Is Internet Church More Real Than Real Church? ~ #TweetingInChurch vs. #TweetingAsChurch

There’s a common hashtag for twitter #TweetingInChurch that is used to let others know what you’re tweeting while you’re “in” church.  But maybe, it should be #TweetingAsChurch to let others know what you’re tweeting “as” the church.  

Is internet church more real than real church?  I suppose that depends on how you define church.  If church is the physical gathering of the saints in a physical place, then the answer would have to be a resounding NO!  If church is something else other than the physical gathering of the saints in a physical place, then all we can say, is that it might be possible that internet church is more real than real church.

 The answer might be found through these few questions:

 

    • What is Church?
    • Is it possible to gather together online?
    • What makes church real?

Based on your answer to these three questions, is it more likely, that real church happens online or in a building?

~

For related posts, see:

Virtual Community & Virtual Discipleship: Possible?

E-phesians 4:11, E-ministry for E-quipping The Church Through Social Media?

Can the Gospel be Emailed?

Does the ‘Person of Peace’ concept work online?

For a free Kindle book (as of this moment) see:

Tweeting Church: Good News in only 140 characters

0 thoughts on “Is Internet Church More Real Than Real Church? ~ #TweetingInChurch vs. #TweetingAsChurch

  1. Peter says:

    Why would you say, “more real”? Why not “as real”? I don’t see how an internet ekklesia could possibly be more real than the New Testament’s ekklesia.

    With that in mind, this is a very intriguing question. Jesus being in the midst of two or more believers (Matthew 18:20) is in the context of simple agreement that presumably needs no physical co-presence.

    If an internet gathering can be church, cannot letters between saints be church? After all, letters are just a clumsier method of communication than are postings in a forum. If an internet church is valid, then certainly a phone church is equally valid. A telegraph church? A smoke signal church? These are all just differing methods of communication, of gathering, of ekklesia.

    My concern in saying that an internet church is a true church is that it says that the physical body is not important and can be dispensed with – only the ideas communicated are important, it’s the spirit of the discussion that counts. This is dangerously close to if not actual gnostic philosophy. When Jesus presented the elements of His body and blood to the disciples at the last supper He used real bread and real wine. He didn’t give them just a theological statement, He gave them physical food.

    Like Christ’s demonstration, there is something real and valuable about saints being really, physically together. Whether or not this is an absolute requirement for Christ’s concept of ekklesia is something I’ll have to give more thought.

  2. Rob Kampen says:

    The major issue I have with the non physical types of church is that over 80% of our communication is non-verbal. Add to that the poor to non existent ability many have to express themselves very well via any written medium (email, letters, blogs, txts, tweets) and I think you may understand my concern.
    Does a friend on facebook comprise a relationship??
    I believe the church needs to be a practical demonstration of the reality of God’s love and Spirit working out the kinks in our relationships – then when the world does a survey they may find that Christians have few divorces, little domestic abuse, overcomes poverty, few teenage pregnancies etc. certainly not what we find in the western church in 2012.
    Now that would be a compelling gospel. Manage that via blogs and the internet?? I doubt it – one needs to be able to see the whites of the others eyes to really express the love, forgiveness and grace He provides.
    In His Grip
    Rob

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.