With the rise of social interactive tools (like branch) what would a church look like if it were without a local meeting place?

How would this effect community?

What are some other tools that could be used?

Do you feel like this is where the church is headed?

I've been a part of web forums where people across the country developed relationships based on shared experiences or interests. Casual members would check in from time to time and a core would visit and contribute daily.

Deeper relationships would come via off topic conversation. A culture would develop including running topics, inside jokes, historic forum events, etc. Meetups happened when someone was traveling to another's area and suggested a get-together.

When you talk about a church without a building, that's what comes to mind. Not a place where people come to research or be preached to electronically, but a place to find other people like themselves, to relate to and share life with.

Kulka I really love this idea. Here is a link to a reddit where this same conversation is beginning. I would love your help to continue and cultivate this conversation. redd.it

I agree with Kulka. I think church without a building would be more conversational as opposed to being preached at electronically. However, overtime I do feel that particular members would become established within that web community and will naturally become leaders/coordinators that drive topics of discussion.

I've always thought that churches are missing out on a lot of Internet conversation by duplicating what happens at their church locally and putting it online. The alternative would be to create content exclusively for viewers that view it online, and its purpose is to cultivate conversation. I don't think this would come across preaching at people electronically.

I agree with Jerome, someone needs to set the expectation of discussion topics. I hope those people would naturally rise to that position rather than appointing themselves.

As a recovered Atheist, one thing seems clear to me. It'll be a rare bird who's interested in redeeming their soul via a web site. If there's a religious focus to a web church, it would be most effective by helping the already-redeemed build the best life possible based on their religious tenets. (And thus be a role model for those around them who need the message.)

In that light, providing content exclusively for the online members makes sense -- both in opportunity for learning and to spark discussion.

I like the theory of a church on the web, but I feel that it seems like it would just be a place of conversation like any other. I know that sounds a bit harsh, but let me explain what I mean a little further.

If you are considering this a "church" based on the community and not on the preaching part, I feel that the point of a church per-say is to have the social interaction in person. A website can be a good tool in conjunction with a church to help assist in the facilitation of additional conversation or the organization for other ideas or events, but I'm not sure if it can be done standalone.

On the other hand, a web-based only church in terms of the religion side has a potential to be successful with the way our society is moving to.

For reasons given, exclusive content seems a good idea.

Take this Branch discussion or a Vimeo video. I say Vimeo rather than YouTube because the community there generally are interested in the technical construction as well as the video itself. Ultimately one wants to better themselves and gain knowledge by engaging in the discussion about the given subject/media. (Like we're doing now.)

Generally speaking if people are interested in something then people will interact both offline/online with content on the Internet. That may be sharing or talking about it with friends or to engage with audience via comment section.

Have u shared this branch?

Lastly, with regards to Nick Weasel Fryment not everyone is confident to speak out in person.

Weasel, I agree that human interaction is the most important part of my church experience.

But just for this conversation, set common wisdom aside. Consider this a mental exercise. Use your imagination to explore 'What would a church look like IF it were without a local meeting place?'

I'm going to preface the following by saying that I am not religious. I have nothing against those who are, however I have never had a church experience in my life because of this, so I apologize if I sound arrogant or unknowledgeable.

There are certain aspects of a church which I could see that would work in an online environment, but others I don't see would have the same effect as if you were in person. If I were to see a church-like setting online, I would assume it would seem nothing more than another online community, which exist in many places already, so the question is how you make YOUR online church or community stand out, especially if it isn't localized to one area but rather meant for the world. Those are the factors I see.

One thing I want to make sure of is to NOT build another "come and see" church, wether on the internet or in a building. I would think this could be easier to accomplish online by interacting with already existing platforms and tools. Youtube, reddit, vimeo, branch, twitter, facebook. I agree with Weasel in that some aspects of church could work well, and much like Jerome said, if these aspects are executed correctly than the face-to-face relationships are a natural response to the movement that is happening online. (We might even be able to help local organizers by providing tools and resources e.g. meetup.com) This, to me, is a pretty close description of the New Testament Church. Here are a couple of ideas:

I have the domain name WebChurch.tv. Here are two concepts I've come up so far.

WebChurch.tv would be nothing more than a landing page that would direct visitors to the areas of the internet that we are involved. With this concept, I would probably utilize YouTube as our primary content delivery stream. Very short, weekly videos that speak on a particular topic and then end with a call to continue the conversation with us on all the social mediums we are using. This could be a pretty cool way of doing it, if done correctly. It's still very raw and undeveloped but here is something I designed for that concept. It's all filler text and videos and stuff, but you get the point. webchurch.tv/dev

The second idea is similar to the first in that it's simply a landing site for what we are doing on the web. This approach would be more experimental and not as set to one style. (like youtube) We would work together to launch random experiments across the web that would inspire faith, hope and love. We would followup with these experiments by structuring them in a way we could join the conversation. Here is a design I came up with for this future site. AGAIN UNFINISHED and the content is just filler... webchurch.tv/newsite.

Weasel You don't sound arrogant or unknowledgeable. If anything its a positive that you are not religious as it adds a different perspective to this discussion.
I understand what you mean by some things not having the same affect as in person now and In terms of how to make the online church/community standout globally rather than locally I think its upto the people within to decide on its success.
Nick Fry, those two ideas sound good. I've read many of times the best thing is to launch them as soon as possible and use user (or member) feedback to improve the service.

Wow guys, thanks so much for all of your feedback! Jerome, I really appreciate it, I'll start one day soon.

I've been following this with interest but haven't had time to contribute till now. A key question is whether you really want to do church online or just some aspects of church. If you want to do church online, then you have to decide, what is church? What's the minimal definition of church you have to meet in order to claim to be a church? What functions are needed? I've done some work on this, but for starters, consider: 1) regular gathering, 2) worship of God, 3) Apostles' teaching (learning, obeying) 4) loving support of one another, 5) prayer, and 5) open any believer (I'm not excluding visitors but emphasizing it isn't just for some kinds of people--males, teens, whites, geeks, rich, etc.). This is my most minimal definition. But also

(sorry for the two #5s...can I edit after posting?) A healthy church would in addition have 7) designated leaders/elders/deacons, 8) communion & baptism, 9) discipline/accountability, 10) gifted service of one another, and 11) participation in the progress of the gospel (evangelism, missions, church planting). My definition reflects my theological orientation--yours may differ--but the point is, if you're going to design an online church, I think it helps to think about what is necessary for church & not just another online forum, set of videos, or whatever.

I worry about the whole thing centered on a web site. Then people have to come to you. I think for the most part, they won't.

If you want to be a reach social media, you have to be ubiquitous in that arena. Become a popular hashtag, generates stuff people want on their facebook feed, create youtube videos, show up on reddit, pinterest, tumblr with site appropriate content. And in all of it, include a consistent "brand" that people will recognize from one place to the other.

Once there's a buzz and people are wanting to know more about the brand, that's when your web site will come into play.

Remember, Christ didn't ask people to come visit him. He went out and met the masses in their comfort zones.

I couldn't agree more Kulka. That's why I designed both trial sites with very little info other than quick links to where we are active. A central "Landing Spot" will also help to create that brand! Great feedback!

Mark, thanks for your thoughts too. My real belief in this whole thing stems from my desire to see the church be given back to the people. It may sound a little anarchists, but trust me, I'm not against any way of doing church. I just personally believe that the structure of western church has, in many cases, hindered the way we are forced to interact with each other.

Big production services, attractional methodology, these things are Okay, but it seems to be quite a stretch from the descriptions of the early church.

I am afraid the concept of Internet Church has too many potential meanings. This has been tried in Second Life. There is also a movement called LifeChurch.TV that could be considered pioneers in this field.

To me, the Internet is a world of transition. The Second Life churches may have had followings at one time, but eventually all social media networks get replaced. Remember Myspace? in six years we will be saying that about Facebook.

I agree with Mark Notess about structure. A church is a CHURCH and must be based on Traditions and Truths. A church is not solely meeting place for people. It is so much more. Anyone can feel community online. A church exists to connect people to God and change lives.

Churches can not survive if they are "based" on a system that is destined to be replaced. I would argue as well that the internet as we know it is on its way out. We are heading in a direction that is more physical, not virtual.

People are craving communities, but most online communities are extensions of existing relationships people have in the real world.

Online Churches to me will succeed within the context of a physical church. Life Church is a good example of this. The physical (brick and mortar) church is the backbone of the online.

Can I ask you guys a question? Do you think Starbucks can be replaced online the way Barnes & Noble was by Amazon?

I don't think Nick is talking about replacing the brick and mortar church. I think he's trying to address the fact that social media have become part of modern culture and asking how can the church utilize it to further the message.

I agree a church must be based on truth, but refusing to move from tradition can mire us in old-fashioned ways that don't speak to current culture. Are you holding services in Latin? Do you disregard any version besides the King James? These are traditions that once held value but have changed with the culture so that more people can be ministered to.

Again, the question is not whether this can succeed. The question is, if we tried this, how would we make it succeed?

By the way, the product Starbucks offers has a short life, and so it must operate from a point-of-sale. Amazon thrives on products that can survive a few days during handling and shipping.

The message of the church is not short-lived like a hot cup of coffee. In fact, it has incredible longevity. And being a message, rather than a physical product, it's delivered through communication and relationship. This is exactly where social media excels, and so I think the delivery method is quite valid.

Great Kulka. I would also add that the statement Aaron made,

"...most online communities are extensions of existing relationships people have in the real world."

This is EXACTLY why an online church has to exist, but reversed, we create community online that spawns relationship in the real world. We're NOT looking to create another social platform, rather, seeking the best way to interact with the already existing ones. I would argue that LifeChurch.tv, although AMAZINGLY successful in their field, is NOT really focusing on what we are talking about.

They are (VERY BRILLIANTLY) distributing content created for a local community and structure to the internet. We want to create content for a mobile culture and build local community.

When I reference Starbucks it is because Starbucks does not sell coffee. They sell experience. Their model is based on people having a "third place" Not home, not work, but a third place.

My wife is a Barista for the company. Her customers are more like family. They live there. Many Brick and mortar book stores used to be the same way. People lived there.

Things are changing, but I am having a hard time wrapping my head around relationships being delivered through social media. To me it seems that social media delivers content well, but relationships are one dimensional. Kulka, can you help me here?

Aaron: "...most online communities are extensions of existing relationships people have in the real world." Really? I would put it differently. I think for most people, social media tools augment IRL relationships. But for an increasing minority of people, online relationships (such as we are building here) are very real and significant.

Aaron mentioned lifechurch.tv, and I think they are worth a hard look, to see exactly how much of "church" they are doing online. They make no pretense about completely replacing F2F churches. I think they see the internet as a means of evangelism and church growth. You watch & get converted. You invite your friends to watch with you. You start a group. It turns into a local body, helped by the net.

Myself, I'd discourage people from doing church on the web if there were good F2F alternatives. But for some people, due to health issues, family issues, geographic or cultural isolation, online church is a lifeline, even though it is less than ideal.

This is based on my belief that online has some real limitations. So here's a question: what are the main limitations of online as compared to F2F church? What can online simply not do, or never do as well?

It all boils down to how you define Church. Is it the process or the people? Or is it both? For me, it's the people. The process is secondary. Aaron said it perfectly:

"Social Media doesn't deliver relationships it delivers content",

but even in a brick and mortar church, it's the content that calls us to action.

What can online simply not do, or never do well?
Exist off line.

What if we stopped figuring out how it won't work and start discussing how we are going to make it work? How can we better use the tools we've been given to share the love of Christ with people who may never shadow the doors of a local church?

Will it be different than local church? Yep.
Can we use those differences to our benefit? I think so.

Think about all the people we are counting on not to show up on Sunday at church. Medical workers, restaurant operators, utility crew, grocery workers, gas station attendants - the list goes on an on.

What if serious changes are made to make church more available to people who are not a part of the current church culture lifestyle?

The cultural presence of the church has largely depended on real estate. People have to come "inside" the church to participate in worship, to observe sacraments, to hear Scripture, to "join" the church.

Yet Jesus' strategy was to go to the people (weddings, parties, town wells), not go to the church. Shouldn't the church be a 24/7 presence in the community, wherever that community is found?

Roland, I LOVE it. It's exactly why this has to exist. Further more, most of people are removed from our ways of "doing church" and aren't responding to simply duplicating those ways online. There is a separate culture of communication and relational aspects for people who build their friendships with others who are on the internet. Thus, a true "Web" church would have to understand those cultural differences and present a way of church that fits those needs.

It's very similar to the ways missionary agenda isn't to convert them to the westernized way of church community. A missionary spends their life learning the language and developing mission that fits their targeted people group.

The one problem I am foreseeing (and again, this is coming from someone with little to no religious background) is having to select which denomination the web church is based off of. Now, I understand that everyone, in the end, is praying to a God or in some cases Jesus, however there are different ideas onto how this is done per each denomination.

That being said, there is the option to not offer the teachings and rather offer the community and ideas of hope, peace and prayer in general that a physical church can offer. It doesn't have to be centered around a single ideal and, while it is also possible to offer an open door to ALL denominations, it may cause a potentially hostile environment between extremists. These are just my thoughts!

Roland, I think you nailed it on the head when you said "What if serious changes are made to make church more available to people who are not a part of the current church culture lifestyle?"

This is the present struggle for churches today. The modern Missional movement is based on this premise..

Nick, When you bring up missionary groups it makes me think about the differences between churches and para-church movements like the Navagators, Campus Crusades, YWAM, etc. There needs to be a real distinction on what everyone means by church. Para-church movements can help people hear the gospel, and can provide community, but often lack the equally important aspects of a church like discipline & broader vision.

Many people in groups like this fall away after leaving the group. If a web church is to be more than a para church it there has to be a clear vision of what the church will believe & how it will govern.

@nweasel, I really appreciate your contributions. You could create a community that does not have a set of beliefs. It has been done by groups like the Unitarians, and on a lesser scale the Disciples of Christ. However, without some serious effort to settle on theology the group you describe could not be called a Church.

A church is more than a group of people that like to talk, or hang out. Churches believe that they exist to save lives.

The "denomination" of a web church need not be an issue.
On certain theological issues - identity and structure of God, if any - a web church allows for a multiplicity of "church homes" or channels.

The various denominations, however, have numerous shared spiritual values. It is a spiritualism that reflects a hunger for meaning and connectedness. It is a spiritualism that seeks to unite people of faith and, hopefully, starts with an affirmation of the basic goodness of humanity.

Everything is purposefully connected, and this connectivity itself is a proof of a loving God (or Gods) who wants people to love and serve one another.

A web church (or web churches) can provide that connectedness across "denominations."

Roland, you nailed my thoughts exactly when you said that Jesus went out to the people. That's where I see a web church's usefulness. There are a vast community of people who wouldn't enter a church building's door. Many of these people are open to the message of Christ, they're just turned off by the institution we call "church." So to duplicate the brick and mortar church on the web misses the mission before it even starts.

There IS room for extending traditional church on the web as Aaron suggests, but that only serves those already involved in the church. That's not a bad thing, but I see a bigger need in engaging the online community of non-believers. So that's where my take on this discussion goes.

I really like what has been said about connecting the larger church outside of denominational ties. This falles, however within the paradigm or "para-church" and unfortuatly parachurch movements are not Church. They are larger missional groups that work outside of the local context of the church. I am struggling with helping in the topic because the question is how do we start a web church, but most of the responses are leaning towards a similar but different idea.

The Local Church is the church. There is no other form of church that appears in the bible. All missionary activity that has been successful has been produced and supported by the local church.

I disagree with Kulka that extending the local church only helps the churched. The local church should be reaching out to to lost everywhere, including the web. The Local Church is the point. Every road should point back to it.

A local church can exist with a mandate to engage the way you all re talking. I just want to make sure we are all having the same conversation.

There is a difference between a web church and a web forum and community devoted to communicating the gospel. The church is much more than that.

As Nick says, let's get over the debate of yes or no. Let's consider those people who cannot or would not go into a b&m church. If it helps you, substitute the word para-church or mission. How would you accomplish being a missionary to the social media culture, especially non-believers?

I guess I'd start with what ministers to people in real life. Seeing people in situations through God's eyes. Acting on those situations in the way Jesus would if he were still in the mortal body. Sharing my resources with those who need. Sharing my experience with those who could benefit.

How would you translate those behaviors onto the social media platform?

Translate the behaviors by recognizing that people outside the church are not coming to us, we have to go to them. From a "blue ocean" business strategy perspective, create uncontested market space - create and capture new demand.

Start by re-orienting the focus from other churches to church alternatives and from "customers" (church members) to noncustomers.

Four key questions can be used to challenge the current church "industry" models:

1) Which of the factors that the industry takes for granted should be eliminated?
2) Which factors should be reduced well below the industry’s standard?
3) Which factors should be raised well above the industry’s standard?
4) Which factors should be created that the industry has never offered?

From a blue ocean perspective, one might define a "local" church demographically, rather than geographically. The internet allows for the creation of community that is independent of location.

One example might be the creation of an online "church" that minsters to persons with social anxieties who would not consider coming to a public space (a physical church) and being part of a crowd of people (a congregation).

Social media platforms allow for the creation of an online church community that creates a space for these persons to come together, not just for spiritual purposes, but also for love, friendship, advocacy and support.

What, if anything, do the following excerpts from a NYT opinion add to the issue of a denomination for a web church: opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com

There are three great human needs religions typically claim to satisfy: love, understanding, and knowledge.

A religion offers a community in which we are loved by others and in turn learn to love them.

Religious understanding offers a way of making sense of the world as a whole and our lives in particular.

Religious knowledge offers an account of supernatural realities that, if true, shows the operation of a benevolent power in the universe.

Knowledge, if it exists, adds a major dimension to religious commitment. But love and understanding, even without knowledge, are tremendous gifts.

Roland, your comparison, three notes back, of a web church to a new business are interesting. I think the general response which was stated -- that the physical church requires people come -- that's the standard to remove. However, I think most of the other facets of a brick church should remain, relationship and knowledge in particular. Or in other words (of yours), love, understanding and knowledge. Those are the facets which still appeal to people who are put off by the current institution of church.

The question I still struggle with though, is how to swap the "come and see" with going out to the current culture.

As the OP said, it seems like social media is the pipeline. So then the question is how to approach it?

(continued) From what I see, people like to be entertained. So I would begin by providing that with engaging content on the various popular social media. Once you have people's continued attention you've earned their respect. Once you've earned their respect, you can then ask them to lend an ear to your message.

In that though, I think it's critically important to respect people back. Or in religious terms, to relate to them in love. Do not bait and switch, do not berate those who disagree, do not pander, do not be dogmatic.

I learned some years back that the best way to get people to listen to me is to invest time listening to them. And do so with attention and understanding, not just letting them vent, dismissing their words.

So I think the course is to bring people in with entertainment. Then give them a forum for discussion. Then contribute to that forum respectfully as a peer rather than a preacher.