On a Christian forum there was recently some discussion concerning whether or not the forum itself could be regarded as “church” and if so, presuming that women’s ordination to the priesthood may be unBiblical, were women (myself being one of those) permitted therefore to “teach” men in such places. Having presented my arguments against the ordination of women to the priesthood, if a forum could be considered a church, then I was being hooked on my own beliefs and should remain silent. Ouch!

The question was raised along the lines as follows…

“Judah, this of course becomes interesting when we consider the meaning of church.

What consequences we wish to take from that regarding biblical disciplines and behaviours we can discuss… or maybe the gentlemen can discuss. ”

But now for my considered response…

Yes, I agree that some do perceive the internet as a form of “church” - and I have also referred to “the internet church” in my own posts in places. In that regard I am likening to a church (the body of Christ) the kind of fellowship we can have with other Christians all over the globe, meeting as it were in one common place, that being a particular forum to which we each post and chat with each other. But even in calling it that, I am fully aware of the limitations of such, and that it does not entirely meet with the distinguishing characteristics of “church” in its visible sense.

One point that I believe is absolutely essential to make is that the church is both visible and invisible.

Article XIX of the Church of England (1571) speaks of the church in this way:

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.

However, the Westminster Confession of Faith (1643-46) speaks a little more fully of the church as follows:

1. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.
2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
3. …

It goes on to describe components of the visible church, such as ordinances administered and public worship performed.

In its true spiritual reality as the fellowship of all genuine believers, the church is invisible - the church as God sees it. In this spiritual reality Christ is “head over all things to the church, which is his body ….” (Ephesians 1:22); “the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven” (Hebrews 12:23). This is “church” in the broadest sense, including all the redeemed in earth and heaven, and in all ages. This is, as I understand it, the “church” to which is referred in the perception some have concerning Christian fellowship on the internet.

But the church is very definitely visible as well. Scripture passages are very numerous in describing it. In some cases, the word is used in the singular, and in others the plural; in some it is used with reference to a specified church, and in others without such specification. In all cases the sense refers to the visible church. In Acts 11:26, it is said that Paul and Barnabas were “gathered together with the church,” where the church at Antioch is meant. In Acts 14:23, Paul and Barnabas are said to have “appointed elders in every church,” that is, churches which they had planted. In Rev. 2 and 3 the seven churches of Asia Minor are addressed. In Acts 16:5 we are told that the churches “were strengthened in the faith.” There are a great many more references to the visible church, and then the Apostle Paul writes his letters to the various visible churches, the epistles that make up a large part of the New Testament.

It is in these epistles that the matters of church government is addressed. These churches are definitely and permanently organized bodies, and not temporary and loose aggregations of individuals. It is quite impossible, for example, to regard the church at Antioch as a loose aggregation of people for a passing purpose. The letters of Paul to the churches at Rome, Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, cannot be regarded as addressed to other than permanent and definitely organized bodies. These churches were served by two classes of ministers - one general (apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, then those with various of the spiritual gifts), the other local (elders, bishops, deacons - and those titles may be to some extent interchangeable) who exercised the highest ecclesiastical functions. Membership was controlled (baptism, discipline) and officers selected, ordinances observed, sacraments administered, duties and tasks carried out, and relationships ordered in respect to external authority. These components form the distinguishing characteristics of the visible church.

Keeping within the all-important correct context… Paul was writing to the visible churches of the New Testament concerning their own matters of government when he stipulated what he, as an apostle speaking with apostolic authority, designated as the appropriate gender roles for within the visible church. He does not reference these roles to what was fashionable of the day, or culturally appropriate or inappropriate, but to the bigger picture of God’s order of creation which stands for all time. By pivoting his instruction on this act of God (creation) he keeps it clear of any cultural fad/fashion changes in respect to both geography and time.

I am saying, therefore, that these rules apply to the visible church - not to the invisible church of which a cyber-fellowship may possibly be likened - and to the visible church everywhere through all time.

An internet forum is not a visible church as it lacks many of the distinguishing characteristics of such - the aspect of joint public worship of God, the administration of the sacraments (Baptism and Holy Communion being two fundamental ones) and the Biblical system of organization and government, ministry in practical/physical matters, apostolic authority, etc.

The forum to which I post is a forum for debate, I believe. Even although the Apostle Paul’s gender roles have no application in this not-a-church-in-the-visible-sense situation, I do not consider myself to be there in any teaching/authority role, such as Paul forbids to women in regard to men, but am posting my points of view and substantiating them as one does in a debating context.

One last point… when it comes to the analogy of harassment and bullying as was mentioned in the original question, I understand the idea behind that analogy, but there also has to be an objective reference point. For instance, what say that a woman cries “Rape!” and accuses the other of such, because she feels raped, when the other did not even touch her? We all have different thresholds of perceptual experience, and whereas one may feel bullied by somebody’s actions, another may not. We do have to ask if the accused objectively bullied or not. Likewise, the perception of a forum as a church must be verified by reference to what actually distinguishes a church Biblically in the context of Paul’s words, and what is generally agreed upon by the Christian churches themselves. If we do not submit the subjective to the objective, then maybe I can get away with accusing you of stealing my lunch off the table when you are, in fact, fast asleep tucked up in your little bed the other side of the world. And a wink to you, too!