Virtual Church Debate (EM230/Fa15)
Point (in favor): Virtual technology allows the church to creatively reach those unable to engage a
physical church setting due to a variety of reasons. To provide a solely virtual church experience is a
modern way to fulfill the Great Commission of Mathew 28. God gave us the ability to reflect him by
creating amazing technologies, let’s use it!
Point (not favorable): Virtual technology poses a great threat to the mission and function of the Church.
Attending church from the safety of personal privacy encourages individualism and independence from
God and his divine structure. A computer generated person isn’t real and can’t replace the Acts 2:42
experience. Virtual technology will do more harm than good!
Virtual Church (for)
Side Score: 7
|
 |
Virtual Church (against)
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
|
1: The "Church" is not limited by location, culture, creed, congregation, denomination or any percieved barrier. The Church is comprised of all living belivers anywhere, in any setting, therefore if all the essential elements of "Church" are present: preaching, worship, prayer and fellowship, Church can happen anywhere, including a virtual setting. Is the sick person who is bed-ridden no longer part of the church because they cannot physically join others in a "Church" building? Can they not learn, worship, pray, and fellowship just as validly through a computer or tv/webcam as compared to those who are physically present? Side: Virtual Church (for)
While one may be able to worship, pray, learn, and fellowship over a screen, I think only to an extent. There are some things, like fellowship, that just aren't the same over a screen. While their experience of church may be somewhat valid, I don't believe they are as good or as effectively practiced virtually. If someone is bed-ridden, members of the church may still visit, worship, teach, pray, and fellowship with them. Side: Virtual Church (against)
2: Don't put God in a box. God/Holy Spirit is not limited to any of the aforementioned barriers. If the H.S. is able to translate our prayers and pettitions to God in heaven, is He not also able to help us engage in "Church" by stirring our spirit to worship, and inclining our hearts to conviction from preaching, and adding our prayers to those praying elsewhere? Is He not able to help join us in fellowship with those we call brothers and sisters in Christ who are not physically present with us? Side: Virtual Church (for)
1: It is still fellowshipping with others even if you are not physically there. One of the main points of church is too have fellowship with other believers. Some may say that since you are not physically with those people it isn't real fellowship, but the definition of fellowship is "Friendly association". Online churches defiantly meet this criteria as you are able to associate with people through typing and even verbally with microphones. Just because you aren't physically with the person or can't see them doesn't not mean it isn't still fellowship, we can not limit ourselves to believing this. Side: Virtual Church (for)
Although you can have ''friendly association'' online, so much of what defines Christian fellowship is participation. Early church members ate together and that can't be done online. Fellowship is more about personal relationships with other believers and those types of relationships aren't easy online. There are some aspects of Christian fellowship that can only occur face to face. Side: Virtual Church (against)
It is true that being able to do things such as eat with others and have face to face interaction can help relationships to grow, but it is not completely necessary in order to have fellowship. You may not be able to see someone's face but that does not mean you cant build relationship with them, which you say is what fellowship is more focused on. Virtual churches allow people to talk with each other and build relationships that way, and you also create an avatar so people can see how the other person actually wants to be seen. So you can talk to people and see them for how they want to be seen. This type of fellowship also allows people that are more closed of to be able to open up to other believers as they don't feel as much of a risk as they probably wont see them in real life if they don't want to. Side: Virtual Church (for)
2: Virtual church allows people who have problems interacting with people in person to still be able to meet other believers. There are many people in the world that are much more comfortable talking to others on the computer instead of in person. Are we as a church supposed to tell them they can't do this because it isn't real church, and as a result they don't come in person and then never interact with other Christians at all? With virtual church they can meet people all over the world and fellowship with them while learning more about God. Virtual churches also allows people to check it out risk free as you can be whoever you want to and there is no pressure of judgment from others. This allows us to reach more people with the Gospel and win them to the Lord. Side: Virtual Church (for)
1
point
The more people use computers the more likely it is they will be exposed to facts that contradict their religious nonsense and will come to their sensed and abandon it. So im for this. Also less people going to church = less churches = less tax revenue being pissed away not being collected on millions of properties in the US Side: Virtual Church (for)
|
The church was never separate in the Bible, and we don't see people meeting by extension. In his letter to the Romans, Paul repeatedly expressed a desire to meet with the churches he wrote to in person. He wanted to be refreshed in their company, by visiting them, not by letters (Rom. 15:32). You can't experience the same joy and comfort through a screen that you experience face to face, which makes the virtual church a poor alternative to the physical, local church. Side: Virtual Church (against)
As it is true that we don't see people meeting in extension in the Bible, we must acknowledge that they were not capable of interacting over the internet like we are. As for Paul wanting to be with the church, this just shows us what type of person he is. He enjoys being with people and fellowshipping in that way. There are however people who feel much more comfortable interacting with people over the internet. I feel that it has become very evident that you can feel joy and comfort by interacting with people over the internet, we see that this is possible from dating websites. People can spend time talking to people and getting to know them and get joy from it. I think this shows us that online interaction can allow the same emotions to develop that face to face interaction does. Side: Virtual Church (for)
Though they did not have the technology of the internet, they did have the technology of writing, and Paul still found this lacking. Still, even if the internet affords us more than writing, the purpose of dating websites is to lead people to meet in person. And, as we saw in the documentary in class, there was a couple that met in the game but then got married in real life. I think that instead of allowing us to feel the same emotions we experience face-to-face, internet communication actually creates longing for real face-to-face communication. Side: Virtual Church (against)
There are some huge differences between face-to-face communication and virtual communication, and I think a screen hugely interferes with the ability to communicate accurately from one person to another. If a fundamental function of the church is fellowship, and fellowship includes communication, then this is a problem of the virtual church. Text communication is devoid of emotion, inflection, body language, and engages only one small aspect of communication and can be very confusing and misleading. Text communication is very easily misunderstood. Although we may also communicate over technology using audio or visual capabilities, expressing our true emotions or feelings is much harder when you do not have to be physically present with another person. It is also much easier to disguise your emotions and feelings when you can shut off communication instantly and disconnect from "company" in a moment. The virtual church keeps us from being completely open emotionally with one another and fellowshipping can become shallow and fake. Side: Virtual Church (against)
In the virtual church you can logo out or walk away whenever you want while as in real life it is less likely that you are going to just get up and leave church. Being ''forced'' to go through the discomfort of being with people and hearing things you don't want to hear is a learning process and will help you to learn how to handle difficult situations that you don't want to. A real life Christian community is where you learn to grow and mature as a Christian. Side: Virtual Church (against)
A big problem with the virtual church is getting out in the community and being a light for Christ. As a virtual church people probably don't live anywhere near each other which makes it difficult to get together and being a light together. Reaching out to different types of people like the poor or homeless will be difficult because they probably don't have access to the virtual church. Side: Virtual Church (against)
|
