Liberalism, nihilism and the meaning of meaningless

‘Meaningless! Meaningless! Utterly meaningless!  Everything is meaningless.’  The liberal would have to agree with the wise king’s words.

What is at the heart of liberty, says another wise man called Justice Anthony Kenny, but ‘the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.’

Liberalism, with its grandiose views of self-empowerment, freedom, inalienable rights, neutrality and the power of the will, has demonstrated with unparalleled linguistic flatulence that the individual human with his/her copious stores of wisdom has the last word when it comes to meaning, meaning, that meaning means, potentially, whatever you want.

Is it a pity that liberalism is being blindsided by the freight train called nihilism?  Granted, this picture understood in the present tense is surely antiquated.  The catastrophic collision has occurred and the disaster zone has been taped off.  Now we trawl through the wreckage looking for anything that might resemble something that could be of use.  We are like the soldier in the opening scene in Saving Private Ryan who picks up his blown off arm.  We pick up something that once gave value, something that once served us, but now this something is nothing but a dismembered piece of grammar lying is a semantic graveyard.

I call their bluff.

In their moment of weakness they employ these dismembered grammars, and attribute meaning in a traditional sense.  They revert back to tried and true notions of language, conception, and, dare I say it, truth, without calling it truth, of course!

Ah, bifurcation they say.  Clearly, split-personality disorders are not the substance of the psychiatrist’s list alone.  Shall I construct or deconstruct, that is the question.  The call is for something more moderate.  More nuanced.  More balanced.  There is a call for sensibility, a middle ground that annihilates nihilation, a haven wherein some measure of meaning can be safe-guarded.  But how can this be?  Meaning is mine to make!

The train, however, has arrived, and this train does not allow the liberal to have his or her cake and eat it too.  It is quite the quandary.  The liberal wants to set me free without sentencing me to a life of meaningless.  The liberal wants to release me from the state without plunging the world into a morass of ego fuelled self-fulfillment.  The liberal wants to ignite purpose without granting that there is some such thing called purpose that contains meaning.  The liberal wants to grant me a moral prerogative without any care to instruct me as to how I should ground that prerogative.

The liberal defines tolerance as a social quality of equality.  Equally true, if true could be construed as such for the time being, tolerance is a social quality that presupposes that everything is truth.  We all know, however, that if every thing is true then nothing is true.  Tolerance renders truth meaningless, unless of course we’ve defined tolerance wrongly.  That presents its own semantic dilemma, doesn’t it?

It appears that we are back where we began.

Liberal ideology is a snake that has turned on itself, twisting, binding, constricting.  Life ebbs.  Expiration is all there is.  It grasps at its own meaningless meaning to gain some traction, but because this meaningless meaning means nothing, there is little to latch onto.

The irony of liberalism is that it does offer meaning, it is just that the meaning it offers is meaningless.


Babies, after-birth abortion and logic

This one is hot off the press.

If you haven’t heard the latest, a bunch of ethicists have written an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics called ‘After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?‘  The overarching premise is that if a foetus can be aborted for various reasons, then by those same reasons a baby should be able to be aborted (their usage) after birth.

I agree with the logic.

A good example that they give, which highlights the point well, is the use of prenatal testing to determine if a child is impaired in some way.  If a test comes back positive then there are grounds (for some) for the child to be aborted.  The reasons that are often given are that the child will live a horrible life of suffering, and/or that the parents, mother or father cannot cope with such difficulties, inconvenience or burden, and so on.

The logical difficulty comes when a baby’s physical or intellectual impairments go undetected by prenatal tests.  The baby is subsequently born with the undetected impairments, which, if detected prior to birth the baby could have been aborted.  The authors of the article give numerous examples of this possibility.

So what do we do?

Well, if one is going to grant the option of aborting these impaired babes pre-birth, then on the same grounds, one should be granted the same option post-birth, which they have conveniently called ‘after-birth abortion’, as opposed to the term infanticide.

Their argument is not purely based upon pragmatism, but on a philosophical argument of what is means to be a moral being.  This is summed up in their reason for using the term ‘after-birth abortion’ instead of the term infanticide.  Such usage:

…emphasise[s] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.

In a clever sleight of hand the authors shift what is being defined and argued.

The battleground here is not when life starts per se, whether at conception or at birth like the old discussion, but rather, what is a moral being?  A baby and a foetus are similar in that they are morally equivalent and only potential persons, so they argue.

I won’t expound the ins and outs of their argument, but I agree that it logically follows that if a foetus can be aborted because it is not a moral being, merely something with personhood potential, then one must be consistent and attribute the same value to new born babies who are, by the same yard stick, not moral beings, merely capable of one day being a person.

Should we be scared of a flood of new laws that might legalise the aborting (killing?) of babies on the basis that they are not yet moral persons?  I don’t think so.

The issues that the authors of the article raise need to be responded to by all who have previously held views on abortion, whether for or against.  I suppose one could put their head in the sand and pretend that our moral stances have no logical consequences but that is certainly foolish.

These ethicists have thought through the subsequent logical implications of holding to pre-birth abortion, and given one perspective: there are grounds for aborting living babies.

What this article does is expose how dangerous a poorly thought through moral stance can be.

For that I thank them.

Atheism: Looking for meaning

I love it when thoughts collide, revealing more than you bargained for.

A while back I blogged about an article called God is Dead.  Now What?  It was written by an atheist, which I found on the ABC Religion and Ethics website (You can find the original article here and my post on it here).

The basic gist of his argument is that a secular society can take hold of the result of the Christian life, in particular the community of faith, without the trappings of Jesus and the associated palava.

This quote gets to the heart of it:

Secular religion needs to be more than just a list of dry principles. It needs to appeal to more than reason. It needs to engage, inspire and give insight, and build itself into a cultural institution that people can do more than just believe in, they need to be able to participate in it.

Who wouldn’t want the (earthly) icing on the cake.

Today I listened to a debate on Unbelievable between Alain de Botton and James Orr.  de Botton is a self-confessed soft atheist and is the author of a soon to be released book called, Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion.  For the record I have not yet read the book.

From the debate it appears that de Botton is raising a similar issue to what we read about in the article, God is Dead Now What?

If one recognises, as soft atheists often do, that atheism is a negative belief system, what does one do with the great swath of questions about meaning that remain?  A hard atheist like Dawkins presents no real response to this dilemma.  de Botton, and others like him, want to deal with these questions because it is a pointless exercise to strip the ontological guts out of society without reconstituting it with something that gives purpose, meaning and reason for existence.

In the debate de Bottton looked to Christianity for some answers.  In an attempt to develop meaning in society, he identifies, for example, church buildings as a model that communicate ideas by their structure and form.  de Botton desires to see places, buildings, and structures that consecrate particular values, attitudes, concepts, and states of mind like the church.  He says, ‘What is the secular equivalent of the church?’

I had two reactions to this thought provoking question.

Firstly, de Botton follows inline with our ABC commentator in misunderstanding Christianity.  Why is it that he looks to Christianity to find ways of developing meaning through form and structure?

A magnificent Eastern Orthodox church, for example, is the result of one’s belief in God and a desire to build something that somehow reflects that belief in God.  We might look back to Maximus the Confessor (6/7th century) and his understanding of how architecture reflected his view of God and his operation in this world.  In The Confessor’s eyes the building reflects the economy of God in some way.  The building form reflects Eastern Orthodox doctrines of God, church and salvation.  This richness of meaning (right or wrong) defines the building.

However, is this principle not what we see around us?  Is de Botton looking for something that he already has?

We have buildings that indeed represent a principle, an attitude and a concept.  Money.  Investment.  Return.  These are the prevailing and dominant ideas around us and this is reflected in the style and quality of the buildings that we see.

The Taj Mahal, The Blue Mosque, Buckingham Palace, Westminster Cathedral, St Peter’s Basilica, to name but a few iconic value laden buildings, reflect so much more than bang-for-buck, or beauty for beauty’s sake, or creativity for creativity’s sake.  They were built with a richness of meaning that saturated every building block that was laid.  The lives lost in building these were lives well spent, in some people’s eyes.

de Botton already has his icing.  It’s just that he doesn’t like the flavour.  A dearth of meaningful meaning will be reflected around us in many ways, perhaps even in architecture.  His issue is the meaning.

Secondly, it brings me back to my roots – art.  I studied fine art at university for a few years before I realised how much of a dead end it was.  It is sad that the expression of Christianity’s rich meaning through building structures, sculptures, paintings, etches, prints, sketches, busts, etc have faded into near oblivion.  There is some good stuff out there but you need to be on the ball to find it.

The beauty that the church captured and preserved for us reflects, still, the manifold beauty and awesomeness of God.  This does not take the place of Jesus and his work, but it gives creative life to the rich meaning that we find in Christ.

I find it interesting that I am reminded of this by an atheist who is looking to inject some meaning into his life. Perhaps, our church cultures reflect the secular culture more than we think.

We can learn a lot from history and atheists.

Horror: A real genre

Each evening I sit and watch the news.

It is a dilemma for me.  I want to be informed, but I don’t want to be gripped by the anger that quickly stirs from watching politicking that treats lives like marbles.  I sit hopelessly hunched over my bowl, slurping spaghetti while heartless tanks disembowel Homs.

And what do I do?  I put my bowl of spaghetti down.  I feel sick.  What else can I do?  I suppose I could turn the channel over and watch the Gilmore Girls on channel 30.  If I did this, what then is the news?  A lie?  Not there?

If I am to face my world, I am to swallow with fork in hand, further analysis.  Further horror.  Dead children, lying on stretchers.  The revelation that small lives, like small marbles, have been thrown against the playground wall, abused and tortured.

The politicking ticks on.

It is a horror movie.  Is it?  Or would it fit more appropriately into the genre of action or political drama?  It certainly could not pass for an epic war film, yet.  There is of course reality TV, but as you well know, reality TV can be so contrived that it appears more like unreal TV.

I’m stumped for a genre besides real, and besides, my spaghetti is cold.

The news ends.  The good or bad weather at long last arrives to bring a refreshing change.  There is relief from the horrific acidic taste of horror, or real.  But while the taste disappears, the news doesn’t end.  That’s the problem with the genre of real – it keeps going, even when the news finishes.

The disembowelling continues to rage on, on another channel in a trailing timezone.  The politicking has that same monotonous rhythm even when it is reported on in another language.  New deaths fill the same bloodied stretchers.  Fresh bowls of spaghetti are put down.

That’s the problem with news, it fits into the genre of real.

Missions Musings 12 – Thanks for the noose

In 2005 Katie and I spent some time in Niger, West Africa.  It was an unreal experience that was full of death, disease, misery, drought, famine and persecution.

It was also a missiological learning experience.

We lived in a compound in the village called Galmi in comparative comfort.  We had clean running water, food stores, electricity and access to a compound phone.  The compound was surrounded by fences and patrolled by guards 24/7.

One day we were invited over to the hospital dentist and pharmacist’s house for dinner.  They were from Singapore and had been in Galmi for about 4 years, from memory.  I can’t remember anything of the evening, but for one conversation that I had with the dentist (I can’t remember their names….whoops!).  We started talking about the merits of compound vs village living.

In mid-conversation he walked over to his bookshelf and pulled out an edition of a journal that he had subscribed to for decades.  The edition that he opened was from the late 70’s, and what was one of the articles about: the merits of compound vs village living.

The issue of how we should live within a context that is less fortunate than the one from which we come is an age-old missiological conundrum, but definitely one worth the continual wrestle.

A week or so ago we were sent a link to an interesting article written by Steve Saint.  It was called, Projecting Poverty Where It Doesn’t exist.  The article gives a fascinating perspective on this issue. Read if you get chance.

The bare bones of the argument in the article is that for many cultures in the world, people are only made aware of their ‘poverty’ if they are exposed to mod-cons, money, and other forms of what could be described as western wealth.  I suppose it is an argument of ignorant bliss.  If they don’t know, then they won’t care.

I never missed the internet until I had it.  I never missed my mobile until I had one.  I never missed my wife until I married her.  That’s how it works, right?   If we don’t know about it then it is hard to miss it.  Interesting, hey?

There is more to it though.

This is not just about helping the savage.  We need to feel the sharp rebuke.  Notice the position from which we have this discussion.  We play lord over the Amazonian jungle dwellers.  We are the master of the African desert riders.  We are the rulers of the Himalayan mountain climbers.  Who are we to decide firstly, what is wealth, and secondly, to whom we should grant the great privilege of partaking of such wealth?

One of the most freeing experiences that I’ve ever experienced was spending a month living in the Western Highlands of Papua New Guinea.  I did what the locals did… and it was good.  We’d wake up early, like 6:30am!  We’d eat fruit for breakfast.  Afterwards we did some work in the garden and around the house.  In the afternoon we would sleep and sit around.  At night we read books, played cards and chess.  It normally ended with a 9:30pm bedtime.

There was time to enjoy God’s creation, which was in abundance.  We had headspace to pray.  I’ve never found it so easy to read the Bible.  All of a sudden there was time for family and friends, for chatting and developing relationship.  And we should ask, who is the wealthy one?

How dare we pity them for not having the luxuries of iPhones, big TV’s, cars, great holidays, good coffee, etc.

Did you flinch?

Did you notice my use of luxury?  I didn’t when I wrote it, but I’ve kept it in there to help me and us realise how intuitive it is for us to assume that luxury everywhere means the same thing.

Even necessities in the West cannot be considered universal.  It is basic, but we would happily assume that our idea of necessity is a requisite for a ‘good’ life everywhere.  Could it be that our ideas of luxury and necessity are the new imperialism or colonialism that is taking over the world, and characteristic of modern mission?  A life that is defined by consumption and debt, speed and movement, and me rather than not me.

Who should be taking note?

Me, or my fellow workers in Bolivia and Yemen?  Short term teams that roll in with cameras, cash and love?  Yes, yes, yes and yes – but these are obvious!

We should not miss the mighty call here to the western(?) church to become more sensitive to the real needs, as opposed to the projected needs, of the target ‘mission’ field.  We need to grapple to get a real good look at how the programs and individuals that we are creating, sending, funding, and supporting are impacting the culture/s on the ground.  We need to stop wondering about what we think they need and be seeking to discover what they actually need.  Easier said then done, I know, but it is vital.

Let’s be careful of what we impose on the world.  What we deem as beneficial might be a noose that is already around our own neck.

Church: Megadeth and Me


1.  The quality or state of being homogeneous.

2.  The state of having identical cumulative distribution function or values.

Someone needs to tell Mirriam-Webster to not use cognates of the word being defined in the definition.  It kinda defeats the point of a definition!

What Mirriam-Webster is trying to say is that homogeneity is a state of likeness; where the component parts are similar.  Uniformity.

So for example, the crowd at a Megadeath concert would be somewhat homogenous.  Tight black jeans, t-shirts with skulls, daggers, and snakes.  There would be mullets aplenty.  You’d see plenty of ink, steel, and leather too.  This is a rather homogenous picture, one that I happily wouldn’t fit into:)

You might also say that two different companies are homogenous.  They have similar business structures, target consumers, and work practices.  You might also look at a local church, perhaps your own, and see that it consists of a similar kind of people.  The word used as an adjective in this instance would look like this:  I am a part of a homogenous church.


I was a part of a church plant not that long ago.  Before the church was off the ground one team member asked, ‘What kind of church is it going to be?’  When some clarifying questions were fired her way about what she meant by the word ‘kind’ she explained that we needed to focus on children, families, or young professionals or someone.  She was wanting to narrow the focus of the church plant to one group of people.


This focus is not an uncommon thing in church plants or even in existing churches.  Churches often target particular groups of people.  Individual services are also found to have a particularly narrow target group.  Let’s not be fooled, this is a growth strategy.  We employ all sorts of strategies to grow our churches and in this case the strategy is to target particular sections of society based upon age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or whatever you ‘like’.

Break it down.

We are talking here about an attractional model of church.  Basketballers will feel comfortable and will feel like they belong to a local church if there are basketballers already there.  If we have artists and musicians – we will attract the same.  Families with children will attract families with children.  It’s a great strategy because it panders to my overwhelming desire to belong to something that is like me.  It thinks, dresses, is in the same stage of life, enjoys the same things, and/or has the same theology, as me.

This strategy banks on the idea that like will attract like.  The result is – like.


The homogenous church can be achieved intentionally or naively.  We can target basketballers and in five years time have a raging sports ministry program and have basketballers coming out of our ears.  We can also live, talk and do church in such a way that we naively marginalise and push others who are not like ourselves to the side, while accepting those that are like ourselves.  We achieve the same outcome of homogeneity, but by different means: intentionally and naively.

If homogeneity is something that the Bible gives the green light to, then we should take an interest in how we get there.  It matters how we implement our strategy of homogeneity.  We need to do it intentionally so that we can lovingly and with care inform those who do not fit in that there are other churches that will accept them.  Perhaps, it might be appropriate to let them know that they can still be a part of what is going on at our church even if they will not entirely fit in and find a sense of belonging.  This is hard news to take and so we should be sensitive to their needs.

Please tell me you’ve picked up the tongue-in-cheek!

I think the reality of the situation is that the Bible does not give the green light to the concept of homogeneity in church as we see it around us.  Let me show you some evidence for what I think is a terribly skewed strategy and idea of what is means to do and be church.

Firstly, the primary way that Paul refers to church is as a gathering (see previous post) of unlike members.  For example, in 1 Corinthians 12:12-31 we get a very graphic image of what the Corinthian church is.  Paul is not offering the church that it can be something if the church so decides, not at all.  It is a body that has many parts.

In another church, this time the church in Ephesus, Paul describes the church as needing to build up the body in order to be more mature.  The purpose of this building up is so that the church would be prepared to do the work of believers, and also so that it would find maturity in unity, which is described later as growing into the head, which is Christ.  This body that grows and matures is reliant upon ‘each part do[ing] its work’ (4:16).

We should understand church as a group of parts.

There is however talk of likeness and homogeneity, but not in terms of what looks like: me, a musician, an artist, a young professional, someone who is single or a basketballer.  The homogenous character that everyone is to be like is Jesus.

We see this everywhere.  Take Philippians 2:1 for example.  Unity and oneness is achieved and realised by knowing what it is to be united to Christ.  Is this not the point of the much flaunted Galatians 3:28: ‘There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus’.  Based on what?  We are all in (v26) and belong to (v29) Christ.

Homogeneity is biblical, but not as we might expect.  Oneness or unity is not a result of clothing preference, musical ability or your age, but whether or not we are found in Christ.

Now there’s a church strategy worth pursuing.

It is worth considering what effect the presence of homogeneity (gender, age, ethnicity, walk of life, employment and socio-economic strata, education, theological, etc) in our churches has on the realisation of the biblical mandate of Christlike homogeneity.

eChurch, iChurch and the hard copy

I have a confession: yesterday I didn’t go to church because we were iced in.

I went to eChurch instead.

We sung some songs with accompanying iTunes with some quickly downloaded lyrics.  We prayed between each song about God’s sovereignty, love and means of salvation.  We listened to a great sermon podcast from Jan 2011 by Rory Shiner from St Matt’s UniChurch, Perth, on being in Christ and the need to live out who we are in Christ.  Then we had a prayer time for the ministries of the Borovtsi Learning Center here.

It was a different experience of church, but one that Christians around the world are becoming increasingly familiar with.

Behold, the eChurch is born.

Everyone knows the flaws of their local hard copy church.  They teach this theology instead of that theology.  They focus on these ministries instead of these needs.  It spends money here instead of there.  It is clique-ee and not welcoming.  They don’t sing this kind of music, only that kind.  The leadership structure is outdated, or too business like.  There is no church discipline, or too much.  The kids ministry is non-existent.  It is not reaching the community…

Why should I go to this hard copy Church when I could design myself a tailor made, custom built, ticks all boxes eChurch?

I mean, if I can get the best sermons of the ‘greatest’ preachers in the world from an iTunes podcast (Tim Keller, Joyce Meyer, Mark Driscoll, Benny Hinn, whoever), why would I go to hear my local pastor ruin another great passage of the Bible, right?

I mean, if I can sing the songs that I like that are sung by the best Christian bands in the world at home on my own with the simple right click and save to desktop, why would I want to go to church and hear the pastor’s wife destroy another old hymn on the piano, right?

And if I want to get a bit of both worlds I can go for the live stream option.  This version of eChurch is an ideal option for the busy worker or cash saver.  I can save $$ and time. I get the experience without the associated palava.  It’s ideal right?

You’ve heard of the organic church, emergent church, early church, traditional church, and every other church.  Is this the new church?


I’d like to pause at this moment because my fear is that with all the internet eChurch data transfer, there has been some unfortunate theological data loss.

If church is not more than praising God, hearing the Bible taught, prayer, and hanging with other believers, then one might be forgiven for thinking that the eChurch is the way to go.

What is missing and why is what is missing so important?

What is missing?

An eChurch is not a gathering.

Firstly, in Hebrews 10:25, we can see that a Christian’s desire to give up gathering together is not a new phenomena.  The writer gives a warning to the Christians to ‘not give up meet together, as some are in the habit of doing‘.  What is missing from the eChurch?  Simple, the gathering of Christians.  We should heed the warning.

Secondly, in 1 Corinthians 14:26 Paul begins to discuss what is proper conduct for worshipping God.  He states, ‘What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together…‘  It is a throw away line that bears great significance for us and our inquiry here.  Paul assumes that Christians will come together to worship God.  Why would Christians in 2012 assume that nothing is lost when one worships God alone in an eChurch?

Thirdly, we read earlier in 1 Corinthians 11 that the gathering is causing Paul plenty of grief.  Despite this Paul does not disband the gathering, instead he points out the problems within it, the need for correction and a way forward.  The gathering is not a dispensable part of Christian culture, but rather an indispensable part of what it means to be a Christian.  In Paul’s letters in the New Testament we can see that Paul’s ministry is not merely church planting, but also to save the existing gatherings from theological and moral dysfunction.

Look how Paul consistently refers to the gathering in italics:

  • v17: “…for your meetings do more harm than good”
  • v18: “I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you”
  • v20: “…when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat.”
  • v33: ” So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together.”
  • v34: “Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.”

Meeting with other Christians is characteristic, in Paul’s eyes, of the life of a Christian.

In Acts 20:7 there was a regular time when the disciples gathered together to break bread.  Perhaps this is referring to participation in communion (Lord’s Supper) as they were instructed when they were with Jesus.  Regardless, there is a coming together of like-minded Christians.

Finally, the final eschatological scene is one of corporate worship.  In Revelations 7:9-10 the writer makes specific reference to the many coming together as one.  ‘After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. 10 And they cried out in a loud voice...’  The picture is one of corporate worship of God; a gathering of many for one purpose.

The eChurch strips the Christian of a fundamental attribute of what it means to live as a Christian, that is, to live and participate in Christian community.

Why do Christians gather?

Hebrews 10:23-25 not only exhorts Christians to keep meeting together, but also states the reason for this.

Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

The first reason given alludes to the fear that Christians, if left to their own devices, will stop showing love and good deeds.  The gathering provides the Christian with a measure of accountability, helping them to maintain a standard of Christian living that they alone might not be able to keep up.

The second reason that the writer of Hebrews gives is most important.  The gathering is the best place…’To encourage one another.’  In times of hardship and trial, Christians can be encouraged and reminded that they are not alone in the struggle.  This gathering is a place where they can be strengthened, so that they can ‘hold unswervingly to the hope that we profess‘.  This is where the Christian’s confidence can be upheld, nourished and maintained in the face of doubt, hopelessness and fear.

Finally, Christians ought to gather together because it is a beautiful foreshadowing and foretaste of the eschatological worship of God shown in Revelations 7.  This is what we are and this is what we do!  By virtue of being found in Christ, Christians can gather as one body and with one voice to praise God.  It is not only a beautiful picture for the world to see, but is also a truly beautiful reality to experience.

There are many more reasons for gathering, not least to serve one another through the exercising of spiritual gifts, but space does not permit.

The eChurch

The eChurch is a development of the original hard copy, but with many unworkable bugs.  It is consumer driven in that it satisfies people’s personal desires rather than fulfil the function of the biblical hard copy.

In fact, because the eChurch removes the gathered element that is fundamental to the original hard copy, perhaps a more appropriate name of this church is the iChurch.


I do recognise that eChurch has amazing benefits, especially for the elderly and the sick who cannot attend church.  In these and other such cases, the eChurch can be an amazing blessing.