus the majority of our efforts and budgets on this. But what can the outsiders say when we're serving them, on their turf? Feeding the hungry. Taking care of the orphans. Sharing the goodnews that they are reconciled to God. It's been done. Jesus paid it all.
I don't care where your church is online/offiline…let's just make it happen- cause the world really needs us to be Jesus on this earth.
God created us all with at least five senses. When the day comes that I can smell you through my video cam…THEN maybe this online church thing will work. On second thought…perhaps I'd rather do without the smell (no offense Los. I'm sure you smell just fine but I've sat behind some people in my offline church and…well…suffice it to say that they DO smell).
But, seriously, I think the more fundamental question is this. What is a church? What is THE church? Ya gotta answer that question before you can even begin thinking about online vs. offline.
Separate thought, there have been lots of comparisons to the current offline church. Who's to say that is even the right benchmark? Trying to be better than the offline church might be like trying to be better than a pile of crap. I'm not saying it is. But it might be. Right?!
Oh wait…this thread is now 4 days old. That means that we've all moved on to other topics. No time to think. Just comment with top-of-the-mind, reactionary thoughts. Hmmm…maybe the online world is a bit more like the offline world than I thought…this is spooky.