Three internet campus models
In the last few months in my conversations with various churches doing or preparring to do internet campuses, online church and/or what ever you want to call it, I have formed the hypothesis that all of them fall into one of three buckets.
Billboard or Sample Church
The internet campus primarily is a vehicle for people not attending the church to get a feel for what it’s like before they show up at a physical church.
Church Online
This is a full functioning church existing on the web. Worship, small groups, pastoral care, communion and everything that would traditionally take place at a physical church happens online. Multisite churches may view this as simply another one of their campuses.
Network Model
The internet campus is a content creator and distributor for local communities (read: house church). This is our model at Gateway Church Austin.
I see that these are targets for the voice and strategy of a church’s online ministry presence and, as with any target, there is some collateral effect. Anyone of these models will also see some of the other two happening along side.
Vince. You nailed it. I believe most fall into the Billboard or Sample Church category. Think what is most critical is that church online evolve from authenticity. Don’t try to copy the church down the street, but create an online experience that is authentic to your roots. Thank you for this post. Blessings!
[Reply]
Vince Reply:
May 11th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
True. Billboard is popular because boomer sr. pastors are most comfortable with the idea of it being a tool that
puts more butts in the seats
[Reply]
I understand the first two models. Could you expound on what you mean by content creation and distribution in the community? Do you mean that people would hold a service in their house with others in the community, and participate in the service online?
Love the post btw.
[Reply]
Vince Reply:
May 12th, 2011 at 11:03 am
Yes…The network model is where the internet campus is used to distribute content to people gathered in groups in remote locations
[Reply]
Vince, so for Gateway, do you guys have normal gatherings/services in a church building and then encourage those who watch online to do the house church thing? Or, is the whole church centered around the house church idea?
Great post!
[Reply]
Vince Reply:
May 12th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Yes we have two campuses in Austin and a group of networks out side of Austin that use the internet campus to do more or less what amounts to house church. although some gather in more public locations like community centers and restaurants/bars
[Reply]
Adam Hann Reply:
May 12th, 2011 at 11:06 am
Very cool. Thanks for sharing!
[Reply]
I can dig the 1st and 3rd models. The second model, however, I don’t think can ever be a true alternative or substitute for the local “church.” I do think that in some cases, it can be better than nothing at all, but it is never the ideal. Taking communion over the internet, honestly, becomes nearly comical for me, because it completely misses a huge part of the metaphor and meaning of the ordinance: that of being physically present together, sharing the bread (the body) that is seen broken and given for everyone present; and sharing the cup, in table fellowship together.
It is Gnosticism that diminishes the importance of our human physicality. But for orthodox Christianity, the fact that we are physical creatures is very important. Church in it’s fullest sense is something that ministers not only mental or spiritual planes, but the physical as well. I think that the more introverted and “cacooned” our culture becomes, the more and more important it will be for the church to fulfill this physical ministry both to its own flock and the world around it.
[Reply]
Vince Reply:
May 12th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
relationship requires place or at the very least the intent of it. Paul had solid relationships without presence but the presence was forthcoming or intended wether or not it happened.
So yeah…it’s not ideal but like you said, it’s better than nothing. It’s not our model but there seem to be a lot of churches that are using it.
[Reply]
“Billboard church” is not only a “boomer” senior-pastor mindset, it’s more of mindset constrained by the organizational-church financial-model that requires attenders to sustain a church ministry. The financial-model has to be reinvented by the philosophy of ministry, and default to the other way around.
[Reply]
Vince Reply:
May 13th, 2011 at 11:43 am
This seems to be true in the cases I have seen. Boomer senior pastors are definitely most comfortable with this model.
[Reply]
i’ve been thinking about billboard church as more of a marketing strategy than an actual online church. as you noted the value is in “checking it out.” i used this model in campus crusade at a local ministry and it worked well for increasing awareness and educating students on who we were–it also gave our students opportunities to share our mtg w their friends–we noticed from the analytics that most people would click on a link from facebook and watch for a couple minutes. not “church,” but great authentic promotion in a channel that they valued (rather than passing out flyers or something like that).
[Reply]
Great post Vince, you beat me to it…I would add that there is an emerging fork of the second example of Online Church:
1. Online Exclusive Church: a full online church experience online without any affiliation to an offline building (content gets created exclusively for the online church). Now there are 501c3 legal issues with that model, but the Online Church plant is something people are toying with because of its flexibility.
2. Online Campus: a full online CAMPUS of an existing offline multisite church where a complete church worship experience and discipleship process is contextualized for the online mission field. The Online Campus would also supplement/augment the multi-site offline campuses by making the church’s content and processes location free.
[Reply]
Vince Reply:
May 24th, 2011 at 11:08 am
Good stuff. I think those both fit into the Church Online model if we are keeping it simple
[Reply]