Douglas Estes in a Christianpost article defends the virtual church concept. He asks, “Isn’t church supposed to be about people in communion with God rather than the building? … Since when does the location of a church determine the quality of its community?”
How and where we do church has been a issue for centuries now. George Barna advocate for home groups over public gatherings. Mark Dever believes true churches are only local churches with at least nine marks. Nick Charalambous web pastor for NewSpring church advocates the validity and necessity for virtual church to reach a networked lost generation. Who is right and where did this problem begin. It began in the Reformation era.
The Reformed traditions challenged and reevaluated everything about the Church. Most eventually concluded that there are three valid marks of a true church. The word rightly preached, the sacrament rightly given, and church discipline practiced.
Let me add to the chorus that the virtual church concept can bring about good. It can allow for the word to be rightly preached and for people to connect to it. It can allow for spiritual songs to one another which we call worship. This is good particularly in an age where there is so much bad theology in preaching and music.
All the good aspects do not validate the concept of the virtual church since it excludes two marks of a true church. The sacraments which Jesus commanded for a gathered body to do regularly become casualties since individuals can not practice communion or baptism individually. Why not? Jesus intended these to be public events. These sacraments bring the physical realm and senses into submission to God through physical acts in a physical fellowship of saints and sinners.
Virtual church unintentionally creates a dualism between the physical and the spiritual as it divorces the personal spiritual from the corporate physical. Anything that segregates the spiritual and physical is dangerous. It runs the risks or turning the concept of church into something intrinsically personal when it was meant to be explicitly communal.
Doug Estes equates the gathering of the church with the building where they meet. He says the church isn’t the building. He’s right! It never was meant to be. The church is the collective embodied souls gathering together to become one as they meet. Location would not matter if if it did not break the idea of church as a physical gathering in a physical place. “Neglect not the gathering together of the saints which is the habit of some” (Hebrews 10:25). The physical act of gathering was very important to the first believers. It should be to us as well.
Physical churches aren’t perfect but they are God’s starting point. God desires communion with him in the context of physical communion with others. Virtual church is here for a while but it can not foster the inter-connectivity of the Church that Jesus envisioned as a publicly gathered group of saints and sinners standing together before him.