The hottest behind-the-scenes battle in the church today: Online Church

“Online church is a great supplement, but should never be a substitute.”

Last month, a preacher with a blue checkmark next to his social media profile name made this sweeping statement on his social media account.

“Church on the sofa will never be the same as church in the sanctuary,” he wrote.

His post triggered a lot of support from a bevy of well-churched followers—which is music to the ears of the growing group of ministers who have been specifically preaching damnation to their stay-at-home congregants.

Should that surprise us? Probably not.

[drumroll]

People aren’t returning to church.

In 2020, COVID-19 lit the fuse of a problem that the USAmerican church has been facing for decades: decline. A handful of congregations have bucked the trend and experienced growth over the years, but this has been mostly “transfer growth” as people move from one congregation to another, helping one congregation but hurting another. So the larger churches get larger; the smaller churches get smaller.

A few key things happened during quarantine:

• Previously sporadic attenders finally fully made the move to unchurched status.

• Regular churchgoers realized what the rest of the world already knew: staying home on Sunday mornings is quite nice.

• For those committed and faithful attenders, “online church” allowed many families to worship and learn together without missing a beat.

It should come as little surprise, though, that church leaders found these trends to be problematic.

Pastors rate—and are rated—by attendance numbers. Brick-and-mortar facilities, staff salaries, and program-heavy expectations require a great deal of funding to maintain.

Most churches budget margins are razor thin, and due to decade-over-decade decline have been in contraction for years.

When churches reopened to 15-25% previous attendance numbers, worry began to set in. When numbers months after reopening still weren’t close to pre-COVID attendance and giving, pastors began to focus on the “online tools” (the ones that saved the church community during quarantine, such as live worship feeds, and Zoom) as the church’s greatest existential threat.

Rather than rethink their budgets or philosophy of ministry in light of a post-pandemic world, pastors did what pastors have tended to do for far too long: double-down on the past in an attempt to return to the “glory days.”.

Ministers like Blue Checkmark Preacher began to take action, cementing in their mind and then preaching with their mouth an anti-online church mindset.

”You can’t be a Christian and stay at home” type rhetoric began to flood pulpits and people’s feeds as the holy war began. It was a crusade to fill the pews again.

… and the offering plates, of course.

CHURCH PROPAGANDA TIP #145: Say something is unbiblical (like online church gatherings), even if it probably isn’t, so people will stop it because, well, we don’t like it. We are pretty sure God agrees with us, and if not, 🤷🏻‍♂️.

BATTLE LINE #1:
The biblical concept of “church”

At one point, someone challenged Blue Checkmark Preacher by saying “Church isn’t about a building, and we the people are the church. And for some people online is all they have or all they can do. This kind of post is really disheartening 😔”

To which he responded:

“The word church literally means “called out people”. Plural. If you are able to, but have no desire to gather with other believers… You are not operating as the church. There’s no concept in the Bible where are you are the church and alone at the same time.”

Actually, he’s wrong here.

Really wrong.

Let’s do him a favor and set aside the obvious hole in his argument, such as shut-ins, POWs, the physically handicapped, those with communicable diseases, those in the outback, the hills, or the Arctic… you know, people who cannot (or should not) be in community. This alone should make him realize that his foundational theological belief as to the definition of “church” is wrong.

But wait, there’s more.

In the New Testament, the Greek word that is translated as “church” is “ekklesia.” It is from the root “Ek” (out) + “Kalein” (to call), or literally “the called out.” The word “people” doesn’t make an appearance, FYI.

Ekklesia isn’t even a religious word!

The word ekklesia was in use loooong before Jesus or Paul was born. The early church co-opted a word that was often used toe describe individuals and groups of people of a city/region, political assemblies, and a whole lot more… people who were “called out” as a smaller group or to do something different.

Ekklesia is actually a rather bland, dull, and colorless word. It’s neutral by nature. It has lots of fingerprints on it with a lot of different nuances and usages.

It’s almost as though the Bible intentionally chooses a word that is as nebulous and obtuse in its application as possible. 😉 I mean, almost any group, gathering, or even the lack thereof (because the word is used to mean the people of the group and not the actual gathering of the group). And in nearly every single biblical usage, ekklesia is used to mean ALL Christians of ALL places, not just a specific congregation (or gathering) of Christians.

Let me repeat. I’ll even put it in bold and make an arrow to be sure you don’t miss it: ➡️ The ancient usage of the word ekklesia does not require that the “called out” group must be physically together to be an ekklesia.

So, to imply that “church in a sanctuary” and flesh-and-blood gatherings are the only way we can fulfill the definition of “church” is just flat out wrong.

I understand that we desire people to be in community, but there are more biblical and authentic ways to to encourage that than guilt based on errant theology.

Not to mention, the burden of proof that “online community is a less effective execution of community” is on those who have the issue with online, not the other way around. Many, many people have found deeper and more authentic relationships online than they have in person.

I honestly think that Blue Checkmark Preacher knew that his position was weak, but I also think that he wasn’t counting on being challenged. People who preach congregational catnip (what their constituency wants to hear) are rarely challenged.

But when pressed about the weak biblical standing for his position, he shot back:

BATTLE LINE #2: The shade thrown in Hebrews 10:25

Blue Checkmark Preacher had Hebrews 10:25 in his back pocket all along, just waiting to carpet bomb the conversation with it. He meant it as a #micdrop moment, but what it showed was that he wasn’t really interested in truth, just peddling guilt and shame for those who stay home to watch church online.

People living in fear rarely are rarely interested in truth.

USAmerican Evangelical pastors are living in fear.

Hebrews 10:25 has become the weapon of choice for the anti-online church contingent. There, the biblical author says:

“And let us not neglect our meeting together, as some people do, but encourage one another, especially now that the day of his return is drawing near” [NLT]

This verse has been used for a long time to coerce, cajole, and strong arm people into sitting in pews with greater regularity. We call this “eisegesis,” when we make a passage say what we want it to say, because we need it to say something, rather than simply accept what it actually says whether we like it or not.

First, the “let us not neglect/forsake” portion of the verse is NOT written as a command in Greek (it is not written in the imperative tense). We are not commanded to meet together. So Blue Checkmark Preacher is correct: IT IS A SUGGESTION!

But, there is an imperative command in the passage, the “encourage one another” portion. We are not commanded to assemble in corporate worship, but we are commanded to love each other. So the verse is telling us to stay in fellowship/contact with other believers (but it isn’t limiting how that can happen, FYI).

Second, the Greek word used in Hebrews 10:25 for “meeting/assembly” is NOT ekklesia (church). The word is a form of synagogue (which is the Jewish religious gathering place). It could literally mean here, “in addition to the synagogue.” Church history and other scriptures confirm that many Christians continued to go to their local synagogue. Synagogue on Friday; ekklesia on Sunday. This means that the author of Hebrews is likely encouraging those Christians attending both religious gatherings to not discontinue their fellowship, meetings, and encouragement with other Christians in favor of the synagogue, i.e. don’t defect.

This verse is about an issue concerning synagogue attendance (especially true in light of the theme of Hebrews itself), and thus, is about encouraging the early believers to not avoid gatherings of each other in favor of the synagogue. It does not mean to be a proof text on “get your butt in church, in person, or be out of God’s will.” To suggest that this is the point of the passage is a bridge-too-far.

And, can we just admit that there were no “church buildings” for, like, 350 years after this was written?

The New Testament knows nothing of church buildings. Nobricks-and-mortar, no stained glass, no pulpits or pews, no platform, none of it.

The ekklesia met anywhere, everywhere, and nowhere… depending on the time period, the locale, and the level of persecution.

The church was NEVER a place.

The church was ALWAYS a people.

When they did meet, it was usually in homes and almost always around tables with food. There was no break for Eucharist. The entire experience of the meal was communion.

Pastors and parishioners who push the building-as-the-sole-gathering-place for worship and community are not only doing a disservice to the Body, but are out of line with scripture… and, maybe just plain out of line.

“Online Church” is as biblically-acceptable as “the church on the street corner.”