The (Not So) Great Digital Divide
Disclaimer: I write this reflection as someone who is non-disabled, tech-literate, a millennial, a person with a stable source of income and medical insurance, and I'm sure a handful of other privileges to which I am not fully aware.
When I read articles such as the most recent New York Times Opinion Why Churches Should Drop Their Online Services, I can't help but roll my eyes, chuckle, or lament the pining of others for "better days." Since 2020 I've resourced churches in the Hudson River Presbytery and beyond to provide them with the resources needed to bring their message out of the church building and enter (or begin to enter) the digital era. I hope that as things start to gradually open again, I pray that churches that have invested in a digital ministry continue to pursue it with creativity and passion and view it as a tool that complements their witness.
Audience v. Active Participant
Part of what confuses me about the conversions surrounding the digital (or online) church is that there is a belief that people who join virtually are "audience members." For some reason, because they aren't physically present, they aren't part of a community and aren't practicing their faith in any meaningful way. I hate to say it, but I would venture to say that there are just as many "audience members" who attend physical churches as there are people with that same mindset who join online. Have you seen how church people have treated one another? I don’t everyone’s paying attention.
I would rather have a small handful of virtual attendees who are being the church, living out faithfully the mission of Jesus Christ, than a packed sanctuary of people who are there just because it's Sunday morning. And from my own experience, I know that our virtual presence has made an impact. There are virtual members and friends who share what they are doing with the church, invite others to join, and proactively respond to the call of compassion, justice, and love that we so desperately need
Still don't believe that online viewers can be called to action to be active participants? I can only point out that internet personalities such as Sean McLoughlin (aka Jack Septic) and others raised over $7.5 million to combat homelessness. And others, such as Jimmy Donaldson (aka Mr. Beast), have utilized their communities to raise money and take action around issues such as global conservancy. I'm not saying that online or digital church is an answer, a silver bullet, or a solution to declining membership. What I am saying is that it would be wrong to ignore the impact that virtual communities can make if utilized strategically and purposefully.
Accessible v. Non-Accessible
I've walked into older church buildings and found paper copies of sermons, DVDs or VHS tapes of services, and other odd media formats no longer popular. I imagine that these were shared with parishioners who could not make it to church. I envision the pastor or deacons bringing it with them on pastoral trips. Today, the landscape is different. I often see homebound members or those ill in the livestream chat saying hello or asking for prayers not just for themselves but also for people they know. There's instant feedback or connection that is available outside of Sunday services.
Once again, online options serve different purposes at different times. I don't believe anyone is saying that digital churches will fully replace brick-and-mortar buildings. Still, it would be unwise to say that streaming worship doesn't provide a certain level of accessibility and access that was not possible before implementing this technology.
Now there are two things that I want to highlight:
If streaming is the only accessible option to worship at a church, what does that say about a church's priority to welcome? It is clear then that welcome is not a priority if a church is willing to say we're not open to investing resources to make our facilities accessible. I believe this is a question churches should ask themselves.
Just because a church offers a livestream does not mean it is accessible content. I admit I fall short in one such area of accessibility: a lack of overlaid captions on our virtual services. Of course, Facebook and YouTube offer automated captions, and I provide written manuscripts and project most of the liturgy on screen, but some parts are not 100% accessible.
There's great potential for digital worship and content to reach farther than expected. At the same time, these virtual options should spotlight the areas our online and physical spaces are welcoming or not welcoming and accessible or inaccessible to those who are members, friends, and strangers. I imagine that somewhere between these two realms, we will find the balance we are looking for in addressing these concerns.
I would love to hear how you make your livestream more accessible! Please share what tools are out there!
Community v. Isolation
In 2021 I said, "Community is only limited by the imaginary boundaries we set." To this day, I still believe this is true; community is only limited by the cultural definitions we use to describe who is "in" and "out." In articles that critique the digital age of Church, there is a lament for physical gatherings and a nostalgia for days far gone. Yet, last I checked, Scripture frequently addresses people in the diaspora, those who were scattered and unable to gather in large groups. It's not that they didn't belong to a community; it's just that their community was different. Why can't our virtual communities be viewed similarly?
I don't see the conversation surrounding the digital age of Church dying out anytime soon. I welcome debate and discussion because, from my perspective, churches, mid councils, and denominations that cannot adapt to the changing landscape will not survive. Larger bodies that resist this change might hold out, but even then, not forever.
In the end, I'm not saying every church needs a television-quality broadcast. I am saying that the digital divide between physical and virtual church is not as big as we thought. Perhaps our trepidation stems from the fact that these new tools highlight the shortcomings and injustice that have long existed in physical sanctuaries (it’s just easier if we can ignore them). If this is true, then the change is certainly needed as we move forward with faith and hope that regardless of the space, the Spirit is at work and continues to challenge us in surprising ways.