The movie “Surrogates” envisions a world where the activities of daily life are now experienced through machines. Originally intended to be a way for disabled or handicapped people to live a fuller life, the surrogate machines were commercialized to the masses as a way stay young, strong and beautiful forever while being free of the dangers of everyday life. I’m sure to the sinful nature the idea of being without physical blemish and effortlessly hooking up with other beautiful people is quite appealing. However as the movie continues, the false and limited reality of human interaction through robots is revealed as emotional scenes show these beautiful characters in robot form unable to even shed a single tear. Bruce Willis’ character realizes this disconnect between reality experienced through the real world and through a machine and is shown trying to reconnect with his wife in the real, dirty and wrinkled bodily presence. Yet his wife has never recovered from the loss of their son in an accident and uses the surrogates as an escape from the pain of reality she refuses to deal with.

In the end is not all technology a way to cope with reality of human fragility and weakness? From the ancient man who could not protect himself with his hands that lacked claws and fashioned a weapon out of a sharp stone and stick to the modern man who cannot communicate with people from all over the world with only his voice and uses podcasts and blogs, technology has in countless ways improved the daily lives and living standards of all people. However, the movie “Surrogates” shows that technology, as beneficial as it may be, does have its costs, and I argue that the cost, especially when it comes to relationship and community, is realness. There is a realness to the human condition of weakness and fragility that technology can never replicate or reproduce. There is a realness to the smell of mint gum masking onion breath as a person prays over you. There is a realness to the warm and sweaty touch of a person’s hand holding yours as he confesses his sins to you. Real bodily human interaction does not allow for the masking of human weakness that technology provides. I cannot turn off the screen to hide my emotions when someone confronts me about a sin that I do not want to reveal. In the movie, characters just unplug from their machines when they’re in an argument they no longer want to be a part of. Being human means we have to deal with our problems, our blemishes, and our weaknesses as they are and in the end does that not serve to glorify the value of the perfect salvation through Jesus Christ even more?

As for a more positive argument, technology has allowed loved ones to connect across vast distances from the primitive postcard to the modern video chat, but who would argue that they’d rather have the video chat over an actual physical meeting? And as much realness there is in two people in love delighting in seeing the faces of their missed ones on a video screen, I don’t think anyone would say it’s just as real as being with the loved one in person. What can replace the familiar scent of a lover’s perfume, the feel of a lover’s skin, and so on (I don’t want to get too graphic, haha). If two people in love know instinctively that a video chat cannot replace being together in person, how can anyone in the body of Christ who truly wants to love his or her brothers and sisters argue that the relationships formed in online communities are as real as the relationships in real life?

If one would argue that I am only arguing that realness is tied with the smell and feel and taste that cannot be reproduced through current technology, then let’s move from the movie “Surrogates” to “The Matrix.” Experiencing the world through robots as shown in “Surrogates” is clearly shown as a deficient reality. But perhaps technology ultimately leads to a full reproduction of all senses a la “The Matrix,” then does my argument fall short? Well characters living outside the Matrix obviously would rather choose the cold and uncomfortable world than being part of a nice world that they know is not real. (Except for Cypher who wants to be plugged back into the Matrix, except now as a rich and famous person.)

I’ve personally never been to an online or virtual church, so some may just say you have to try it before you knock it. And like the machines in the movie “Surrogates” being originally created to help disabled people live normal lives, perhaps online church was originally invented to help some disconnected Christian have some semblance of community in a situation where it may have not been possible. I am currently on a one-year short-term mission in Thailand and watch live feeds of service at my home church, but it in no way is as real as actually being there. I see online church as something that was probably a good idea in theory turning into just another excuse for people to indulge in their own selfishness and a way to escape the very real and difficult pressures of human interaction. People wear enough masks in person already so why distance ourselves from one another even more through video screens?
I know everything’s disorganized and unfocused, but I’m too tired to give any more thought to this silly idea.

On the contrary I would think that online churches are too much like “conventional” churches. People are wont to send their bodies to the pews like avatars and “click here to get the latest security updates …. this update can run in the background while you continue with other activities.” Real church is where our real bodies/minds/souls are at every moment, accompanied by the Spirit as the body of Christ among fallen, suffering humanity.

Having thought about this some, I’d simply like to say that the arguments against ‘online church’ are a bit more difficult to make than it seems at first glance, if we’re going to listen to proponents like Doug actually mean by ‘online church’ (which he did not go into in that blog post).

matt

How can a virtual church be consistent with the desires of our Lord? Getting along with other people, even Christians (especially Christians?), can be very difficult. As much as it depends on us, we are to live in peace with one another. It seems to me that a virtual church is an excuse to sidestep our requirement to live in unity and peace with other believers. We do not have either the joy or pain of face-to-face fellowship.

and the fact that the same Bay Area is one of the most spiritually dead, social, cultural and economic wastelands in the contiguous 38 states?

I couldn’t help thinking that after having just reading and benefitted from the really thought-provoking mental ballet you brothers put together on the Christian and cultural/political engagement.

I’ve only met a few people who believe that online church, in itself with no connection to physical community, is a full and valid expression of what church ought to be. This is where most of us have rather serious concerns. My main point here is to caution- not everyone who speaks in favor of “online church” is in this boat.

I want to tell him that nowhere in the Bible does it preclude online pornography. But things that are precluded teach us what God would say on the matter.

“Let’s lay aside for a moment that nowhere in the Bible does it preclude online church, in any way.”

Lay aside? When was it on the table? Just think of the practices that could be justified by argument from silence.

Just…

And so I was stunned when many of the people in the audience wanted to defend the idea that taking communion by avatar was somehow a legitimate way to “do church.”

I don’t remember too many people taking the drive-in church model of the Crystal Cathedral seriously—and that was in the 70s when people would fall for anythings. So how why are so many evangelicals falling for this silliness?

I wouldn’t be surprised if someone else wrote it for Prof. Estes and he just didn’t review it closely enough.
But he appears to be there in the comments defending himself.