My previous post I touched on the issue of VIRTUAL vs Face-to-face; is it possible to have “Virtual Church”? I avoid the term “Virtual Church” because it always ends up setting up that confrontation where people say ” I think you have to be a physical church”. I agree. But that misses a big point. Even in physical churches, we have the issue of “virtual” in that literal sense of “virtual” ; not complete; “almost church”. This is the way “virtual” is used in the world outside of the online world. “I was virtually x” (which means “sort of x” or “almost x”). Churches which bring together physical bodies for worship are also , in a theological sense, VIRTUAL, because they are , to greater or lesser degrees, incomplete. So if a church is missing so many elements that make it what church is meant to be, this would lend some credence to the idea of a “virtual church” which , in my experience, often surpasses churches in the arena that most physical-only churches tend to measure themselves (the quality and quantity of the personal and spirtual exchanges; the personal sharing that happens).
I play with these concepts, always in danger of saying something that sounds like I think there can be “church” online. If you have read much of this blog over the past year and a half, you would know better. My preference is to talk about blogs and the Web as “extensions” to church. A way to EXTEND the availability of some of who we are, what motivates us, what we care about, so that “seekers” might get a glimpse of who we are and what we are like, and feel drawn to us so that they will “come and see” (visit in person). So much of what is hard in church seeking is the unspoken discomfort in the idea of going someplace that will be strange or uncomfortable. The more a church can give a flavor of who they are; who their people are; the more this unknown can be addressed. People are looking for a church that includes people who share our passions; who seek involvement in what God is doing in particular areas; and also seek churches that display a commitment to knowing who they are. When churches can indicate what they are talking about, people are much more likely to feel confident in bringing that up in conversation; indeed, “continuing” conversations in both directions. I’ve pointed out many times on my blog here that once someone reads a blog entry you’ve written about a particular issue, it is a revelation of sorts to them about a point of commonality. In traditional settings, rubbibg shoulders with people in worship; sitting next to them, does not clue us in on what all these people are thinking about. When there are bloggers, you have a window into that person that I strongly feel is an extremely valuable tool to community.
