You point on “is there much difference between the person in the back row who raises their hand to the invitation and leaves without connecting, and the person with a username of KewlDude3?” is VERY well taken. Yes, anonymity is easily achieved in any large context, which is why church is best done in smaller groups. The internet is a VERY big group.

As to the whole clergy/laity, “first among equals” point – there is SO much I could say and I don’t want to hijack your blog . The short version is: 1) there is a difference between recognizing the gifts and experience of individuals in a community and creating hierarchy – I can recognize that someone knows more than me without putting them into a different category than me. 2) I have experienced a church community where there were no titles or formal roles and yet there was no doubt in anyone’s mind who to ask when some doctrinal question came up. There were spiritually mature people who we all trusted to make sure things stayed on track, and yet those people didn’t “lead” in the sense that most people mean it and often didn’t contribute much – unless things got out of order or someone said something which was doctrinally in error. Otherwise they let us learn to use our gifts and encouraged us as we did so. There was no sense of clergy/laity, leader/follower, pastor/congregation; but without any formal declaration we all know who the “elders” were – they just weren’t the focus of our gatherings.

As for the simple and organic church movement, I see great value in it. We both agree that some are put off by the more “traditional” venue for church, which is just fine. Just as the simple and organic church movements appeal to the needs of some, I feel the digital church fills a similar niche. (I can’t talk down to the house/cell church movement either, since that’s what it looked like in Jerusalem in the first century!)

You pointed out a good thing as far as confession goes. Confession behind a mask is not confession at all. Perhaps the best way to explain this is the phenomena that “only in Christian groups do we shoot our wounded.” I have seen many who are devastated in physical churches when a sin of theirs becomes public. While I know that not all churches are like this, far too many are. In the context of online church, I have seen confessions made that made the community grow together stronger. As for anonymity, is there much difference between the person in the back row who raises their hand to the invitation and leaves without connecting, and the person with a username of “KewlDude3” doing the same? Both physical and digital churches are challenged with integration in that regard; just a different perspective of it.

While I would love to see the division of clergy and laity dissolving, I cannot honestly believe that will never happen. Even in the church of Acts, we see the “first among equals” leadership model develop. Peter was the first among the disciples, and the disciples were the first among the many other groups comprising the church. Even in secular settings, you will always see leaders rise up from a group, and others who simply prefer to be hands and feet, it is just a part of social psychology.

Now, let me flip that idea one more way. In order to achieve a homogenous group of clergy/laity, the group would have to be relatively close to each other in terms of spiritual maturity. As long as no one in the group grows beyond the others (or backslides), then the group could, in theory, become homogenous. If that were the case, then the evangelistic requirement of the group would dissolve, because no one of a lesser spiritual maturity would be admissible without disrupting the homogenous state of the group. This may be a decidedly over-simplified theory, but it crystalizes the inherent problems faced with that ideal.

I also agree with you that the Spirit will bring people to a community that can best minister to them. This is where I see the physical church in partnership with the digital church as being brothers and sisters in the Kingdom, ministering to each as each has need. The strongest underscoring of my theology of digital church can be summed up in that statement; I see no need for one to find a way to exist without the other!

As I have said before, I would *love* to see a vibrant, effective expression of God’s Church in cyberspace. While I am also skeptical that telepresence is sufficient for a full expression of The Body; I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong and am happy to support anyone trying this.

In response to this post, I should start by saying that while God continues to ask me to serve Him in the context of institutional churches; I am a strong believer in the Simple/Organic church movement. So here are my comments on your points from that POV:

You say: “Some are uncomfortable stepping in a physical … church” – this is central to what Simple/Organic church is about. People will come to a gathering in a coffee shop or someone’s home that would never be willing to show up at a “church building”. *IF* telepresence can provide the full experience of the church online, then clearly there is value there.

You say: “Some people enjoying being able to share dark pasts online that minister to others because they do not fear the judgment they might receive …” Is confession from behind a mask still confession? I agree that people like the relative anonymity of the web; but is that a good thing? To me a hallmark of “real” church (regardless of physical or virtual context) is openness and transparency. I have seen people affected by Christians who did not try to hide their faults while recognizing that they *are* faults. Will an online community be as effective at that behind the cloak of usernames and URLs? Or does it cheapen true honesty if “no one knows you’re a dog.”

You say: “Some enjoy having the opportunity to be fed in the services when they pour out themselves each week in their physical … church.” This is another focal point of the Simple/Organic church movement – getting rid of the clergy/laity divide so you don’t have a small number of people doing most of the work when you meet and therefore needing to be fed elsewhere. A key for me in any virtualization of the church is the degree to which it encourages and enables everyone to contribute according to their gifts ( 1 Cor 14:26-33) while keeping things done decently and in order and guarding against false doctrine. If a virtual church simply reproduces the pastor/sermon centric model of most physical churches, it has no value to me. One challenge in this regard for the web is that it is even easier to hide – to gain the benefit of the community without contributing and therefore without experiencing the growth that comes from contributing. Not sure how to address that.

You say: “Some have the need for additional learning and growing opportunities not available to them …” The Simple/Organic church movement puts its trust in the Holy Spirit to bring into a community what each people needs, both in terms of services and opportunities to serve. I think that would apply just as well in a virtualized community vs. a physical one.

I would add that this is true not just of technology but of science in general. Too many in the church these days run around with their ears plugged shouting “Na, na, na, na na! I can’t hear you” when it comes to science – afraid that it challenges their beliefs. Now there are places where it isn’t clear how scientific evidence fit together with Biblical truth; but the answer is not to run away; but to use the minds God has given us to look deeper – both into the science (are there other explanations of the evidence?) and our beliefs (am I interpreting the Bible correctly?). And, perhaps most important, until the pieces fit together, be willing to live with “I don’t know”.

On a Sidenote, you should check out the preview video for “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy” by Thomas Nelson. The video is very engaging. I haven’t finished it yet, but it’s a good read too if you like Bonhoeffer.

I’ll let you know.

@Oscar: So glad you chimed in my brother! I’ve always admired your honesty and love for God! I can agree with you that men’s groups should not be about teaching or programming men on how to act and feel. Like Steve pointed out earlier, you can’t force men into something and expect anything special to occur. Another great point you made is how a men’s group should not be a place to self-promote how holy you are. Genuine honesty and transparency cannot happen when everyone is trying to one-up each other’s holiness!
For the group you’re part of now, I’ll be greatly interested in knowing how it goes! I like the mix of fun and study you talked about. A men’s group should is not a college class, and shouldn’t act like one! When I was teaching regularly at Twivotions, we had fun times mixed in with study times, and it really improved the overall satisfaction of everyone! Thanks for your input, miss you man!

@Leo: Compartmentalization isn’t just something men do! I think this has become a part of our post-modern culture entirely. So perhaps the question should be “how do we force our lives to come out of the box?” As for rolling your eyes, been there and done that for sure!
Let me push back on you about the stuff you pointed out.
1. How do we add value to a men’s group? We could give a sexy mission and vision statement, but that won’t do much. How do we add perceived value then?
2. What is the best way to straddle the gap between large and small gatherings or men? Since we’re an online bunch, what does that look like?
3. How can we tap into a God-sized vision here? You seem excited, and so do your buds you talked to. How can we get a group of men to storm the gates of Hell with squirt guns online?

@Steve: Ug, do we have to talk about male bonding? Can’t we all grow up and stop being yuppies? I’ll argue that male bonding is a good thing, but that is something that will happen naturally, there is no need to force it!

@Christine: You belted that one out of the park! Didn’t Jesus tell us that we have to be redeemed with God before we can be redeemed with man?
I’ve seen how successful the Bible Café has become, and I love it! Seeing Shannon grow through participating in those groups has been my inspiration to want to see the same thing for men.

A womans bible study is structured with 5 days a week reading and praying through scripture, about 45 min a day. Once a week the women meet for small group discussion with other women, for about 2 hours. The perception is we are a chatty group of females; the reality is we are alone with Abba and enjoying time in His presence. The same result is achieved with devotions, journaling, prayer and time with God…however they do not always inject the Word of God into your life. Just like a daily cup of coffee, we need a daily cup of God’s word flowing through our hearts. Bible study provides this nourishment.