The sudden coronavirus outbreak has prevented the Church's on-site services. As a result, the Church has to broadcast its services on air. That’s why we can currently see the busy picture of the Church running against the clock to conduct its online programs as well as purchase Webspace and equipment. So the churches which seemed to have been impacted by the pandemic for a time are reviving on air.
Now, this busy online stuff seems to be the opposite of what was predicted that the Church would experience. Many felt that the Church would decline and there would be changes due to the outbreak. It seems to suggest that Church services can’t be stopped by anything in the world, a fulfilment of what is said, when God closes a door He will open a large window.
However, is this really the case? If we examine it carefully, we’ll see that the hot trend on the Web may not indicate that the Church is reviving but perhaps it’s declining.
First of all, we understand that the development and acceptance of the Web didn’t just happen during the past months, but it was already in full swing in the past decade. Ten years ago people were using the Internet and five years ago smartphones became a household device. Then why didn’t we see the rise of Web churches? We didn’t even hear of such a church.
Has the pandemic provided an opportunity for the Church to thrive on the Web, and will it become the main form of religious services in a new round of revival? Apparently not.
If it weren't for the outbreak, the idea of online services would still be unfamiliar. It isn’t because no one tries such services. In countries like the United States, for example, there are often attempts at gathering online, but this form of worship has never become a part of the mainstream. Most churches don’t do online services. Even though there are many churches using the Web for services both during and after the outbreak doesn’t indicate that a new form of church is developing.
In addition, if we look closely at the size of the churches which are busy on the Web, we may find that they don’t represent the wider Church. In fact, they are mostly mega-churches.
Megachurches are characterized by large numbers, ample resources, professional staff and they can mobilize many people. Just as it was before the outbreak, the voice and influence of mega-churches has been huge, covering up the voice of most churches so that unknowing outsiders often think that all churches must be large and successful. However, behind their social influence, these churches are often supported by unknown forces that do not belong to the Church.
In fact, these super-sized churches can’t represent the revival of the Church nor the revival of the gospel. Neither can their Web activities represent the status quo of the Church in general.
Megachurches can gather a large number of elite youth who excel in using technology and online hosting. Meanwhile these churches have the financial strength to buy equipment, acquire cyberspace and a hit rate of which small churches can't even dream. It is those small churches that are the mainstream of Christianity in China.
I have come to know an urban church with about 30 members, formed mainly by young migrant workers. After the outbreak, due to financial pressure, they stopped paying rent on the venue where they were meeting and began to hold their services on the Web. For them, online services are cheap. Although they can't afford to subscribe to premium Web services, the current free cyberspace and smartphone terminals already meet their needs. Although the number of people involved in online services is good, the church's public visibility has declined significantly compared to having on-site services. In the church leader's view, online services can only function as a supplement but not as the main mode of the ministry. Once the online mode of services becomes mainstream, churches like this one won’t last long. Of course, megachurches supported by entities behind the scenes are an exception, but as I have mentioned, they no longer represent the Church.
Yes this thirty some small church can represent the main situation of today's Church in China. After all, the oversized churches are few. Their size takes up only a very small proportion of the Chinese Church. So they aren’t representative.
One problem with online services is that the sense of a sacred space has been lost. In an on-site service, people are gathered in a space where the outside world is separated from the sacred—it is shielded from outside interference. A sense of the sacred and an atmosphere of worship comes with meeting in a place that is set apart. This is lost when services are only conducted on the Web. The privacy of the Web does not ensure protection for the participants from the interference of the outside world. They attend the service while being in a secular environment. As a result, they will inevitably not concentrate on the religious sacredness. So, the sense of fellowship will be greatly reduced on the Web.
On the other hand, the decrease in the frequency of on-site services leads to increased believer mobility and reduced stability. Although some Web services are very popular, if you research the turnover rate, you may find the proportion of believers who can be stabilized in a cyberspace may not be as high as you think.
Through the above analysis, I still insist that the pandemic will inevitably bring about a turning point for the Church. Just because there are many services on the Web doesn’t indicate that the Church is experiencing a revival.
The impact of the outbreak on the Church will be prolonged over time and its effects will continue to be felt.
So, at this point, we should think about the core issue of the Church – whether it is services-centered or gospel-centered. On the basis of the Church’s reflection, we shall address the negative effects of the outbreak and rebuild the Church of Jesus.
God sometimes may build another house when He closes the door of a house instead of opening a window of that same house.
- Translated by Charlie Li
网络聚会的繁忙是教会复兴吗?
突然而至的疫情,让教会的地面聚会受阻,因此教会不得不将自己的聚会在空中延续。于是我们看到教会直播的繁忙,购买直播空间和设备,一时间在疫情中受到打击的教会好像在空中复兴起来。
网络教会的繁忙,好像对原本预测的疫情给教会带来的洗牌和衰落给予了否定的答案。这好像说明,教会的聚会是任何世界的事都不能阻挡的。正应了那句话,上帝关上门的时候,必然会开一扇大大的窗户。
然而,事实是否果真如此?如果我们细致考察,教会在网络的兴盛可能并不能说明教会的复兴,而可能是教会的衰落。
首先,我们必须明白一点事实,那就是网络的发展与普及,并不是在这疫情其间的几个月突然兴起的,而是在过去的十年间已经如火如荼,十年前网络已经普及,五年前智能手机也进入寻常百姓家,那么为什么过去如此长时间内,没有看到网络教会的兴起,甚至网络教会的声音都弱小到听不到。
那么是否因为疫情的契机,今天网络教会的繁忙就能说明网络教会已经普及并且成为主流,成为教会新一轮复兴的载体和平台呢?显然不是。
如果不是疫情的缘故,网络聚会的声音依然听不到。因为不是没人尝试,在美国等发达国家,试图空中聚会的尝试经常出现,但始终没有成为主流,甚至没有被大部分教会采纳。因此,疫情其间,乃至疫情防控常态化之后的网络聚会繁忙,显然并没有足够的说服力来证明这就是网络教会的复兴与繁荣。
除此之外,如果我们仔细考察网络教会繁荣的教会构成,可能会发现,现在在网络直播空间上活跃的教会群体,并不能代表普遍教会。实际上在网络上活跃的群体,大都是超大教会的群体。
超大教会的特点是人数多、资源多、精英多,因此能调动的人力资源也多。正如在疫情前,这种超大教会的声音和影响力已经如日中天,掩盖了大部分教会的声音,以至于让不明真相的人以为他们就是教会的代表,他们就是教会的复兴。而这样的教会,往往在其社会影响力背后有我们不知道的不属于教会的力量在支撑。
事实上,这些超大型教会并不能代表教会复兴,同样不能代表福音复兴,他们在网上的声音也不能代表普通教会的现状。
超大型教会可以聚集一大批精英青年,在技术和主持能力方面胜人一筹,同时他们也有经济资源来购买设备、网络空间以及流量,而这些是那些小教会望尘莫及的。而正是那些望尘莫及的教会,才是整个中国基督教的主流。
笔者了解的一个城市教会,规模在三十人左右,以年轻打工者为主,在疫情开始后的一段时间,出于经济压力不得不将聚会房屋退租,而转移到网络上来。对这个教会来说,网络聚会成本低廉。虽然他们无法购买专业的网络空间,但现在免费的网络空间和智能手机终端已经可以满足他们的需要。但网络聚会虽然人数参与度尚可,与地面聚会相比,由于很少举行线下聚会,所以教会认同度明显下降。在这位教会领袖看来,网络聚会的模式只能作为补充模式,而不能作为教会运行的主体模式。一旦网络教会成为主体,那这样的教会是无法维持太久的。当然背后由非教会力量支撑的超大型教会除外,而那已经不能代表教会了。
而这个三十几人的教会恰能代表今天教会的主体,毕竟超大教会就那么几家,人数规模上所占中国教会信徒比例极少,不具有代表性。
一方面,网络聚会带来的神圣感缺失的问题。线下聚会,人员固定在一个特定空间,这样把生活世界与聚会场所隔离,屏蔽了世俗世界的干扰,容易将信众内心的神圣感和宗教热情调集起来,不受世俗世界的影响,从而能维持宗教神圣感的浓度。但网络聚会却不具备这一点,网络空间的封闭并不能带来参与者所处世俗空间的封闭,他们身处一个生活的环境中,必然无法集中精力在宗教神圣感之上,因此这种网络空间聚会的热度就要大打折扣。
另一方面,线下聚会的频度降低带来信众流动性增加,教会稳定便降低。虽然有些网络空间热度不减,但如果做一个人员流动率的统计,能稳定扎在一个网络空间内的信徒比例可能并没有想象的那么高。
通过以上分析,笔者依然坚持疫情必然带来教会拐点,以及重新洗牌的契机。当今网络教会的表面繁荣,是不能说明普遍的教会复兴。
疫情对教会的打击,必然随着时间的延长,其效应会不断显现。
因此,这个时候,我们应该思考教会的核心问题,教会是以聚会为中心,还是以福音为中心?在对教会反思的基础上,来应对疫情带来的负面影响,以及重建耶稣的教会。
上帝有时候关闭一扇大门的时候,会重建一个房子,而不是在原来关门的房间再开一扇窗。
The sudden coronavirus outbreak has prevented the Church's on-site services. As a result, the Church has to broadcast its services on air. That’s why we can currently see the busy picture of the Church running against the clock to conduct its online programs as well as purchase Webspace and equipment. So the churches which seemed to have been impacted by the pandemic for a time are reviving on air.
Now, this busy online stuff seems to be the opposite of what was predicted that the Church would experience. Many felt that the Church would decline and there would be changes due to the outbreak. It seems to suggest that Church services can’t be stopped by anything in the world, a fulfilment of what is said, when God closes a door He will open a large window.
However, is this really the case? If we examine it carefully, we’ll see that the hot trend on the Web may not indicate that the Church is reviving but perhaps it’s declining.
First of all, we understand that the development and acceptance of the Web didn’t just happen during the past months, but it was already in full swing in the past decade. Ten years ago people were using the Internet and five years ago smartphones became a household device. Then why didn’t we see the rise of Web churches? We didn’t even hear of such a church.
Has the pandemic provided an opportunity for the Church to thrive on the Web, and will it become the main form of religious services in a new round of revival? Apparently not.
If it weren't for the outbreak, the idea of online services would still be unfamiliar. It isn’t because no one tries such services. In countries like the United States, for example, there are often attempts at gathering online, but this form of worship has never become a part of the mainstream. Most churches don’t do online services. Even though there are many churches using the Web for services both during and after the outbreak doesn’t indicate that a new form of church is developing.
In addition, if we look closely at the size of the churches which are busy on the Web, we may find that they don’t represent the wider Church. In fact, they are mostly mega-churches.
Megachurches are characterized by large numbers, ample resources, professional staff and they can mobilize many people. Just as it was before the outbreak, the voice and influence of mega-churches has been huge, covering up the voice of most churches so that unknowing outsiders often think that all churches must be large and successful. However, behind their social influence, these churches are often supported by unknown forces that do not belong to the Church.
In fact, these super-sized churches can’t represent the revival of the Church nor the revival of the gospel. Neither can their Web activities represent the status quo of the Church in general.
Megachurches can gather a large number of elite youth who excel in using technology and online hosting. Meanwhile these churches have the financial strength to buy equipment, acquire cyberspace and a hit rate of which small churches can't even dream. It is those small churches that are the mainstream of Christianity in China.
I have come to know an urban church with about 30 members, formed mainly by young migrant workers. After the outbreak, due to financial pressure, they stopped paying rent on the venue where they were meeting and began to hold their services on the Web. For them, online services are cheap. Although they can't afford to subscribe to premium Web services, the current free cyberspace and smartphone terminals already meet their needs. Although the number of people involved in online services is good, the church's public visibility has declined significantly compared to having on-site services. In the church leader's view, online services can only function as a supplement but not as the main mode of the ministry. Once the online mode of services becomes mainstream, churches like this one won’t last long. Of course, megachurches supported by entities behind the scenes are an exception, but as I have mentioned, they no longer represent the Church.
Yes this thirty some small church can represent the main situation of today's Church in China. After all, the oversized churches are few. Their size takes up only a very small proportion of the Chinese Church. So they aren’t representative.
One problem with online services is that the sense of a sacred space has been lost. In an on-site service, people are gathered in a space where the outside world is separated from the sacred—it is shielded from outside interference. A sense of the sacred and an atmosphere of worship comes with meeting in a place that is set apart. This is lost when services are only conducted on the Web. The privacy of the Web does not ensure protection for the participants from the interference of the outside world. They attend the service while being in a secular environment. As a result, they will inevitably not concentrate on the religious sacredness. So, the sense of fellowship will be greatly reduced on the Web.
On the other hand, the decrease in the frequency of on-site services leads to increased believer mobility and reduced stability. Although some Web services are very popular, if you research the turnover rate, you may find the proportion of believers who can be stabilized in a cyberspace may not be as high as you think.
Through the above analysis, I still insist that the pandemic will inevitably bring about a turning point for the Church. Just because there are many services on the Web doesn’t indicate that the Church is experiencing a revival.
The impact of the outbreak on the Church will be prolonged over time and its effects will continue to be felt.
So, at this point, we should think about the core issue of the Church – whether it is services-centered or gospel-centered. On the basis of the Church’s reflection, we shall address the negative effects of the outbreak and rebuild the Church of Jesus.
God sometimes may build another house when He closes the door of a house instead of opening a window of that same house.
- Translated by Charlie Li
Is Packed Online Religious Services a Sign of Church Revival?