Thursday, May 13, 2004 AD
I-Church, E-Church, No-Church?
The BBC reports that the Church of England's "online church", I-Church, has appointed a laywoman as its first "web pastor". The BBC also carries a review of the launch of the "Church of Fools", another, rather different, "online church" started by the Ship of Fools site.
Now I could go into a lengthy critique of these initiatives, especially I-Church, with its appointment of a laywoman (wrong on at least two counts) as "pastor", and the legalistic requirements for membership (you don't need to believe anything, but you do need to enter into binding commitments regarding "prayer", study and social action). But to be honest, this Google search probably tells us all you need to know.
However, all this does raise the more general issue of whether the "electronic church" is a valid and appropriate means for communicating the Gospel and fulfilling the church's ministry. Modern Reformation has dug out of its archives a piece by W. Robert Godfrey dating from 1992 on "the electronic church" - which in those days meant watching on TV rather than participating over the Internet.
Godfrey's fundamental point is simple: "The necessity of the local church is clearly taught in Scripture and is indispensable for the Christian life", and accordingly "the electronic church at its best can only be a religious supplement in the life of the Christian", not a substitute for the local church.
In particular, Godfrey looks at Acts 2:42 and finds that the electronic church is lacking in relation to all four key elements of worship found in that verse:
Godfrey concludes:
Now I could go into a lengthy critique of these initiatives, especially I-Church, with its appointment of a laywoman (wrong on at least two counts) as "pastor", and the legalistic requirements for membership (you don't need to believe anything, but you do need to enter into binding commitments regarding "prayer", study and social action). But to be honest, this Google search probably tells us all you need to know.
However, all this does raise the more general issue of whether the "electronic church" is a valid and appropriate means for communicating the Gospel and fulfilling the church's ministry. Modern Reformation has dug out of its archives a piece by W. Robert Godfrey dating from 1992 on "the electronic church" - which in those days meant watching on TV rather than participating over the Internet.
Godfrey's fundamental point is simple: "The necessity of the local church is clearly taught in Scripture and is indispensable for the Christian life", and accordingly "the electronic church at its best can only be a religious supplement in the life of the Christian", not a substitute for the local church.
In particular, Godfrey looks at Acts 2:42 and finds that the electronic church is lacking in relation to all four key elements of worship found in that verse:
- The Apostles' Teaching: While the electronic church may seem a good vehicle for teaching biblical truth, in practice the teaching of the Word takes a back seat to more "entertaining" content. In the case of I-Church, the teaching of the Word seems barely to be in view at all: the web pastor's job spec doesn't even refer to it.
- Fellowship: Godfrey argues that TV - despite feeling very "personal, immediate, intimate" - does not provide true human contact with other believers. While the internet allows more interaction with other people, we are kidding ourselves if we think that it is a substitute for true, face-to-face contact. It's just a more hi-tech version of the "paper and ink" that St John found so inadequate an alternative to "talk[ing] face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (emphasis added).
- The Sacraments: A TV or online church will either have no sacraments, or else it may have purported "sacraments" that are a blasphemous travesty. Without the sacraments, there is no true church (this is probably the number one killer argument against viewing the "electronic church" as a substitute for the local church).
- Prayer: Godfrey points out the inadequacies of prayer conducted over the TV, and the minimal place prayer in fact occupies in the "TV churches" to which he is referring. The BBC report on the Church of Fools refers to people typing in the Lord's Prayer as the minister led them in this. Perhaps prayer is the area in which an online church may be least inadequate, but synchronised typing seems a poor alternative to the hearty "Amen" of God's People gathered together before Him.
Godfrey concludes:
The danger posed by the TV church is two-fold. The first is that it threatens to replace the local church as the central focus of religious life for many people. Such a threat is serious because it is the local church that has been established by Jesus Christ as the center of the religious life of his people.But the appeal of electronic forms of "church" does highlight areas of weakness that local churches need to address:
The second danger is even more serious. Since the electronic church will not and cannot do all that Christ commissioned the local church to do, the TV church as one's sole church will teach a religion that is sub-Christian. The electronic church will be sub-Christian in doctrine because, even if the doctrine is not wrong (though it often is), it will surely be incomplete. What is not entertaining or commercially appealing will be ignored. And the electronic church will be sub-Christian in ethics, since it will not be a disciplined church.
Churches that have failed in teaching, or in worship, or in outreach or hospitality, should repent and, by God's grace, renew themselves for service. And Christians should realize that they must be more involved in the local church, reforming it and making it, by God's grace, what it should be.
Christians are the church, after all. It is to Christians in a local church that Paul said, "Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it."
