5 Reasons Churches Should Have A Greater Online Presence

1. More Thorough Evangelism – We can reach people who would never come to a physical church building.

I’ve had many fascinating conversations in blogs and online chat rooms about faith. Some were with angry people interested only in attacking Christianity – but many others have been with people who are genuinely seeking faith, but for various reasons will never feel comfortable walking into an actual church sanctuary.

2. More Open and Honest Communication – Many people who already attend a church can have more meaningful interactions online.

I have had a number of counseling sessions through Internet chats with youth who barely recognize my existence at the physical church building. For many, the mediation of a digital screen is a boost to communication.

3. Reaching an Overscheduled and Transient Culture – People who can’t be physically present on a consistent basis can keep up and contribute through the Internet.

Two of the biggest challenges for 21st-century churches are people who are too busy or who don’t live long enough in one place to make a significant commitment. To me, this is at least as big an issue as declining membership.

There is a wonderful young couple who has started attending my church, but they are not getting very involved because they both work long hours, and his career requires them to move about every two years. If my church offered more ways for them to interact online, they would be more active. They might even be able to maintain a relationship with one church as their physical residence moved.

4. More Frequent Contact– People who might see one another once or twice a week at the physical church can interact online on a daily basis.

Most churches already use email, which has greatly simplified communication patterns – and many have begun to share prayer concerns and other more personal faith matters through the Internet. But much more could be done.

I use Twitter several times a day to communicate with friends and colleagues all over the world – and feel much more intimately connected to them than I do to people I might see at Sunday worship and maybe once more during the week.

5. More Accesible Leadership – Pastors and other church leaders can have direct contact with more people and be more responsive to concerns and questions.

Consider the pre-20th century church in the United States – before automobiles and telephones were common. The average member, especially in the more rural areas where most people lived, might see a circuit-riding minister once a month – and that involved no more contact than shaking his hand on the way out of worship. For many, the only true interaction with clergy came on the occasion of a wedding, baptism, or funeral.

Even in the 21st century, many conventional pastors have limited daily contact. In my previous church, almost all interaction was face-to-face – usually in the form of a time-consuming home or hospital visit. Using the tools of the Internet, a pastor or other church leader can be in touch with an exponentially greater amount of people – and can respond to concerns and requests much more quickly.

For example: Through a quick series of emails, I have helped resolve issues that committee chairs have brought to me that might have taken weeks to negotiate by playing phone tag.

5 Reasons Churches Should Be Cautious About Online Interactions

1) There Is No Virtual Equivalent For A Good Hug

2) It’s More Difficult To Understand Emotions And Communicate Empathy Through An Online Conversation

A sign at a local pharmacy cautions customers against using online prescription services, claiming that being able to physically see the person helps a pharmacist make a judgment. The same principle applies to pastors and online interaction.

For example: If a church member sends me a quick email and says, “I just found out that my father has died. I’m doing OK, and there’s a lot to take care of. I’ll call you when I get back from the funeral.” – I might take it at face value and not give a visit. Or, I might understand that seeing her face-to-face will reveal much more about her emotional state. In my experience, that visit is greatly needed and appreciated. Digital communication might enhance the process of pastoral care, but it is impossible to show the proper level of concern and empathy for a grieving person solely through the Internet.

3) Online Messages Can Be Misunderstood

A quick email or tweet is sent off, intended as a joke or an innocent observation – but the other person suddenly goes silent, or even shoots back an angry response. He or she is offended, because what is read and understood is much different than what the writer intended. Online, there is no such thing as tone, body language, or facial expression – things which help communicate much of what we say face-to-face.

Often, it takes a face-to-face conversation to repair the damage. In the case of delicate pastoral work, where the person might be hurt or angry to begin with, this kind of misunderstanding might never be resolved.

4) The Digital Divide Has The Potential To Exclude

For a variety of reasons – age, economic status, or personal preference – many people in the United States still do not use the Internet. Even if a church is careful to balance online and traditional communication, those who are not active participants in the digital universe can easily feel left behind.

For example: After a recent meeting, several committee members gathered in a circle with their I-phones, Droids, and Blackberries – making plans to share their ideas through Facebook. One woman, who confessed that she has a computer at home but rarely uses it, sat sadly in the corner – unable to even understand their conversation. Even though she had access to all official communication from the church and the committee chair – which was still being done with paper and ink - she was excluded from the interaction that was the driving force behind the group.

5) We Don’t Yet Understand The Theological Implications

This is the Biblical side of the new reality that will need much careful thought in the coming decades. Consider the Call of Abram in Genesis 12 that leads him to “the land that I will show you.” The Hebrew word for land refers directly to the earth, to the soil that is tilled. This means that the Covenant upon which the entire Biblical story depends is rooted in a physical place. What does this story – and what do many others from the Bible that speak to the importance of physical location – have to tell us about the “brave new world” of the Internet that we are just beginning to build?


Next Post: 6 Reasons Why Churches Need To Have More Online Interaction

Does Presbyterian Polity Provide For Online Church Organization?

(Following are selected passages from the Presbyterian Church USA's Book of Order, 2011 edition. They speak to the feasability of organizing churches or higher governing bodies on the Internet. Actual language from the BoO is in bold. In parentheses, I have added a list of questions for each quote intended to spark discussion.)

From G-1.01 The Congregation

The congregation is the church engaged in the mission of God in its particular context.

(Can the Internet and social media in particular be considered an independent context for ministry, or can it only enhance the ministry of geographically-based churches? If we believe online destinations such as Twitter, Facebook, and Second Life do qualify as “particular contexts,” should we seek to form congregations that are exclusively digital in nature?)

Through the congregation God’s people carry out the ministries of:

(1)Proclamation

(2)Sharing the Sacraments

(Can the full spiritual effect of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper be communicated through a virtual online medium? Should we continue to require the physical presence of the elements – water, bread, wine - to ensure the efficacy of the Sacraments?)

(3)Living in covenant life with God and each other

(Can the full meaning of covenant life together exist between people who do not share a geographic community and who may have never physically met one another?)


A “congregation,” as used in this Form of Government, refers to a formally organized community chartered and recognized by a presbytery as provided in this Constitution.

(Would an online congregation need a geographic presbytery to grant a charter? Would it then participate in that presbytery as would a geographically-based church? Or would a new, non-geographic presbytery need to be formed that would encompass various online congregations and would send its own delegates to General Assembly? Or would an entirely new structure and system of polity need to be developed to meet the particular needs of online ministry?)

Other forms of corporate witness established by the presbytery shall also be governed by this Constitution and shall be subject to the authority of the presbytery.

(Could “other forms of corporate witness” apply to efforts to organize online churches? How would the structure and polity of such bodies be different from traditional geographic congregations?)


From G-3.01 General Principles of Councils

The particular responsibility of the councils of the church is to nurture, guide, and govern those who witness as part of the Presbyterian Church (USA), to the end that such witness strengthens the whole church and gives glory to God.

(Is “council” a more appropriate way than “congregation” to think about groups that form on places like Facebook and Twitter that are comprised primarily of clergy and lay leaders?)


From G-3.03 The Presbytery

The presbytery is the council serving as a corporate expression of the church within a certain district and is composed of all the congregations and teaching elders within that district.

(The definition of the word “district” is key. Does it mean a specific geographic area? A specific ethnic constituency? A specific special-interest group or theological orientation? A specific online site or destination? All of the above?)

Also important is the word “all”. For example, would a presbytery formed on Facebook need to include all churches that have a Facebook presence? In such a case, would the formation of a higher council, such as a synod or even a parallel General Assembly, be more appropriate?)

The presbytery is responsible for the government of the church throughout its district, and for assisting and supporting the witness of congregations to the sovereign activity of God in the world, so that all congregations become communities of faith, hope, love, and witness.

(Perhaps the most instructive passage for why online organization is needed. Not as an end unto itself, but as a way to nurture congregations, be they geographic or virtual, and the disciples they are growing.)

Spreading My Wings

I haven't posted here since mid-September, because I have found myself involved in some other projects. As a means to keep myself focused and sane, I have decided to start posting here weekly just to share some of my personal thoughts.

Today, I'm full of excitement and anticipation as I launch the Beta version of what I hope will become a collaborative effort. It's a political blog, designed to recreate the energy and passion that I experienced as a writer for The Seminal back in 2008. I have no idea how this project will go, but it gets my juices flowing, so I'm doing it!

Just to summarize, here are the virtual projects I am currently managing:

Presbytery of Twitter
Presbytery of Twitter (on Facebook)
The Spectacle
This blog (Pastor Looks at 40)

I'll share more about each of these projects, and how I envision them working together, in future posts.

Babel or Pentecost? - Part 1

(This is an article I wrote in 2007 about technology and faith, when I was somewhat of a Luddite. I'm going to re-publish it here in several installments, and then write about how my views have evolved as the age of social media has dawned.)

I have a friend who is a minister and self-professing techno-geek. He loves computers. He builds websites and plays interactive video games. He even co-hosts something called a podcast - which is like a radio show on the Internet.

As long as we've been friends, I've enjoyed getting on his nerves by calling computers evil and by making fun of people who use them a lot. The funny thing is, because of him, I've been much more of a techno person than I ever thought I would. He's even gotten me started on making my own blog.

The two of us have had an ongoing conversation about whether our rapidly advancing technology is a good thing. My friends thinks that the Internet offers new ways for people to make connections and share information, that it strengthens the bonds of human relatinship.

And he's right! We have gained a lot from new technologies, and we will continue to in ways that we cannot even dream about today. But I am cautious about where this progression will ultimately lead us. Maybe I watch too much science fiction, but this rapid acceleration in what computers can do scares me.

And it's not because I think we're going to end up enslaved to machines like in "Terminator" or "The Matrix." My concern has more to do with how our machines have the potential to distract us from God and the creator/creature relationship. My cautionary tale, therefore, is not one of those movies. It's a story that appears in the eleventh chapter of Genesis, and it describes an ancient race of people who unite briefly in glorious technological achievement, but end up scattered and confused. It's the story of Babel...

From the Pulpit: Risky Faith

(This excerpt is from a sermon preached October 16, 2011 - based on I Thessalonians 1:1-10)

The apostles were quite bold in taking risks, but not taking too many. As he travelled from place to place, Paul developed a keen sense of when to aggressively push with the Gospel, and when to retreat and take a more defensive tactic. The Book of Acts details this balance of sound risk-taking as the Christian faith exploded from a disorganized band of 12 disciples into a powerful religion that has changed the scope of world history.

But even more important than imitating the apostle’s risky faith is the fact that they have imitated Christ himself – Paul says “us and the Lord”. Because the apostles didn’t invent their strategy of good risk-taking. They were imitating what Jesus Christ did on the cross. So what Paul is really telling the Thessalonians is that since Christ was not afraid of risks, and was not even afraid being killed, then neither should Christ’s followers be afraid.

Now it might seem strange to say that Christ on the cross was a risk. It might even seem heretical to put it this way, because it implies that God, by sending his only Son into the world, was rolling the dice – that God was not in control of things. It implies that Jesus was just taking a chance and hoping for the best when he started his ministry. And it implies that this risk failed when he was killed.

So what, then, is Paul getting at when he says that we should be imitators of the apostles and of Christ? What does it mean for us to have a “risky faith” that Paul would praise?

Let’s think back to those games of Risk that I played with my brothers, and specifically to my failed strategy. Recall that I played too defensively, always trying to find a safe corner where I could hole up and protect myself. And recall how I always lost, because my brothers would build up bigger armies by being more aggressive. As it turns out, my risk-averse strategy was actually quite risky. By failing to take any risks, I was taking the biggest risk of all. I was guaranteeing that I would not succeed. Just ask anyone who has started a business. They will understand this principle well.

Now apply this principle to the cross. In order for Jesus to succeed, in order for him win our salvation, he had to die and rise again. And in order to be driven to the cross, he had to have a certain level of aggressiveness and risk-taking in his ministry. If he had avoided all danger and all risk, he never would become our Lord and Savior. Therefore, for Jesus to be completely risk-averse would have been the biggest risk of all.

That’s what Paul is talking about when he talks about imitating Christ. He is praising the Thessalonians for not being so timid and so risk-averse that they can’t fulfill the calling that God has given them. They endure labors and persecutions, but persevere to become examples of faith for churches everywhere.

And we are no different. We are called to be imitators of the Thessalonians, imitators of the apostles, and imitators of Christ. We are called to avoid the biggest risk of all, which is not fulfilling our God-given purpose. We are called to find the balance that comes in taking take good risks.

For Jesus, taking good risks involved speaking the truth about the Kingdom of God and challenging the authorities of this time. For Paul and the early Christians, taking good risks meant going into potentially dangerous places and sharing the good news of Christ. What, then, does taking good risks mean for us?

That’s a question that each one of us will answer differently. For some, a good risk is inviting a neighbor to church. For others, a good risk is volunteering for an outreach ministry that seems a little intimidating. For still others, a good risk is speaking up with an opinion that might not be popular with everyone who hears it. And for some, just to show up at church, or at Bible study, or at a Fellowship meal is a risk – but a risk that is worth taking.

But as Paul has shown, and as my boyhood games of Risk have shown, the true risk – the one that we should always avoid taking – is the risk of never taking one. Amen.

Twant: Micro and Macro Change In The Church

(Today I'm going to share something new. I call it a "Twant." Sometimes when I'm on Twitter, I feel the need to expand on a thought expressed in a tweet. And then I add another, and another, until I have a whole series that comes across like a lecture or a rant. Here's a twant I did this morning on the process of change in a congergation. Once I get permission, I'm going to post a Twitter convo I had on the same topic that generated a lot of replies from other tweeters. For more of my tweets, please go to @revjimmoss.)

Had b'fast w/ local Meth and Bapt mins. Had basically same convo on church transformation I had here last night. With contextual flavor!

Our #1 identified challenge: It's not that our churches aren't willing to change. It's that they see the micro and we tend to see the macro.

Put another way. Church members' vision for change is often more immediate, practical - like putting a rock band in worship...

While clergy's is often more abstract, theological. Challenge is how to pull the two together.

Potential conflict: Micro vision of change still sees basic structure, programs of institution as something to preserve. Just with tweaks.

Macro vision sees the need for deeper transformation in whole way the institution looks and functions.

The good news: Carefully done over time, many micro changes can add up to macro change.