Do our online viewers truly realize what they’re missing?
When churches were in lockdown during the initial phase of the pandemic, many pastors turned to livestreaming as a temporary stand-in for in-person worship services. Churches began delivering disembodied gatherings to congregants’ homes. It seemed like a good idea at the time. It was certainly better than nothing.
But here’s the rub: What most of us assumed would be a few weeks morphed into months, then traversed well beyond a year. What began as a provisional alternative became a comfy habit.
Livestreaming certainly has benefits: It’s convenient, far-reaching, and accessible. So even after gathering in person became feasible again, many pastors retained the online service option. But livestreamed church has a shortcoming that far outweighs its benefits: It is pseudo-fellowship. It provides the appearance of relationship without the genuine depth that comes from proximity. It encourages the notion that nearness is nonessential.
I do believe livestreaming has value in some contexts, such as ministering to homebound congregants or those who may be immunocompromised. But today, many Christians who do not have such concerns have grown so accustomed to livestreaming church that they view it as a viable alternative to a weekly trek to the sanctuary.
As my ministry colleagues and I have debated different views on livestreaming Sunday services, we’ve narrowed our focus to a single question: Why does the local church need to assemble in person? I believe Luke provides a four-fold answer in his description of the first-century church: “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42). These four practices suffer when live-streaming …Continue reading… www.christianitytoday.org
