I like what is said how the technology we have now is a great medium to stay in community with people with whom we would otherwise be unable. Our society is clearly different and the church should adapt (not with theology) to the present times. I am sure the same thoughts posed here, were the same a few years ago when the church discovered the idea of a “video venue.” Granted in a video venue people are in the same room, but there was a removal of certain constants that the church had been used to, arguably for hundreds of years.

So I guess where my mind has wandered is to the idea that the traditional structure of the church (building, service template, etc.) is now in flux. We now have video venues, tents, online campuses (internet.lifechurch.tv/). Spending some time in Europe, I got the impression from many many people that the idea of a traditional church was rubbish. This does have considerable amounts of historical context; but how effective would a church of a tall stone building with people singing Gregorian Chants be in this culture? When doing an outreach at a school there was a boy that said something very important to our group: they were asking us about our churches back in the states and they thought it was really cool; then a boy says, “I like what you are describing, but we don’t have that here.” The church was failing in some aspect for the fact that it was boring and people straight didn’t want to go.

I am not saying that the church is doing nothing to reach people, because that is far from the case, but there was a bit of a shortfall. The great thing about the gospel story is that its relevance never dies. And on some level I think that we should strive to maintain a relevant delivery.