Internet Campuses are wonderful tools for presenting the Gospel, and I would absolutely call them a church, because they are absolutely part of the Church, and are a relational group of believers – disregarding geographic separation.

Stephen said, “In fact, how can one possibly have any idea that an online avatar is professing genuine faith without any kind of face to face contact?” But you can never have any true idea how genuine any other person’s faith is: online, or face to face.

A committed believer should totally seek face to face relational small groups – this is without question. But what about those who can’t? Whether it’s physical or mental disability, the internet is the best option for some folks. Many autistic children and adults find it easier to socialize via the web than in person, and actually have deeper relationships with people online than those they try to meet face-to-face…

Anyways, I’m a random passer-by, and there’s some food for thought.

Posing this to someone who is “all for” doing an internet campus will be very revealing. Can technology enhance community? Sure. But that is as far as it goes. And even if it was a great source of community – the ends never justify the means. The question remains, “What is your Biblical definition of church?” You can’t get to internet church.

I’ve visited a lot of these online campuses and read up on a lot of folks that are on this train and haven’t come across anyone doing it whose ministry is theologically sound. Just sayin.

Since I come from the world of seminary nerds, I did a word study on the concept of “face-to-face” in the New Testament. http://donteatthefruit.com/2009/01/technology-and-%E2%80%9Cface-to-face%E2%80%9D-in-the-new-testament/

I’ve wondered if this plunge into virtual church online is not a horrible step in the wrong direction. Given that people here in the U.S. seem to be living more fragmented and isolated lives I cannot see how this is truly helpful.

If the church is the bride of Christ and the adopted family of God, then a different set of questions can be asked:

Should we expect a husband and wife to have a healthy marriage if it was mediated totally through technology? Would it be reasonable for a parent to raise their son or daughter using only technological mediums? Could a family be a family if all of its interactions were mediated through some medium other than direct human to human contact?

If we can answer yes to these questions then it is possible for a church to exist in this capacity. But if we answer no, then how can we expect the church exist virtually?

It just seems like the trend towards technologically mediated relationships as standard is something we should be called to repent of. Technology is really just a means of communicating. But community is far more than communication – whether by smoke signal, letter, phone, e-mail, chat room, or live video. Community is ultimately about presence – unmediated, direct presence of the other.

Would we desire a technologically mediated relationship with God? I cringe to think that my relationship with Jesus in the coming age will be available to me only through chat rooms, video, or some form of holographic interface. Why then should we accept this as a viable form of community for the church now? A Matrix-like life just doesn’t seem like the goal of the Gospel and the Kingdom of God.