Digital Worship Fatigue by Thom Rainer

When the pandemic arrived, churches around the world had no choice but to pivot to online worship. Sanctuaries were empty, but livestreams and Zoom calls gave congregations a way to stay connected. For a time, the transition felt almost miraculous. Churches that had never considered online ministry suddenly found themselves reaching people far beyond their usual walls.

Some pastors even reported record numbers. Views were counted in the hundreds or thousands. Sermons were being streamed across states and even countries. The excitement was palpable. Many wondered if this was the new normal for the church.

But four years later, the enthusiasm has waned. Online worship remains a tool, but it no longer carries the same momentum. Attendance is down, engagement is weak, and many believers are simply tired of digital church. What began as a lifeline has in many cases become a burden. This growing reality has a name: digital worship fatigue.

Online Worship Is Declining in Popularity

When the pandemic forced churches to close their doors, online worship became the only option. Overnight, pastors scrambled to set up cameras, stream services, and learn new platforms. For a while, it worked. In fact, many churches reported that their digital attendance exceeded their in-person numbers. The thinking was simple: this is the future.

But the data now tells a different story. Pew Research notes that while 92% of regular churchgoers watched services online at least once during the height of the pandemic, fewer than half continued the practice consistently by 2022. Barna’s surveys confirm that the majority of Christians now say they prefer in-person worship and view online church as a secondary option at best.

The novelty has worn off. What felt innovative in 2020 feels thin in 2025. Pastors who once celebrated thousands of views now quietly admit that only a fraction remain. The consumer culture of digital church—easy to start, easy to stop—has proven unsustainable.

The truth is clear: the surge in online participation was not a revolution. It was a survival strategy. And now, people are tired of digital substitutes. What they want most is to gather again.

Screens Cannot Replace Sacred Spaces

Online worship has its place, but a screen can never replicate a sanctuary.

A livestream delivers content—a sermon, a song, a prayer. But worship was never designed to be just information transfer. Worship is embodied. It’s the sound of voices joining together, the atmosphere of prayer, and the physical act of gathering.

A screen strips away much of that. You can watch the music, but you can’t feel the vibrations of voices filling the room. You can hear the sermon, but you don’t sense the collective weight of people leaning into God’s Word together.

Community also suffers. In-person worship allows for chance conversations, hugs in the hallway, and eye contact that reassures someone they are not alone. Online services cannot reproduce those sacred moments.

Even the physical act of showing up matters. Walking into a church building is a declaration: “I’m part of this body. I’m here to meet with God and His people.” Sitting at home in pajamas doesn’t carry the same meaning.

For a season, digital worship was necessary. But over time, the absence of sacred space left many believers spiritually thin. It turns out that screens are a weak substitute for sanctuaries.

The writer of Hebrews captured it perfectly: “Do not neglect to meet together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encourage one another” (Hebrews 10:25). Screens are helpful. Sacred spaces are essential.

The Distraction Dilemma

One of the great challenges of digital worship is simple: distraction.

In a sanctuary, most distractions are limited. A phone may buzz. A child may fidget. But the environment itself is designed to focus attention on God.

At home, distractions are everywhere. The doorbell rings. The dog barks. The laundry buzzer goes off. A text message pops up during the sermon. Worship competes with a dozen other voices.

Even the screen itself invites divided attention. A livestream is just one browser tab among many. The temptation to check email, scroll social media, or glance at the news is constant. The average online viewer rarely gives full, uninterrupted focus for more than a few minutes.

Children in the home add another layer. Parents attempting to watch often juggle breakfast, playtime, or squabbles. What might feel like a calm experience in a pew becomes chaos on the couch.

The result? Worship becomes background noise rather than a sacred encounter. Instead of being immersed in Scripture, prayer, and song, people drift in and out. Some “attend” a full service without truly engaging a single moment.

Pastors know this struggle. Many have received messages like, “I loved the part about forgiveness,” only to realize the person tuned in for five minutes and missed the rest. Online numbers may look strong, but the depth of engagement is weak.

Distraction is not a minor issue—it undercuts the very purpose of worship. Without focus, the heart is rarely transformed.

Convenience Breeds Complacency

Online worship is undeniably convenient. With a few clicks, you can join a service from your living room, your car, or even a beach chair. For those who are sick, traveling, or homebound, this accessibility is a blessing.

But convenience comes with a cost. What begins as a short-term solution can become a long-term substitute. Healthy members often start choosing the easiest path—watching online instead of gathering in person.

When worship is reduced to convenience, commitment weakens. Church becomes optional, something to fit in around errands, sports, or weekend plans. It shifts from a central rhythm of life to a side activity when time allows.

This decline affects more than attendance. Giving drops. Volunteering decreases. Fewer people step into leadership roles. Online worshipers rarely serve on committees, teach classes, or greet at the door. Their engagement is passive rather than active.

Over time, convenience breeds complacency. A casual click replaces the discipline of showing up. A sermon on screen replaces fellowship with others. The church shifts from a community of belonging to a product to consume.

Convenience is not always the enemy. But when it becomes the norm, it erodes the very heart of commitment. The easy option eventually costs the church dearly.

Digital Worship Should Supplement, Not Replace

The digital church is not going away. It still has a role to play in ministry. The key is learning how to use it wisely.

Online services provide access for people who cannot attend in person—shut-ins, the chronically ill, or those traveling. For seekers who are hesitant to step into a building, a livestream can be a gentle first step toward faith. For members who relocate, digital worship can help them stay connected during transition.

The danger comes when churches view digital worship as a permanent replacement. No screen can sustain the long-term spiritual health of a believer. Christianity is designed to be lived in community, not isolation.

The better approach is a both/and strategy. Use digital tools as a supplement, not a substitute. Encourage members to take advantage of online services when necessary, but call them back consistently to embodied community.

Digital platforms can also enhance ministry beyond Sunday morning. They can distribute midweek devotionals, small group resources, and discipleship content. In that sense, the internet becomes a tool for depth rather than just convenience.

But the priority must remain clear: the gathered church is essential. Digital ministry extends the church’s reach, but it cannot replace the church’s core.

The goal should never be to build a digital-only congregation. The goal is to leverage every tool available to bring people together in person, where worship is richest and discipleship is strongest.

Screens are useful servants. But the sanctuary remains home.

The Fatigue Is Real

Digital worship fatigue is real. The decline in online participation is not a sign of failure, but a reminder of how God designed His people. Worship is not just content; it is community. It is not only heard; it is felt.

The church must not abandon digital tools, but it must place them in their proper place—useful, but never ultimate. The greater call is to bring people back into the house of God, where presence matters more than pixels.

The psalmist declared, “I was glad when they said to me, ‘Let us go to the house of the Lord’” (Psalm 122:1). That joy cannot be livestreamed. It must be lived.

The Church Divided over Pastors Should Remember Christ is the Only Head

The pastor is a vital and essential office in the local church.  In fact, only pastors (elders, bishop, shepherd, overseer, pastor - all the same office) and deacons are the only two Biblical offices in the local church.

The pastor is a gift from God (Ephesians 4: 7-11) and, like all the gifts from God, should be received as a treasure and with thanksgiving.  You can't show your pastor enough appreciation for the gift he is from God to your church.

But we can sometimes put the pastor on such a pedestal that everything and everyone relates only to the pastor.  Such was the case in Corinth when Paul received reports that the church was divided on who "they liked best as pastor."  In First Corinthians 1: 10-17 there are four camps mentioned, and I can only imagine how the arguments went in regard to why they liked this particular pastor or didn't like him.

Paul - the first camp was "I am of Paul." Can't you just hear those who loved Paul saying, "Oh, he was such a deep preacher.  When he preached, he really challenged us with his knowledge of God and the Bible.  You got 'meat' when he preached."  

Those who didn't like him most likely responded, "Paul was difficult to follow.  He preached over my head.  I just think when you preach, if you will put the goods on the bottom shelf so the young ones can get it, then even the giraffe can bend his head to reach it.  Plus, I just couldn't get over how Paul looked when I heard him preach.  That eye was constantly ousing out and it was so distracting.  I'm glad he's not here anymore."

Apollos - the second camp was "I am of Apollos."  Acts 18:25 tells us Apollos was "fervent in spirit," meaning he was passionate and "on fire."  I can just hear them saying, "Man, when Apollos preaches, he gets all fired up.  He even runs up and down the aisle.  I love to see his passion for God instead of this milk-toast type of preacher."  

Those who didn't like him most likely responded, "Apollos was just too wild.  You never knew what he was going to do.  He even scared me.  Plus, you don't have to get all that excited.  We are just not that type of church.  Plus, he never really said anything that was that moving or worthy of remembering. I just like my pastor to be more of a teacher....calm, never raising his voice."

Cephas (Peter) - the third camp was "I am of Cephas."  This is Peter.  Now we know Peter was the leader of the apostles.  I can hear those who liked him saying, "Now Peter, man, he was a leader.  He was a take-charge kind of guy.  We always had something going on when Peter was here.  And I loved it...you never knew what he was going to say or who he was going to offend.  He would sure step on your toes every once in a while, but you know, if the preacher never steps on your toes, then he's not really preaching.  Now, Peter had to come back and apologize sometime, but I liked Peter's preaching."

Those who were not in his camp likely responded, "Peter always had to be in control.  No one else ever had an opinion that he would consider. It was his way or the highway.  That's just not like who Christ is.  I want my preacher to hear everyone and consider their opinions.  I mean, Peter taught us we are all priests, but we never had much input in the way the church was run.  Plus, oh my goodness, he even cussed once or twice.  Holy smoke...can you believe a pastor doing that?  Now, I will give it to him...he could get things done, but it was just not in the right spirit."

Christ - the fourth camp was "I am of Christ."  All I will say here is that these were the ultimate spiritual people.  They just followed Christ and were proud of it.

Oh my goodness...I do believe those camps are still in EVERY church.  

So what did Paul have to say about this situation?  First Corinthians 3: 1-7

1.  All the camps were believers who were carnal and not mature. (verses 1-4)

2.  All the pastors (Paul, Apollos) are just ministers, servants, and are really not anything.  They just have some special grace to give, but no one has everything. (verses 5, 7)

3. The only thing that matters is "God giving the increase." (verse 6)

Churches built around the personality of the pastor will not be built on a solid, lasting foundation.  But when God is the one adding, then the results will last.

And don't ever forget, Christ is the head of the church, not the pastor (including me). 

Blessings;

David

The Impact of Jesus' Resurrection by Tony Merida

 

Genesis ends with Joseph’s death. Deuteronomy ends with Moses’s death. Joshua ends with Joshua’s death. The Gospels end with Jesus’s resurrection. And that changes everything.

—Tony Merida

Be the church by Shane Pruitt

Don't just attend church.

Love the church. Serve the church. Give through the church. Invite people to church. Worship Jesus with the church. Encourage the church. Participate in the church. Pray for the church. Be the church.

Why I Chose the Church with Worn-Out Bathrooms by Jen Oshman

I’ll never forget one Sunday morning after our family had just moved back to the U.S. from living overseas. We had to find a place to worship. “Church shopping,” as it’s sometimes called, was tough for many reasons. But on that particular Sunday morning, I observed something that made me downright giddy: curled-up linoleum in the women’s bathroom.

A worn-out restroom wouldn’t normally give me joy, but the somewhat neglected flooring told me something important about that church. Combined with a crowd bustling in the sanctuary, the lively conversations that ensued as soon as the worship service ended, and the gospel-packed sermon we’d just listened to, it was obvious this church had a healthy outward focus.

As first-time visitors, we were greeted by the pastor, other church staff, and everyone sitting near us in the sanctuary. Volunteers met my kids at the Sunday school room door with huge smiles, and our pew-mates offered me tissues when I shed some tears during the service.

These people cared more about welcoming newcomers than they did about the bathroom floors. Their hearts and their budget were set more on people than on their facility. I’m not suggesting curled linoleum is a litmus test for faithful churches. But we’d visited at least a few churches with beautiful bathrooms but no obvious enthusiasm for newcomers or the grace and gospel of Jesus. Seeing those vibrant people and their service, alongside an imperfect building, gave me hope that this congregation would be a place of refuge in our transition—a people who would make space for us.

Externally Focused

And they were. After a couple of Sundays, a handful of conversations with church members, and even invitations to hang out with them during the week, we learned this church’s culture was very outwardly focused. They worked hard to welcome outsiders, serve their community, and make their church building a warm and welcoming home for anyonewho wanted to come in.

Their hearts and their budget were set more on people than on their facility.

Such a radical outward focus and commitment to welcoming others can feel risky and counterintuitive for both church leaders and members. Shouldn’t we focus on ourselves? we wonder. Will the people in here be OK if we keep extending a welcome to the people out there?

But here’s the crazy, countercultural, faith-requiring answer to those questions: To the extent we try to save or preserve or protect our churches for their own sakes, we will lose them. Jesus says to you and me and to every church family, “Lose your life for me and for the gospel and that’s where you will find true life” (see Matt. 10:39). The more we as individuals and our churches as a whole seek to lay ourselves down for others, the more joy, satisfaction, and true life we’ll find.

Rethinking Priorities

This upside-down spiritual truth is what my family observed at the church with the curled-up linoleum. Their priorities were evident: fixing up their church building came second to serving their community and inviting others in. One might think they needed to keep their facilities pristine so more people would visit and come back. It would certainly be a bonus for the church members who use that bathroom week in and week out. And please hear me, I’m not making a prescription for all churches to neglect their buildings for the sake of the gospel.

But this church’s example is provoking and worth considering. As church leaders and members, we’re wise to keep an eye out for signs our churches are too self-focused. Here are some questions worth asking:

• Does your congregation see the culture outside your church as an enemy to be kept away or as people to be welcomed in with the love and mercy of Jesus?
• Which are your church attendees more likely to ask: “What can I receive?” or “What can I give?”
• When presented with a plan to plant a new church or to provide a missional outreach activity, is your congregation excited or resistant?
• Does your congregation tend to idolize the past and the “good ol’ days,” or is there a fresh excitement about what God is doing today?
• Looking at your church budget and calendar, do you see evidence of spending time and money on outward-facing ministry?
• As a pastor or church leader, do you feel tempted to view people in the pews as dollars in the bank, thereby making yourself susceptible to catering to the people “in here” at the expense of the souls “out there”?

Laying Ourselves Down

If we’re honest, I think every Christian can detect in himself or herself an element of self-focus. Thankfully, our God is endless in mercy, and he’ll help us take up our crosses and follow him.

The more we seek to lay ourselves down for others, the more joy, satisfaction, and true life we’ll find.

The goal for you and me isn’t curled-up linoleum in our church bathrooms. The goal is to honor and proclaim Christ crucified, risen, and coming again. The goal is to lay ourselves and our churches down, again and again, for others, as our Savior did for us. As Jesus welcomed us in, may we too welcome others. Our Lord sacrificed his own comfort—his own life—that he might welcome us. By his indwelling power, may we go to great and sacrificial lengths to do the same.

This article first appeared here at The Gospel Coalition.

 

 

Christ in Every Book of the Bible by Charles Spurgeon

 

Is It Wrong to Have Sex Before Marriage? by Kevin DeYoung

 (This is the original post here)

Not long ago, an American politician found herself in an awkward situation when she mentioned at a prayer breakfast that she was running late for the event because her fiancé wanted to have sex that morning. From her public admission, it was clear that the woman and her fiancé were living together and were in a sexual relationship. What was also clear is that the woman—a professing Christian at an evangelical church (with her pastor in the audience)—didn’t realize she had said or done anything wrong. She mentioned her reason for being late with a smile and with a chuckling assurance to her fiancé that she would see him in the evening and that he wouldn’t have to wait long for his desires to be fulfilled. Later, after getting flack for her risqué remarks, the congresswoman explained that she goes to church because she is a sinner, not because she is a saint.

I mention this story not to draw attention to this particular event or to pick on this particular politician, but to illustrate the reality that sex before marriage, even for many Christians, has lost any sense of stigma. Watch almost any television show or any movie that involves dating or romance, and you will find that sexual activity between non-married persons is completely normal and utterly pervasive. Christians may still get upset when the culture pushes an LGBTQ agenda, but most of those same Christians won’t even notice when popular songs, shows, videos, or movies routinely show, describe, or assume sex before marriage. If worldliness is whatever makes sin look normal and righteousness look strange (to paraphrase David Wells), then the routine acceptance of sex before marriage is one of the clearest signs of worldliness in our age.

Is It Wrong?

The title of this piece asks, “Is it wrong to have sex before marriage?” so let me start by showing from the Bible that such behavior is clearly a sin. “Fornication” is the (now rarely used word) for sex between two persons who are not married. In traditional terms, adultery has often meant illicit sex once married, and fornication has meant illicit sex outside of marriage. The word “fornication” is used in the King James Version in 1 Corinthians 6:18, but the Greek word there is porneia which includes every kind of illicit sexual activity, from adultery to homosexuality to prostitution to sex before marriage.

The Bible doesn’t dwell on the sin of fornication because such behavior was, in the minds of the biblical authors, clearly and obviously wrong. We see this assumption in several places. According to Exodus 22:16–17, the man who has sex with a non-engaged virgin, should make her his wife, indicating that sexual intercourse is a covenant-forming activity not to be entered into apart from the covenant bonds of marriage. Likewise, according to Deuteronomy 22:13–21, if a woman has sex before marriage, she is put in the same category as a prostitute. The Torah does not allow for sex before marriage.

The New Testament carries forward the same sexual boundaries found in the Old Testament. When Joseph sought to quietly break off his betrothal to pregnant Mary, it is obvious that Joseph considers Mary to have done something wrong and that the whole community will also disapprove of Mary’s behavior (Matt. 1:19). The Bible also considers it important for us to know that Mary really was a virgin (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:34). Most clearly, the logic of 1 Corinthians 7—that it is better to marry than to burn with passion (1 Cor. 7:9)—only works on the assumption that sexual activity belongs in marriage and not outside of marriage. The strong desire for sexual intimacy should only be fulfilled within the bonds of marriage between a man and woman (1 Cor. 7:36–38). Every other context for sexual intimacy is sin. This means that sexual activity before marriage—which includes sexual intercourse, and by extension, every kind of romantic activity involving one’s sexual parts—is prohibited by God.

Why Is It Wrong?

That fornication is sin should be obvious from even a cursory reading of the Bible. Why fornication is wrong takes a little more thought. As I said earlier, the Bible doesn’t say a whole lot about sex before marriage. We cannot automatically gauge the importance of a matter in the Bible, or the gravity of an offense, merely by counting up the number of verses used to discuss the issue. The sense one gets from reading the Scriptures is that the people of God knew fornication was obviously wrong and so there wasn’t a lot to say except to set forth the consequences of the sin and how to avoid and flee the sin. Nevertheless, if we think a bit broader and deeper, it’s not hard to understand why the Bible puts premarital sex outside the bounds of licit sexual behavior. 

Simply put, fornication is a sin because it is inconsistent with the nature of sex, the nature of marriage, and the nature of the family. Marriage is a covenant bond between a man and woman (Mal. 2:14), a covenantal bond sealed by the one flesh union of sexual intimacy (Gen. 2:24). In his book Marriage as Covenant, pastor and biblical scholar Gordon Hugenberger argues convincingly that marriage during the Old Testament period was typically formed by the swearing of a solemn oath (verba solemnia) and then ratified by the oath-sign of sexual intercourse. The two elements were meant to go together, with the public promise preceding the private ratification. As Hugenberger puts it, “because of the necessarily private, though no less binding, nature of sexual union as an oath-sign, the complementary verba solemnia were especially appropriate as they offer essential public evidence of the solemnization of a marriage” (p. 216). When couples have sex before marriage, they are engaging in private activity whose purpose is to consummate a public promise. Without the latter, the former is an endeavor to enjoy the benefits of the covenant without formally entering into the covenant.

We should not overlook the language of “one flesh” in Genesis 2:24. On one level, it can be argued that the language of “one flesh” means sexual intimacy should not take place unless the couple is ready to commit to “oneness” in every other area of the relationship. Sex is the final and most intimate of relational bonds, and it should not be entered into unless the couple has promised to be bound together for life. That is a fair inference from the language of “one flesh.”

At the same time, the more direct referent is not to the oneness of relational intimacy but to the oneness of biological function. The reason that same-sex unions do not constitute marriage is the same reason that couples do not commit fornication by merely holding hands or hugging. “One flesh” does not refer to any kind of activity that physically connects one person to another. A man and a woman become “one flesh” in sexual intercourse because their individual bodies come together for a singular biological purpose. Marriage is that sort of union which, if all the plumbing is working correctly and takes place at the opportune time, produces children. This doesn’t mean every act of sex must produce children, but it does mean that when we engage in sexual activity, we are opening ourselves up to the gift of children. The promises made in marriage matter not just for the bride and groom. The promises matter for the sake of the children that they hope to produce and for the sake of the wider community that benefits when children are born in wedlock and raised by their two biological parents.

Sex before marriage undermines all this. Fornication only “works” if sex can be divorced from the promises that constitute a marriage, divorced from the public dimension of marriage, and divorced from the children that normally come from marriage and flourish most in the context of marriage. The Bible clearly and explicitly says that premarital sex is wrong. The Bible just as clearly, if more implicitly, teaches that premarital sex is personally selfish and publicly subversive of the goods that marriage is meant to promote and protect.

What If I’ve Already Committed this Wrong?

I would be remiss if I didn’t offer a word of hope for those who already know that premarital sex is wrong and feel terrible that they’ve committed this sin. Fornication is not the unforgivable sin, neither does it consign a person to a life of second-class spiritual citizenship. Think of the second chance given to the prostitute Gomer in the book of Hosea. Think of the sexual sinners in the genealogy of Jesus. Think about the women who were sexual sinners who encountered God’s grace in Jesus. Most importantly, think of the cross where all our sins can be washed whiter than snow. Let us walk in the light as God is in the light (1 John 1:7). It’s true, sex before marriage is a sin, but if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). 

Kevin DeYoung is the senior pastor at Christ Covenant Church (PCA) in Matthews, North Carolina and associate professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological Seminary.