Back in January, 2022, Outreach Magazine offered "12 Trends That Will Shape the Church in 2022." It began with "The hybrid-church model is the new normal in the midst of the pandemic, but what else will this year bring?" The "hybrid-church model is the new normal," eh? They predicted "the demise of the old model of church." Is that the case? Maybe. As we head toward the end of 2022, it sure looks that way. Maybe.
The article talked about the fall of attendance and membership and the natural conclusion is that the church is in crisis and needs a renovation. I would suggest that's not quite accurate. You see, "the church" isn't that corner building you attend (or wherever it may be). "The church" is the people of God ... everywhere. And the people of God have specific characteristics. First and foremost, according to Jesus, they are marked by a special love for one another (John 13:34-35). That special love is more than "as you love yourself." It is "as I have loved you" -- deep and sacrificial love. So church -- genuine church -- is marked by God's people loving God's people. Not possible in a digital church. (Remember, the new "hybrid-church model" arose for the purpose of isolation in a pandemic.) The author of Hebrews said, "Let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near" (Heb 10:24-25). "Assembling together" by being in your own house is not assembling together. Genuine Christians loving other Christians will assemble together to stimulate one another to love and good deeds. Not possible in a digital church. Real Christians in real fellowship with other Christians are necessarily "hands on" and not "remote." It doesn't fit the biblical model.
For a long time American Christians have been conditioned to "attend church." They show up, sing some songs, hear a sermon, and go home. For a long time it has been said that 20% of the people do 80% of the work in church. But if genuine Christians are identified by their love for fellow believers, that would suggest that 20% of those attending church are the genuine believers and the rest ...? I'm not making the claim; I'm offering the speculation. But as people leave the "assembling for fellowship" in this new "hybrid church," it sounds a lot like, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19). And if that is the case, the church isn't shrinking. It is being purified. And if that is so, 1) it's a good thing and 2) it remains to be seen just what that purification is for. Knowing God, we can be sure it will be a good thing. What we can be sure of is that the church is not in crisis because, as we all know, Jesus said, "I will build My church." He doesn't care about our gimmicks or techniques. And if the church fails, it only means Jesus lied. He can't lie. It won't happen.
8 comments:
I imagine the hybrid model is only popular in liberal and mainline churches. My church today was almost standing room only.
Well, that speaks well of your church. Mine was quite busy today, too. But, believe me, it's not just liberal or mainline churches. I'd say any really big churches have had a "remote" operation from long before COVID.
While I agree with your larger point, that we should engage in corporate worship and community in person, I'm not sure I'm willing to go as far as you seem to. There have always been people who are unable to physically attend church services in person, for numerous reasons. I would suggest that anything that can be done to facilitate bringing those people into worship in a significant way is an a good thing. I agree that we need to be encouraging people to come back in person, and our church is seeing weekly increases in people coming back. Yet, I'm not sure that cutting off those who can't attend from being able to worship online is a healthy response. I think back to my grandmother who was unable to physically attend church services, but who was able to watch on TV and did so every week.
I do think that a 100% virtual "church", where there is zero opportunity for actual gathering could be problematic, but I don't see how adding the ability for those who can't come in person is a problem.
I'm sure there are those who will abuse this and continue to attend online because they are too lazy or unengaged to get out of their house, but I'm not sure that is the fault of the church for offering an online option.
I'm always cautious about making the rare the rule. Same thing with, say, having children. Yes, there are exceptions, but I would argue that marriage is designed on the whole to include procreation. Scripture speaks of church as building up the body, of God's people using God's gifts for God's purposes, of fellowship, of loving the brethren. I'm not sure how we make exemptions for most, let alone a few. So there are those who can't bear children in marriage and there are those who can't attend a church service, and we'll agree those are exceptions that need to be addressed and, yes, ministered to. I just think that we've been "going to church" for so long without doing most of that. We "attend church" rather than minister, serve ... love. So I am likely overstating a situation because so few seem to see it. And I don't think an online service is what is needed in the case of those who can't attend. I think ministry is needed -- personal visitation, participation, involvement from believers with those who can't be there. We aren't called to "go to church"; we're called to be the church.
Stan,
I'm not suggesting that we make rare the rule, I'm suggesting that providing the best possible option for some people isn't a bad thing. I'm suggesting that churches that have an optional alternative aren't necessarily wrong to do so.
As I said, I agree with your bigger point. I firmly believe that we are created for community, and that community requires some level of in person connection. I firmly believe that worshiping together, in person, on a regular basis is the norm. Yet I also believe that we owe it to those who can't be there in person, a way to engage with the body to the extent that they are able. I agree that churches who provide remote options should be intentional in engaging with those who use that option in different ways.
It seems like you are assuming that "hybrid" is prioritizing remote over in person, or that "hybrid" means encouraging remote.
Finally, I think that you are placing responsibility on the church, for the actions of individuals. The existence of a remote option isn't what's responsible for someone who's too lazy to get out of the house and go to a service.
I guess I'd say that I don't have a problem with churches choosing to offer options, while focusing on the in person. Or that churches should be focusing on equipping believers who look forward to gathering to worship.
Ultimately I agree that there are problems with believers who choose the ease of remote worship over in person. I agree that there are problems in churches across the country. I'm not sure that offering a remote option, is the biggest one.
My concern is not that people will go to hell if they're not sitting in church on Sunday. My concern is that too many of us have been immunized to the entire concept of biblical church, the gathering of the called for the building up of believers to being ministers. When I hear people say, "Oh, they switched this other church that is bigger so they won't be asked to do anything," I think there is a major disconnect. This latest "hybrid" as the new norm is only possible because of that disconnect.
I agree with your concern, and I agree that maybe the term hybrid isn't the best. I'm suggesting that we not leave people behind when we have the ability not to.
I guess I see the problem as bigger, in that large chunks of The Church are moving to a consumer model, and that people are much more interested in style over substance. But I'm not sure that offering a remote option is the biggest problem we have. At worst, I'd argue that the abuse of remote worship is a symptom.
Having become a citizen of a new state the end of last April, and having found employment requiring my attendance on Sundays, we've yet to find a Christian home with Saturday services as we had back home. To be perfectly honest, our search hasn't been constant by any stretch of the imagination, and the fetching Mrs. Art and I are cognizant of the potential. And though we don't pray out loud together, we are nonetheless keen on living a Christian life. The plan prior to Trump-haters rejecting Trump for stupidity and depravity was that I would be retired, leaving my Sundays wide open to sample as many of the seemingly billions of Christian churches located almost side-by-side along most every road in these here southern environs. Likely to be dead by the time we find the right place, I pine for the opportunity. We worry that we are drifting from the notion and it certainly is no longer habit. But now and again we at least investigate on line for the Saturday services, and thus far the few we've found are suspect. We really miss the church we attended with which we never actually became official members, knowing our time in Illinois was growing short.
Post a Comment