Over the years since I left college there was something brewing at Anderson College (now University). New Spring Church has invaded Anderson with a force like no other church I have ever seen. They have expanded their influence to Greenville and Florence and are developing plans to open a campus in Columbia. While I have a desire to see the church grow and lives changed for Christ, anyone who knows me, knows my concerns about the quick development and lack of depth (not an opinion of mine alone) in the teaching at New Spring. One thing that I have noticed was that New Spring does have many positives like relational home ministry groups that is a wonderful addition to any church. However, I have to express my concern for depth and serious connection to Historical Christianity. Marketing, lights, rocks bands, and feeling good are not the basics of the church.
This blog entry was not intended to express these concerns but it is related to my concern for the latest development at New Spring. They are developing a 'campus' they have called their 'web campus.' They are encouraging people nationwide to become members of New Spring via their web campus. However, this in no way resembles the church. To listen to sermons from your bed or study is not the same as building community and being around church family. This latest development is one that I had to write about. Please read the quote from the New Spring Webcampus Blog and respond.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an answer to your prayers.
The launch of this blog means that NewSpring’s web campus is only a matter of weeks away from launch.
Perhaps you’ve been streaming or downloading our podcasts and vodcasts and you’ve wanted to share the experience of worship with other NewSpringers and get behind the amazing work God is doing through our church.
Perhaps you’re attending our Anderson, Greenville or Florence campuses in South Carolina and you’re burdened whenever your friends and family across the nation and the world have said “if only we had a church like NewSpring!”
Now they do.
What’s our web campus? The short answer: It’s your church. Anywhere you are. Even if you don’t know it yet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The end of the entry calls the blog readers to a two week period of prayer until the February 1st launch of the 'web campus'. My call to you is to be in prayer for Christians to understand the need to be involved in a local church. Internet church will only allow people to compartmentalize their faith and feel like good Christians without leaving the house. They listen to a heartwarming sermon and hear the word of God read but in no way are they really participating in the life of the church. Please pray and leave your feedback.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am slow to condemn the use of modern technology for outreach. To the extent that NS reaches people online who would never be in a church at all, a web church is better than nothing. God bless their work in that case.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I agree -- I think the New Testament is clear that Christ expected His children to be in regular contact with one another so that the Body can function as it should. Breaking bread at Communion, for example, is not a personal, individualized activity.
More importantly, how can an elder shepherd people he never sees?
I guess this opens up a number of interesting questions about relationships in the online world. Is it possible that in our connected cyber-culture, some people might develop meaningful relationships with people they've never met face-to-face?
I think the answer is yes.
But I also don't think that's ideal....
Virtual fellowship is just that...virtual. Cyber-relationships are not real, they are 2 dimensional at best. This trend is a poor substitute for the assembly of the brethren and almost a mockery of the means of grace. It's simply televangelism for the ipod generation.
ReplyDeleteOh, by the way I had no idea you had a blog. My blog is called 'the greycoats' http://thegreycoats.com
ReplyDeleteUsing the internet as a tool for outreach is a wonderful thing. People need the Gospel and I am by no means saying that people should not use it. I hope that my blog will one day encourage my non-Christian readers in some way. The problem is with creating a church on the internet. I spent quite some time looking for a disclaimer saying that the 'web campus' was not real church and I didn't see that. The long-term effects could be that people no longer see a need to attend church because they go to New Spring. There is already this very common statement, "I don't have to go to church to be a Christian." This will only further alienate those on the fringe. I will be in prayer for people to develop a hunger for personal real fellowship within the body of Christ. There is also the problem of the big, shallow Christianity that New Spring offers. They do some good work in outreach and the like but my hope is that people would outgrow the teaching of New Spring. I have seen people say to me, "I went there for a year or two and then just felt like I needed something more." That encouraged me but people need to think about this and not be distracted by the bright lights and big show of the trendy church.
ReplyDeleteSure the net's great. But, it can't supplant the vibrant fellowship which a get up in the morning, read the bulletin, turn to hymn #150, everyone pray for Mrs. so and so whose father just died, drop the kids off at the nursery, local church gives the believer.
ReplyDeleteThat is the other side of the church that I could speak on just as much as the current topic. There has to be some sort of modernizing without abandoning the roots. Rod Mays (RUF) speaks about having a solid theology with a fluid methodology and that is what I think the church needs. We think solid theology means church must be dry and boring but that doesn't have to be the case. We can shake things up within the solid theology, just take Rod Culbertsons Polity (Church Government) class. When methodology becomes the factor for determining what you do and even believe we have problems. If the 'new' methodology keeps the doctrines and standards of the church clear then there isn't a problem. A standard that is very important and foundational is fellowship and community. Without this the church would cease to be the church. This 'web campus' would provide this type of non-attendance church, not to mention an easier job for the pastor to teach and get web tithes without actually knowing if he is meeting his own members actual needs. But who cares when you're getting paid right?
ReplyDeleteIts marketing genius. I mean, church is big business man. Paypal baby!! Sometimes its hard not to get too cynical.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand though, I have to be honest, I haven't really gotten a handle on the PCA polity animal. I sort of feel like if I am ordained in the PCA its going to waste a whole lot of my time. I'd like to hear more about what you mean by 'methodology' and 'new methodology'.
methodology is the way things have always been done. New methodology is just doing things in accordance with polity but different from the status quo. Strict Theology, Fluid Methodology. Music, liturgy, outreach, etc. You can come up with fresh new ideas that rock the boat a little but don't flip it over and sink it. Go to the ARP and you will see exactly what I mean. Not that I have a problem with the ARP I love us but change is good and I'm not talking about Barak Change. Well maybe I am since he isn't really changing much.
ReplyDeleteSo when you say new methodology you mean something more like 'fluid methodology'?
ReplyDeleteSchrage,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your well-articulated thoughts and concerns. It's always encouraging to see believers using their brain and asking harder questions.
I'm on staff at NewSpring and almost all of our web strategy and implementation falls on my plate. Designing, building and launching the Web Campus has been one of my main focuses for the past few weeks. I'm not here to pick a fight; that's one of the more worthless things the internet is used for. But I would encourage you to expand your thinking of what community can potentially look like.
Natrimony said "Cyber-relationships are not real, they are 2 dimensional at best. This trend is a poor substitute for the assembly of the brethren..." I always find it interesting when someone tells me I'm not really brothers with my brothers. I have at least five guys who are in similar stages of life to me, young, married, excited about the church (both local and universal) and pursuing God. We talk nearly daily, share life, encouragement, sharpening, rebuke, community.
And I've never met them in person. Do I want to? Of course; they're my friends. But geography, money and time plot against us, and so we're left with email, IM, video chats, and the like. By your definition, those are compartmentalized, feel-good friendships that don't build up the body of Christ. This is not community. They don't count. That seems short-sighted to me.
The nature of online community can be as authentic as face-to-face relationships and when it comes to church goers, I'd wager more consistent and daily than relegating community to Sunday services (which I'd wager none of us are fans of.)
The Web Campus will, I pray, connect people around the Gospel and be a shared community of believers, moving forward in worship. And much like a physical location, I hope that connection happens in more environments than service times in one place. I hope they spill over into IMs, Twitters, blog posts, emails, and maybe even phone calls and long drives to share long conversations and short meals. But if they never reach a face-to-face season, that doesn't make them any less communal; it just makes them different.
Joshua,
ReplyDeleteWell then. That's a very tidy apologia for a very tidy sort of assembly of the brethren. I never said your brothers weren't your brothers. While your brothers may certainly be believers and therefore real, your web-campus relationship with them cannot satisfy corporate worship. Web-campus contact is a poor substitute for church. While I am a firm believer in the dialoguing capabilities of the web and the possibility for gospel encouragement therein, it ain't the gathering of the saints man. As you can probably tell I ain't so pomo yo. I genuinely hope that the Web Campus church trend does not catch on. Heb 10.25 and Act 2.42 help me to view a more organic 'qwertyless' kind of church. Really don't see screen substitutes as being all that healthy.
If your friends are so excited about the local church then why don't you encourage them to find one with 3-dimensional people--some of whom remember when SPAM was breakfast, don't have a clue who David Crowder is, paint sanctuaries together, play ultimate Frisbee with the youth group, bake cancer casseroles for the ill, and who just might put a check in your hand to help out with that new baby.
I'm not even going to get into the administration of the sacraments problem. Needless to say, I appreciate your sentiment--you've got a job to do. But, we have next door neighbors (single dad) who need the community of faith but don't even have cable. IM isn't going to do it for them. But, our old ladies daycare can babysit the child at church while I take the dad out for lunch and open up a bible written on real paper that I can give him to take home. Then I can pick them both up for church on Sunday where they can meet elder Jones who owns a contracting business that can give my neighbor a job. The deacons help out with church daycare while my neighbor builds decks. He meets a nice girl in singles class on Tuesdays, they get married. Now they've got cable, he's a foreman and his boss requires a laptop for the job. One day he's searching for a book on Google and he hits on Newspring. You think that's what his family needs? Maybe so. Then again, people like my neighbor probably are a little too backward to understand that sort of 'moving forward in worship' that the communal difference of a Web Campus can provide. But, I could be wrong. It has happened a couple of times before.
Nathaniel,
ReplyDeleteI'd imagine you and I have far more in common than we differ on, but it seems like one of the tenants of the more vocal contingent of young reformed community seems to be "non-humbly making broad generalizations of attractional model churches and making sure to take a few cheap potshots while they're at it." David Crowder jokes? "Tidy apologia?" Where's the humility to accompany your orthodoxy? In your desire to uphold what you believe to be good (both theologically and methodologically) a little less belittling would go a long way.
That said, I think it's way too easy to lump NewSpring (and any number of other churches) into one massive thing and the toss stones from outside a community you're not in. Please don't hear this as a defense of NewSpring for the sake of mindlessly defending, but it's as if you're saying they have no differences, as if they all operate in the same way, or somehow by having screens and websites and rock music means there is no serving together, investing in the youth in relationship, ministering to those in need (all your examples) and fulfilling that Acts 2:42 call. When my wife and I were blindsided with an illness, a couple in our home group quietly slipped a check our way with the simple note that said "because Acts 2:44–45 is awesome." It's not isolated; that IS my church community.
As for the Web Campus, other than the breaking of bread, I don't see why Heb 10:25 and Acts 2:42 can't happen over the web. (Can you expound on that?) Is it ideal? Of course not. I want to meet my guys (all of whom are involved in local churches in their respective corners of the world) in person, and that desire calls attention to the deep need in us for face to face community. Can a Web Campus experience replicate that? I honestly have no idea. But is it better to try when we have the ability to do so, in hopes that some be saved and know Jesus? Or is it better to just say "screw it, this web thing isn't ideal, so let's abandon any possibility"? (This is potentially the part where we find out how your reformed theology and thoughts on the overt evangelism of modern evangelicalism play out. I'm still working through my issues with both.)
As I said before, I think we have a lot in common, I'd love to continue talking, whether here (which doesn't seem ideal) or via email/IM/some such method.
Joshua,
ReplyDeletePointed language, and ascerbic commentary go quite well with orthodoxy, thank you. Read a little (it wouldn't take much digging) Martin Luther, John Calvin, or even C.H. Spurgeon and you'll see that. Confidence is nearly always mistaken for arrogance sir. However, I am enjoying our conversation and have no problem at all continuing it here. Jeff is a friend and a classmate and I think his forum is more than adequate for a discussion of this type.
Cycnical language born out of confidence is certainly present in Luther, Calvin, or Spurgeon. Or the Apostle Paul. Or Jesus. But when it's peppered with the assumption that I (or any of my NewSpring-ish ilk) need to dig around to find the teachers you've studied under, it does come across as arrogance, especially online. I don't need to dig; I can do just fine walking across the room to my bookshelf. Yes, I too know all the dead white guys of reformed theology. And I mostly agree with them.
ReplyDeleteI love healthy dialogue. And I love talking about the finer points of theology and methodology. I don't love the assumption that because I work at newSpring, or because I work at a church that thinks launching a Web Campus is a good idea, that I have never read Luther. Or that I only listen to David Crowder (God forbid. How depressingly musically horrible.) Or that I am unwilling to actively engage in ministry in my community.
Acerbic is one thing; just be wary of painting with such a large sharp-tempered brush.
Joshua,
ReplyDeleteIf 'all of your guys are involved in local churches' then it sounds like the web campus idea is simply an internet community...kind of like a Christian facebook. If so, then I'm all for it. My point is, online Christian community can be nothing more (or less) than a supplement for active involvement and membership in a local church...never a substitute.