As I write this, I am preparing to head down to an in-person meeting. An in-person meeting that, it should be said, will eat up my entire day. Not because the meeting will be especially long and complex, but mainly because of the travel involved to get there. So begins the argument for online meetings and decisions in abstentia.

There was a time when such meetings were necessary in person. There simply wasn’t any other way to have them. Conference calls changed the equation a little, but not quite enough to make the question inevitable. Meeting apps like Zoom or Google Meet (other meeting apps are also available) did change the discussion. These meeting apps did make it so that (according to some at least) there was no real advantage to meeting in person at all. They saved time, costs on travel and yet permitted all the same business to be discussed just as well.

That, in the view of some, was game, set and match for the in person meeting. There was no need for them anymore and some considerable benefits, not least financial savings, to be made as a result. End of discussion.

Except, of course, we all know that isn’t the case. In person meetings still persist and the reason isn’t especially difficult to discern. Online meetings are absolutely fine for certain kinds of meeting; they are a poor replacement for others. They work well in some scenarios and not especially well in others. Typically, we are going to want to make use of both at different times.

Whilst not a perfect rule, it is generally true that business meetings where facts are being presented to trustees, with some (but limited) questions being raised, work perfectly well online. There really is no great advantage to meeting in person to hear somebody read a financial report and the questions we might have can just as easily be addressed online. Business meetings of this kind are generally fine online.

By contrast, as a general rule, anything requiring creativity, back and forth discussion or idea generation (or other things like this), online tends not to work so well. Free-flowing discussion tends to work much better face to face. Back and forth discussion that generates ideas or sparks creative thoughts is not so easy online. Various bits of communication are lost when we are online looking at half a dozen thumbnail videos. Communication tends to end up being more formal, stilted and less engaging online. Sometimes an in person human connection is necessary.

Whilst these are not the only considerations, I do think these things matter when it comes to “online church”. Is a Sunday meeting together more like the trustees meeting where nothing is lost meeting online or one in which soft aspects of communication are significant and in person connection matters significantly? I think there are a bunch of other things to consider too (this is not the only, primary or even conclusive point) but even at this level I think it is clear some very important things are lost when we try to do church in abstentia.

I am all for meeting online and from home when nothing is lost by doing so. I am all for saving time and money to listen to reports. But I think what we are doing on a Sunday morning is much more than tapping into a biblical download. There is more going on, more demanded of us, more that warrants in-person connection. In the end, it is we who lose out when we don’t meet with God’s people in person.