As a web developer for the last few years, I think I have a good understanding of the factors to consider when implementing a new Internet-facing system. No matter whether it’s a simple website, an interactive web app, or a full-on SaaS-type thing, you have to understand those who will be using it before you ever do any coding. You’re solving their problems, after all – it’s gotta work for them, not you.
Jake Johnson put out the 3rd chapter in his “In Defense of Physical Community” blog series (here) today, and I think he gets it right. He points out that Internet access, an obviously vital part of interacting with a virtual church, is not ubiquitous and those most likely to have it aren’t those we the Church need badly to reach. Our mission leans heavily towards the sick, destitute, and hurting; many of these are not the ones our virtual churches are going to cater to. We’ve essentially gone from trying to find a solution to the problem of being more missional, to creating a solution to a problem we don’t really have. Jake cites some statistics I’ve heard before, asserting that the poor, elderly, those in rural areas and minorities, are the ones most commonly without any sort of Internet access. Seems a little hypocritical, really, that one of the key elements of “tomorrow’s church” is a church that a whole lot of people can’t even access…
I know that there’s some argument to the point that a virtual church might cater to those who won’t do the brick-and-mortar church, so evangelism does happen. Or that a virtual community that supports each other online can be an effective force for change in the world offline. But I get this feeling that those of us who spend inordinate amounts of time on the Internet like this idea for ourselves, not so much as a tool for the service of the Lord. We need to worry about those at the soup kitchen, not Starbucks.