tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post4199131669899829807..comments2024-01-24T10:39:27.668-05:00Comments on Coming Untrue: Too Hot to Handle: Evaluating Virtual Church [Part 2]Dr. S. L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06303707167715370504noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-41951538059607714982020-05-10T18:53:51.774-04:002020-05-10T18:53:51.774-04:00IC: Outstanding observations and suggestions, Bell...IC: Outstanding observations and suggestions, Bellator. Worthy of its own article, really.<br /><br />Personally, I'd be happy to provide a 20 minute thought-provoker followed by a deep and thoughtful question time, even if that meant I could never predict in advance what I was likely to end up facing. You really ask us to take stock of what we believe -- are all members of the Church to be active in their own learning, growth and discipleship, or is passive "audience-ship" enough? And I think we all know the answer to that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-89304608777993544732020-05-10T17:10:55.534-04:002020-05-10T17:10:55.534-04:00Thanks for the thoughtful comments, B. I've of...Thanks for the thoughtful comments, B. I've often longed to go further in this direction. What makes me (and probably others) cautious is a wealth of experience in watching opportunities for interaction turn deeply unprofitable. <br /><br />How, for example, do we fit Paul's "I do not permit a woman to teach..." (1 Tim. 2:12) into a format which encourages questions, which (and I speak from experience here, as IC well knows) quickly turn into commentary, which quickly turn into dogmatic opinionating indistinguishable from teaching... with the possibly exception only that it is far too often transparently, embarrassingly wrong? <br /><br />I think you have a solid start to an answer here when you say, "Niceness will need to give way to kind, assertive verbal instruction to keep rambling, meandering, off topic ideas and personal story telling to a minimum."<br /><br />I sincerely hope we can learn these things. Some men can do "kind", and some can do "assertive". It would be nice to find a larger number who can do both.<br /><br />Let me say for the record I'm not a total pessimist about our prospects, but I do think any who try to move in the direction of more involvement from the seats need to have a definite plan to manage things from the stage... not tyrannically, but without allowing our gatherings to become chaotic.<br /><br />The operative biblical phrase coined by the apostle to describe the gatherings of the saints is, after all, "decently and in order" (1 Cor. 14:40).Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-12351089982014516582020-05-10T16:16:41.618-04:002020-05-10T16:16:41.618-04:00... Practically speaking, a few changes could brid...... Practically speaking, a few changes could bridge much of the psychological divide: keep monologues short; teach the Bible, not things tangential to the Bible; prioritize Q&A time; and teach the ‘seats’ how to speak well to both the ‘stage’ and the other ‘seats’. These few things would generate more openness, dynamism, community cohesion and good will.<br /><br />I think the things that minimize the psychological divide between the stage and seats will keep clearer the things people actually attend church for. My observation is that people attend church for both person-to-person and person-to-God interactions. The church is supposed to include both. So, there is no good reason why person-to-person interactions cannot be facilitated into most of what happens on a Sunday morning as we all gather to worship the Lord our God together.Bellatornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-34059308333273362062020-05-10T16:16:17.131-04:002020-05-10T16:16:17.131-04:00I read both of your “Evaluating Virtual Church” ar...I read both of your “Evaluating Virtual Church” articles with interest. These articles got me thinking about the weaknesses of in-person Sunday morning gatherings and how many are linked to a deeper problem. I think virtual Sunday mornings are bringing to visibility an unseen problem that already existed in our typical in-person Sunday morning gatherings: the un-crossable gap between the ‘stage’ and the ‘seats’. <br /><br />Virtual church makes the distance between stage and seats into a physical reality. It also lays bare a pre-existing psychological distance/divide between stage and seats which is not so easy to recognize when everyone is sitting in the same room. <br /><br />I think the psychological divide is the root of so much that deadens the dynamism among everyone when we gather Sunday mornings. There is almost no way for the seats to interact with the stage in real-time so people in the seats are stuck in a passive, non-interactive role. And, so, those in the seats are expected to receive the program from those on stage passively, but also to show enthusiastic engagement. We are told that the enthusiasm in the seats shows passionate worship of the Lord, when it is probably a self-reassuring indicator to the stage that they are doing something worthwhile for the seats.<br /><br />The psychological divide prevents meaningful exchange of ideas and opinions among the seats and the stage even outside of Sunday morning. If the seats express opinions about what takes place on the stage their opinions are all too often framed as complaints. Those on the stage so easily miss the simple fact that those in the seats mostly want to be seen and heard and are generally quite happy not to be on the stage. The breakdown of meaningful exchange also works against those on the stage. I think they want to provide meaningful teaching and worship opportunities to those in the seats. But when the stage avoids feedback from the seats, they cut themselves off from the much wider source of ideas because the seats contain far more people. It is a mistake to try to work harder to please the seats while at the same time not actively including the seats in the decision making. And I am not even getting into the fact that every Believer has a spiritual gift that is being ignored when the stage tries to provide one directionally to the seats. <br /><br />I do not believe any of this needs to be difficult to change. There will be changes of perspective and expectation required of both the stage and the seats. All will need to learn how to speak with focus and clarity to maintain focus and dynamism in a large group gathering. Niceness will need to give way to kind, assertive verbal instruction to keep rambling, meandering, off topic ideas and personal story telling to a minimum. With time and patience, a large group of people, stage and seats both, can learn the communication skills that keep focus and dynamism flowing well. I suspect most people simply do not know how to speak in a Sunday morning group setting because all they have ever seen are long monologues. <br /><br />Change for those on the stage does not need to be difficult to manage either. At the core, they must facilitate open, real-time conversation with the seats as often as they can, rather than dominate. Facilitation will require those on stage to be comfortable with the phrase, ‘I don’t know’ followed by the question, ‘Does someone else in the room know the answer?’ That follow-up question would erase the psychological divide quickly. I think a lot of good will would flow to the facilitators on the stage if the people in the seats had deeper real-time participation on Sunday mornings. ...Bellatornoreply@blogger.com