In his book entitled SimChurch, Douglas Estes describes the developing cyber-church experience and proposes new ways to do church in the virtual world: “Today there are already a couple of confirmed virtual megachurches, and there are more if you count hybrid streamers. There are virtual weddings, virtual communion services, virtual baptisms, and virtual small groups doing real-world missions trips. . . . The church is beginning to be salt and light in our virtual worlds.”[1] According to Estes, thousands of people are flocking to these 3D, immersive, and collaborative worlds that promise truly interactive and meaningful experiences. He says, “The most popular church of the twenty-first century may turn out to be a virtual church.”[2]
What is
a virtual church? Future generations will better define this new phenomenon as
technology advances and new possibilities become more viable. Douglas Estes
describes the ability for you to enter into a virtual world, selecting (or
designing) a personal avatar that would visibly represent you in cyberspace as
you interact with other people in that same world. You can “attend” a church
service with “friends” from around the world and experience a global church in
your pajamas from the comfort of your own home.
Sadly,
the examples provided by proponents of this world are not attractive. For
instance, Christian avatars (or their real-world selves) and software designers
have created worship spaces in Second Life in spite of the fact that Second
Life is well known for its pornographic and offensive material. Why would a
Christian even want to go there? In 2009, the Australian
Minister for Censorship banned Second Life in Australia because it did not meet
the rating criteria used in that country.[3]
Proponents of avatar-based church services will argue that the real church is
positioned in a world of iniquity, so why not the virtual church? This is where
evangelism can take place in a way that connects with searching souls in a
non-offensive environment. Estes even admits that the first thing he noticed
about LifeChurch.tv in Second Life is that a number of women wore lingerie to
church—well, at least their avatars did.[4]
One may find bad examples and obvious flaws
in the virtual church concept, but proponents will keep trying to improve the
online church experience in the future. One day technology will catch up with
our imagination. 3D holograms of actual people will be projected into a 3D room
and church will be conducted somewhere in cyberspace. A hologram is a real-time
3D image of a real person who is not physically present. It will be Skype on
steroids. Could multiple holographic images of real people be projected into
one space where they sing songs, listen to their real (but holographically
projected) pastor preach a sermon from God’s Word, pray together, encourage one
another, and undertake a near real-life church experience? This might be the
answer for Christians living in remote locations of the world who don’t have a viable
real church to join. It’s technologically possible. But would it be desirable?
Would it be biblically motivated? And is it really needed? Surely this kind of
virtual experience would not really satisfy the Christian soul who hungers for
genuine fellowship?
Proponents may argue that the virtual
church is taking the gospel to the lost—meeting them where they’re at—a
seeker-ministry not content to wait for people to come in—they go out looking
for them. It’s the seeker-oriented church service, online. But, we have yet to
see a good example of a seeker-oriented church service—real or virtual—gain
traction with the unbelieving audience without compromising the gospel message
in some way. It could be something to do with the offensive nature of the
gospel message. It does not lend itself to being seeker-friendly unless you
dumb it down somehow.
These are strong statements. To be clear,
we should make all attempts possible to reach unbelievers with the gospel of Jesus
Christ, and use technology to do it. But it is not wise to call such
evangelistic effort “church.”
In addition to the evangelistic
possibilities, proponents of the virtual church hope that the cyber church has
a real chance of reconnecting fellowship and community with preaching and
ordinances. “If a virtual church is not just a broadcast but a real community
united by calling, it has the potential to revolutionize community, to tear
down the walls of isolationism and individualism,”[5]
says Estes. There’s no doubt that social media has improved over the last ten
years and millions have been able to reconnect with old acquaintances in a
meaningful way. The world has grown smaller and more people are linked online
by common interests than ever before. But does this constitute real community?
And can it replace a physical church gathering?
Douglas
Estes, author of SimChurch, doesn’t believe that in the near future,
real-world churches will cease to exist. Rather, some people will choose to be
a part of both a real church and virtual churches.[6]
In time though, more and more people will prefer the online church communities
over real-world church experiences. To this Tim Challies exclaims, “I fear that
[Estes] is right. I fear this because despite arguments to the contrary, the
virtual church is not the real church.”[7]
In
response to such criticism, Estes writes,
When well-meaning church
leaders knock virtual churches, but post blogs and maintain websites to make
their sermons available to people, they are actually contributing to that which
they think they are preventing—online community. Except that [their] type of
community is so impoverished by its lack of participation and interaction as to
work against healthier forms of community found in either real-world or
virtual-world churches.[8]
Estes’s
response is partly valid. Could it be that the blogs and online sermon
libraries produced by conservative and real-world-loving evangelicals, while
originally created for good reasons, have also had a negative impact upon the
church at large, namely, disengaging the preaching event from body-life and
fellowship? It is possible. But does that mean we cut off the Internet and
refuse to make our biblical resources available online altogether? No! That
would be like stopping Gutenberg from printing Bibles in the 1400s. The net
effect would be worse than the risk of growing individualism in Christianity.
The
virtual-church agenda has been partially driven by those who are dissatisfied
with prepackaged, professionally designed, productions—recordings of church
services which are aired on television and radio, and distributed on CDs, DVDs,
and over the Internet—none of which provide community nor fellowship
opportunities. We might even join them in their criticism of ‘professionally
produced’ ministry, but is the virtual church the answer?
New
advancements in technology are great, but we need to carefully track their
unexpected impact upon our Christian experience.
Sermon-listening
and fellowship have moved far from each other. We can point our fingers at
postmodern, Emergent leaders and blame them for the overuse of digital media
that has resulted in increased autonomy in the church, but that would not be a
fair representation of what is happening. Detached Christians do not date or
hate the church because of technological advancements in religious media.
Rather, they are drawn to religious media because they date or hate the church.
If
none of the aforementioned trends have influenced your sermon-listening
practices, maybe other trends have. I
have one more to discuss next week.
[1] Douglas Charles Estes, SimChurch: Being the Church in the
Virtual World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2009), 25.
[2] Ibid., 55.
[3] Christian Today Australia, “Second Life banned in Australia,” entry
posted June 29, 2009. http://au.christiantoday.com/article/second-life-banned-in-australia/6526.htm
(accessed: July 31, 2012).
[4] Douglas Estes, SimChurch, 157.
[5] Ibid., 75.
[6] Ibid., 27–28.
[7] Tim Challies, The Next Story: Life and Faith After the Digital
Explosion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2011), 106.
[8] Douglas Estes, SimChurch, 75.
No comments:
Post a Comment