Digital Nazarene

A Nazarene Wrestling with Digitally Expressing the Great Commission

Tag: discipleship

  • Are THEY Worthy?

    As we discuss church, discipleship, gatherings, small groups, etcetera, and—in particular—the validity (or supposed lack thereof) of digital gatherings in comparison to physical ones…perhaps we ought to ask…are THEY worthy?

    It’s a provocative question. Who is the “they”? Are they gamers, unchurched, unbelievers, wounded, hurt, ashamed, insulted, assaulted? Are they “worthy”?

    Are they worthy of “our” time?

    Are they worthy of “our” resources?

    Are they worthy of us setting aside our preferences (and, for the sake of argument, the “better” physical gathering)?

    The “our” time and resources, from a Christian point of view, are not ours. Supposedly, We are to view them as God’s. In particular, we are to view them as Christ’s. We are to view them as belonging to our Savior.

    So, let’s rephrase these questions with that ownership in mind.

    Turning the Questions

    Are they worthy of Jesus’ time?

    Are they worthy of Jesus’ resources?

    Now, when we talk about sending missionaries to foreign countries—especially from “the US is the best country” and a “Christian” country perspective—we say, “absolutely” (not saying that this perspective is correct, especially the US part). Setting aside the messianic complex that seems to often go along with that, it’s good to send missionaries. We have no problem spending hundreds of thousands (and even millions or billions) of dollars to reach “those” people in other countries.

    Yet, US church language, by and large, seems to have a completely different perspective when it comes to those that reside in the US. Church language says, they need to come inside our walls.

    More Than Evangelism

    This is not to say all are saying such. Some are utilizing evangelism and missionary language to separate digital from physical. That, at least, is some freedom to reach out digitally and to have community digitally. Yet, even this freedom still implies lesser than status.

    They will be “real” Christians by their lives, whether physical or digital.

    Physical gatherings are not a moral decision, they are a modal decision. They are a preference.

    Truly, though, diminishing digital to be acceptable only in regard to evangelism is to deny both the power of digital and the reality of digital.

    When we morally elevate those who physically show up at a church service or event, we diminish the value of those who don’t. That’s a slippery slope.

    Bytes are Hard

    My limited perspective is that because digital is so foreign to the church, in particular, and also all the leaders of the church who grew up without digital, it’s hard to go digital. That I completely understand.

    Church communities are still sending out missionaries, for short-, medium-, and long-term missions. They’ll send them to foreign countries. They’ll send them to places that are outright dangerous to be a Christian. They won’t send them to Facebook, YouTube, Discord, VRChat, and so forth.

    Why? I wonder. My gut says, because they supposedly will never darken the door of a particular physical church. So, why bother? Then again, who is doing the sending, the church or Jesus?

  • 167 Hours Remain

    167 Hours Remain

    If I’m talking for an hour a week, and they’re feeding their souls with something else 15 hours a week,” Bezner said, “I simply can’t win.”

    A pastor’s life depends on a coronavirus vaccine. Now he faces skeptics in his church. Sarah Pulliam Bailey, Washington Post. Dec. 11, 2020 (web)

    One of the reality checks that “the church” received during the COVID-19 restrictions is that the “teaching” done on Sundays isn’t enough. There has long been an assumption that people show up, so they must be being spiritually trained and discipled.

    The Small Group movement had some recognition that this wasn’t actually true. However, many churches used small groups more as an attraction and assimilation rather than inculcation. In other words, always focusing on felt needs and “interest” issues resulted in people untrained and undiscipled.

    There are many folks who talk about “consumer” Christianity. This might well be it. Bezner makes a solid point, and it has come to prominence in certain “church” circles. So, what are we doing for the remaining 167 hours a week (which is way more than Bezner’s 15 hours)?

    In the COVID-19 environment, churches are building out Facebook—and other platform—groups. Churches are posting large amounts of pithy pictures and sayings. A church page may be getting likes, but likes do not equal engagement.

    Engagement is the new “buzzword”. That doesn’t invalidate it. On the contrary, “engagement” has become part of the necessary language due to how social media works (especially, Facebook).

    However, what has been happening is that somehow engagement has become an assumption that people have been discipled. Engagement does not equal discipleship.

    The hardest part about North American and European Christians is that discipleship has a cost, and most do not want to pay it. The cost? Time.

    This may not be a battle the church can win. That sounds depressing. This also may be the truth that sets the church free.

    The church has been running with blinders for too many decades. Even, it seems, its “faithful” are not quite the “faithful” that the Scriptures have in mind. Nickels and noses is no longer adequate (and it really never was). Engagement may be marginally better than nickels and noses.

    Even so, the church and all Christians are called to make disciples.

  • Digital is #IRL

    Digital is #IRL

    Back in January, I had posted a comment on Online + Digital Church Leaders (Facebook ⧉) regarding the language used in the context of physical and digital expressions of church.

    I realized that it might be time to adjust some language. If we really are going to believe that digital community can (and does) happen, then perhaps we ought to drop In Real Life (IRL). We all (I think) believe that the digital expression of church is valid. Therefore we ought to not diminish it by using IRL, as it implies that online isn’t real. I understand that this is a cultural thing. However, as we train our leaders and churches about digital church, we shouldn’t even inadvertently reinforce the bias against digital expressions.

    If you are not familiar with it is the abbreviation for “in real life”. It is used in online and SMS messaging to indicate that something is happening outside of the digital realm. The problem is, especially when considering online church and discipleship, is this constant comparison of digital to “real”. We all do understand some of the “false” digital life pieces, much of which revolves around games. Yet, at the same time, we understand just how real the digital is with concerns about “flame-wars” and cyber-bullying. There is a constant tug between the “unreal” part of digital life and the “real” part.

    My role as Online Campus Paster at Generations Community Church has forced a lot of this to the fore in my mind and heart. I’m not much of a gamer…okay, I’m not a gamer at all. Like many, the extent of my “gaming” are those mobile games. My interest wanes pretty quickly, as I am just not willing to invest that much time into any of it. Many people view games as fake or false, and thus “not real.” It’s then easy to put any such digital “thing” in the “not real” category.

    Part, maybe even most, of it is this concept/perception that if the flesh can’t be touched, then it is not “real”. There is this idea back from the old days of the internet, that everyone behind a screen is just a persona. That just isn’t true. Is there some of that? Absolutely! There is just as much of that in the world of “touching flesh”. In fact, there might even be more. What if the digital does a better job of separating our personas from our true and deep selves?

    Someone (I’ll give credit if I can figure out who) recently noted that the Roman Catholic church has had a practice of anonymity when it comes to confession. There was no question as to the integrity of what was confessed, though the confessor’s integrity in pursuing confession could be different. Yet, somehow we have this mindset that everything else must be “in the flesh” to be real.

  • Counting Online Worshippers

    Counting Online Worshippers

    In February 2019, the general SDMI (Sunday School and Discipleship Ministries International) board sent out a directive for counting online worshipers.

    The criteria for online attendance should address these items: personal identification, minimum duration, opportunity for participation, follow-up from host congregation.

    Churches may include in their regular worship attendance the number of confirmed devices or individuals who have:

    1. remained connected during at least 50% or 30 minutes of the streamed gathering or recorded content
    2. engaged the broadcasting church by:
      • Online registration or identification
      • Provided an opportunity for personal participation or communication (Chat rooms, submission of prayer requests, etc.)
    3. received weekly personal contact/follow-up by a designated individual from the hosting congregation

    Church should indicate on-campus and on-line attendance separately when reporting monthly worship attendance.

    Churches should take care to actively engage online participants in the same manner they do those present at their physical gatherings. Intentional efforts should be made to enter them into discipleship processes and, where possible, move them from the digital gathering to the physical gathering of the local congregation.

    Based on observed (and sometimes confessed) behavior, I wonder what would happen were we to apply the same requirements of those who visited physically.

    Let’s take item 1 regarding remaining connected. How many people are really and truly connected at our physical services? I have spoken to many who are flat-out are disengaged during the singing of worship songs. I have known others who have calculated the average amount of singing and will show up at the service at that average time, trying to minimize (or eliminated) any presence during the singing. Yes, these can be exceptions, however, with what we know about attention spans, it really shouldn’t be that much of a surprise that people aren’t engaged for the full service when physically present at them.

    Item 2 is actually quite interesting. In my short experience, by this measure, most people seem to be “engaged” (again, as defined by item 2). This item is different insofar as being an “opportunity” not necessarily an action. As for saying “I’m here”, that is one of the beauties of online, is that the church’s capability to “prove” attendance is actually part of many platforms. However, connection cards—whether digital or physical—are really only somewhat successful.

    It is, though, really Item 3 that is the most significant. This item would fall under the area called life groups (or discipleship groups or small groups or…). Most churches, that I am aware of, know that this particular subsection of the church is vital to both the health of the larger congregation, the church as a whole, and the growth of individuals toward a fuller expression of Jesus Christ.

    This is probably part of the Church of the Nazarene’s Wesleyan heritage that creates a focus on this. However, it’s this heritage that also, sadly, displays the shortcomings of the current Western church culture at large. The “official” metric for Sunday School (the Church of the Nazarene term for all things not Sunday service) would be quite interesting were we only able to include those that attended both a Sunday Service and a life group of some sort. Many church’s official attendance would be significantly reduced.

    Now, to be honest, that may not be a bad thing. Imagine if the reported metric was attendance and it only counted for those who did both? How would the church (digital or physical) change its behavior? That is an interesting thought experiment itself.