Here to what I wrote on I wrote here on Out of Ur (pt 1, pt 2) about some of my thoughts on Internet Church.

Okay- so he's not calling me out, per se- but kind of!  

We're really saying the same thing, each of us in our provocative way. And actually, I appreciate this kind of dialogue. 

Of course, there is some pushback that's less appreciated. Perry Noble has also responded, mainly about Video Venues… 

(Is it just me, or is this the ecclesiastical equivalent of the gun-safety cop shooting himself in the foot?)

On Bill's post, Bill- I appreciate your response, but you are WRONG (make sure to read Bill's post to get this…)

And now I'm not going to point out just what you said that was wrong, while agreeing with the entire thrust of your piece!

I kid, I kid…

Seriously, though- we are saying the same thing.

And please don't misunderstand my appeal to Calvin- his markers weren't meant to be an inclusive list of characteristics of the NT church. But rather, a number of things that if ABSENT, indicate that "Church" is not what you are doing.

My point was just to say if you want to have an internet ministry that's there for people, fine- but DON'T go calling it "church" and give people (whether implied or inferred) the idea that sitting in front of your computer screen watching a sermon is somehow equivalent to actively participating in a real community- it's not.

And here's where I'll go ahead and tick off the other side of the spectrum.

Me and my buddies sitting around the firepit in my backyard is not church either- absent things like praying together, teaching the Word to one another, the sacraments, some sense of accountability and discipline, biblical eldership (and many other things)…

What I'm saying is that it's easy to look at the internet church and call it lacking and silly. Shooting fish in a barrel. 

But I think the "de-churched" movement makes the same exact mistakes (albeit in a less technophile way) and just doesn't see it.