Is the church one click away?

For many people, the church still holds meaning as a physical space rather than a purely religious institution. Charlotte, 32, says she would visit religious buildings as they exist today. 

“Religious places are often very calming,” she explains, adding that they offer an opportunity to “learn about other people’s beliefs.” 

For her, the appeal of the church is not limited to faith alone, but also includes reflection, curiosity, and cultural understanding. In a fast-paced and demanding society, such spaces can offer a rare sense of quiet and stability.

Accessibility, however, plays a crucial role. Charlotte believes that churches could attract more visitors if they were more visible and easier to engage with. 

“If they were more accessible, I’d probably go more often,” she says. This accessibility is not only about physical location, but also about communication. In a world shaped by digital calendars, notifications, and reminders, the absence of churches from these spaces can make them feel distant or forgotten, even to people who are open to visiting.

At the same time, Charlotte is cautious about replacing physical presence with digital alternatives. 

“There’s something special about people coming together in the same physical space,” she says. While online services may offer convenience, she feels they risk losing the communal aspect that makes religious gatherings meaningful. 

“Streaming a service can feel more isolating than actually being there.” This tension lies at the heart of the church’s digital dilemma: how to use technology to invite people in without turning faith into something passive, individual, or detached.

This concern is shared by Priest Leif G. Christensen from Helligaandskirken in central Copenhagen. While emphasizing that “the Bible, the hymn book, and the rituals are largely the same,” he points out that “the way we meet people has changed.” Copenhagen has become a highly diverse, multi-ethnic city, shaped by migration, tourism, and globalization. As a result, congregations now consist of people with very different cultural, social, and religious backgrounds.

According to Christensen, this diversity requires flexibility. “The church must bring the gospel in many ways, not just one,” he explains. Yet he also acknowledges that the church is rarely a pioneer in social or technological change. “The church is often more about tradition than being a first mover.” This careful approach reflects a broader hesitation within religious institutions: while innovation may be necessary, it must not come at the cost of identity.

This balance is especially visible in the church’s approach to digital media. While some congregations livestream services or experiment with platforms like TikTok and Instagram, Helligaandskirken places a strong emphasis on physical presence. “Church is not only a service, it is a fellowship,” Christensen explains. “You can not recreate the feeling of being inside the church through media alone.” He argues that being physically present allows for shared silence, collective rituals, and informal encounters that cannot be replicated on a screen.

Christensen even admits that watching church services on television feels unsatisfying to him. “I am not part of that congregation. I’m a viewer from the outside,” he says. From his perspective, digital participation risks turning worship into consumption rather than involvement. Faith, he suggests, is something that happens between people, not just in front of them.

Still, neither Charlotte nor Christensen rejects digitalization entirely. Instead, both see it as a possible gateway rather than a replacement for physical participation. Charlotte believes digital tools could help people who feel unsure or intimidated about entering a church for the first time. “Digital options could be a good way in,” she says. A livestream, a website, or a social media presence might lower the threshold for those who are curious but hesitant.

For Charlotte herself, however, the solution does not lie in chasing trends or youth platforms. “For me, a simple notification would work best,” she explains, “just a reminder that it’s there if you want it.” This highlights an important point: digitalization does not necessarily mean radical transformation. Sometimes, small gestures of visibility and communication can make a significant difference.

Christensen echoes this pragmatic view. He explains that the church already uses newsletters, emails, and online information to stay in contact with its members. 

“Digital media can awaken curiosity,” he says, but warns against going too far. 

“We don’t want to turn the church into a webcam that runs 42 hours a day.” Limited resources, staff, and time also shape what is possible, making it unrealistic for every church to maintain a strong presence across multiple platforms.

Despite these challenges, the need to engage younger generations remains clear. Christensen points out that around 70 percent of Danish youth still choose confirmation, suggesting that interest in the church has not disappeared. The challenge, he argues, lies in communication. 

“Our job as pastors is to interpret the message so it can be understood, especially by young people.” 

This task requires sensitivity to contemporary language, concerns, and forms of interaction.

Ultimately, the digitalization of the church is not about choosing between online and offline, tradition and innovation, or faith and technology. Rather, it is about balance. As Charlotte puts it, the church remains “a place of comfort.” Digital tools may help people find their way there, but the heart of the experience still lies in shared presence, community, and human connection, things that no algorithm can fully replace.

This story is for all people on Earth