Chapter 7: Virtual Church and Christian Avatars

In his book entitled SimChurch, Douglas Estes describes the developing cyber-church experience and proposes new ways to do church in the virtual world: “Today there are already a couple of confirmed virtual megachurches, and there are more if you count hybrid streamers. There are virtual weddings, virtual communion services, virtual baptisms, and virtual small groups doing real-world missions trips. . . . The church is beginning to be salt and light in our virtual worlds.”[1] According to Estes, thousands of people are flocking to these 3D, immersive, and collaborative worlds that promise truly interactive and meaningful experiences. He says, “The most popular church of the twenty-first century may turn out to be a virtual church.”[2]

What is a virtual church? Future generations will better define this new phenomenon as technology advances and new possibilities become more viable. Douglas Estes describes the ability for you to enter into a virtual world, selecting (or designing) a personal avatar that would visibly represent you in cyberspace as you interact with other people in that same world. You can “attend” a church service with “friends” from around the world and experience a global church in your pajamas from the comfort of your own home.

Sadly, the examples provided by proponents of this world are not attractive. For instance, Christian avatars (or their real-world selves) and software designers have created worship spaces in Second Life in spite of the fact that Second Life is well known for its pornographic and offensive material. Why would a Christian even want to go there? In 2009, the Australian Minister for Censorship banned Second Life in Australia because it did not meet the rating criteria used in that country.[3] Proponents of avatar-based church services will argue that the real church is positioned in a world of iniquity, so why not the virtual church? This is where evangelism can take place in a way that connects with searching souls in a non-offensive environment. Estes even admits that the first thing he noticed about LifeChurch.tv in Second Life is that a number of women wore lingerie to church—well, at least their avatars did.[4]

One may find bad examples and obvious flaws in the virtual church concept, but proponents will keep trying to improve the online church experience in the future. One day technology will catch up with our imagination. 3D holograms of actual people will be projected into a 3D room and church will be conducted somewhere in cyberspace. A hologram is a real-time 3D image of a real person who is not physically present. It will be Skype on steroids. Could multiple holographic images of real people be projected into one space where they sing songs, listen to their real (but holographically projected) pastor preach a sermon from God’s Word, pray together, encourage one another, and undertake a near real-life church experience? This might be the answer for Christians living in remote locations of the world who don’t have a viable real church to join. It’s technologically possible. But would it be desirable? Would it be biblically motivated? And is it really needed? Surely this kind of virtual experience would not really satisfy the Christian soul who hungers for genuine fellowship?

Proponents may argue that the virtual church is taking the gospel to the lost—meeting them where they’re at—a seeker-ministry not content to wait for people to come in—they go out looking for them. It’s the seeker-oriented church service, online. But, we have yet to see a good example of a seeker-oriented church service—real or virtual—gain traction with the unbelieving audience without compromising the gospel message in some way. It could be something to do with the offensive nature of the gospel message. It does not lend itself to being seeker-friendly unless you dumb it down somehow.

These are strong statements. To be clear, we should make all attempts possible to reach unbelievers with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and use technology to do it. But it is not wise to call such evangelistic effort “church.”

In addition to the evangelistic possibilities, proponents of the virtual church hope that the cyber church has a real chance of reconnecting fellowship and community with preaching and ordinances. “If a virtual church is not just a broadcast but a real community united by calling, it has the potential to revolutionize community, to tear down the walls of isolationism and individualism,”[5] says Estes. There’s no doubt that social media has improved over the last ten years and millions have been able to reconnect with old acquaintances in a meaningful way. The world has grown smaller and more people are linked online by common interests than ever before. But does this constitute real community? And can it replace a physical church gathering?

Douglas Estes, author of SimChurch, doesn’t believe that in the near future, real-world churches will cease to exist. Rather, some people will choose to be a part of both a real church and virtual churches.[6] In time though, more and more people will prefer the online church communities over real-world church experiences. To this Tim Challies exclaims, “I fear that [Estes] is right. I fear this because despite arguments to the contrary, the virtual church is not the real church.”[7]

In response to such criticism, Estes writes,

When well-meaning church leaders knock virtual churches, but post blogs and maintain websites to make their sermons available to people, they are actually contributing to that which they think they are preventing—online community. Except that [their] type of community is so impoverished by its lack of participation and interaction as to work against healthier forms of community found in either real-world or virtual-world churches.[8]

Estes’s response is partly valid. Could it be that the blogs and online sermon libraries produced by conservative and real-world-loving evangelicals, while originally created for good reasons, have also had a negative impact upon the church at large, namely, disengaging the preaching event from body-life and fellowship? It is possible. But does that mean we cut off the Internet and refuse to make our biblical resources available online altogether? No! That would be like stopping Gutenberg from printing Bibles in the 1400s. The net effect would be worse than the risk of growing individualism in Christianity.

The virtual-church agenda has been partially driven by those who are dissatisfied with prepackaged, professionally designed, productions—recordings of church services which are aired on television and radio, and distributed on CDs, DVDs, and over the Internet—none of which provide community nor fellowship opportunities. We might even join them in their criticism of ‘professionally produced’ ministry, but is the virtual church the answer?

New advancements in technology are great, but we need to carefully track their unexpected impact upon our Christian experience.

Sermon-listening and fellowship have moved far from each other. We can point our fingers at postmodern, Emergent leaders and blame them for the overuse of digital media that has resulted in increased autonomy in the church, but that would not be a fair representation of what is happening. Detached Christians do not date or hate the church because of technological advancements in religious media. Rather, they are drawn to religious media because they date or hate the church.

If none of the aforementioned trends have influenced your sermon-listening practices, maybe other trends have.  I have one more to discuss next week.

---

[1] Douglas Charles Estes, SimChurch: Being the Church in the Virtual World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2009), 25.

[2] Ibid., 55.

[3] Christian Today Australia, “Second Life banned in Australia,” entry posted June 29, 2009. http://au.christiantoday.com/article/second-life-banned-in-australia/6526.htm (accessed: July 31, 2012).

[4] Douglas Estes, SimChurch, 157.

[5] Ibid., 75.

[6] Ibid., 27–28.

[7] Tim Challies, The Next Story: Life and Faith After the Digital Explosion (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2011), 106.

[8] Douglas Estes, SimChurch, 75.

Chapter 6: Streaming Churches

On July 30, 2012, lifechurch.tv, an online church, programmed a “message” entitled At the Movies 4 by Pastor Craig Groeschel. It was a forty-minute presentation that encouraged listeners to fight for family by extending forgiveness to one another. The message incorporated extended clips from Warrior—a movie that climaxes with two brothers wrestling each other in a competition to win five million dollars. In the heated exchange they found a newfound respect for one another while their previously drunken father watched on proudly.

At the end of the presentation, those in online attendance were encouraged to extend the same kind of forgiveness to others. The catch phrase was, “Fight for your family.” Prayers were offered for those who wanted to join the battle and online observers were given an opportunity to respond by clicking a button to raise a digital hand. Those who responded were directed to a page where they could provide personal contact details and receive more information about lifechurch.tv. They were offered a free Bible and encouraged to commit to a three-month pledge to support lifechurch.tv. The pledge came with a full money back guarantee if the person was not blessed and happy with their investment.

While watching the message, a chat room popped up in an adjacent window. A wide range of different people occupied the chat room. There was an online host who tried his best to guide discussion in the chat room, but his job was difficult to say the least. One visitor asked incessantly for a sex movie. Another couldn’t type a coherent sentence, or maybe he was just trying to be a nuisance. Another announced this was her church experience for the week and was excited about the “rocking music.” None referenced Scripture and none talked about anything spiritually thoughtful—not even the host. Most of the discussion revolved around simple introductions—Where are you?—I am in Alaska—It must be cold there? etc. The host did his best to make it a welcoming environment, but he spent more time promoting the ministry than providing any kind of spiritual encouragement to the attendees. He was simply glad people were there.

The name of the ministry is ‘Lifechurch,’ but is it really church? Does this kind of experience fulfill any of the mandates in Scripture that encompass church life? In future blog posts I will answer that question.

Another form of online church experience is provided by VirtualChurch.com. There you can experience programmed and choose-your-own-adventure types of worship services. The VirtualChurch.com software design provides “over 365 billion different possible worship-service combinations.”[1] The website promises that no two worship services will be alike and each person’s experience will be unique to themselves.

These web-based worship services make the role of the onlooker just that—an onlooker. The problem is that most onlookers do not see themselves that way. They are self-deceived. The reason why people love to watch reality television shows like Survivor and The Amazing Race is because they enjoy participating in civic groups without actually participating in them.[2] Yet, we don’t realize we’re not participating in them. The players on these shows become our friends, but they’re not really our friends. We just pretend they are. We are merely observing “friends,” not being friends.

So too in the streaming church. The so-called “attendee” is in attendance only as an observer to a previously produced show. The observer might think they’re involved, but they’re not.

Douglas Estes rightly explains the limitations of streaming services: “While we may applaud the power of streaming technology and random number generators to deliver unique, on-demand sermons and worship services, those technologies do not foster community. You can be present, but you’ll be alone.”[3]

Estes’s critique is correct and presents a very real concern. In streaming churches, body-life, fellowship, worship, and sermon-listening become compartmentalized. So to resolve this problem, tech-savvy and community-wanting critics of the performance-based online church services have taken the online church experience to another level—a virtual church populated by virtual people—“avatars.”

I’ll describe these avatars next week.

---

[1] Douglas Charles Estes, SimChurch: Being the Church in the Virtual World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2009), 72.

[2] A concept discussed in Satoshi Kanazawa, "Bowling with Our Imaginary Friends," Evolution and Human Behavior 23 (2002): 167–71.

[3] Douglas Estes, SimChurch, 72.

Chapter 5: Church Hating

Maybe the church-hating trend is the most serious of them all. Churchless Christianity certainly separates preaching from fellowship. Today, Christians “don’t go to church to get holy.” Instead, they “go to the mountains.”[1]

We try to make it on our own. We practice spiritual privatization, do-it-yourself Christianity. There is today a false doctrine of private spirituality at work that downplays anything corporate or communal. It is a powerful and prevailing secular doctrine that makes it difficult for us to believe the Bible’s teaching. Privatization makes religion all about me—and not about us. This thinking is secular at best and at its worst can produce a spurious pagan spirituality.[2]

And yet, those who practice private Christianity find the most positive ways to describe their churchless experience. Dwight Friessen lists some typical arguments:

·      “Since I quit ‘going to church,’ I have more time with my family, and I love it.”

·      “Now that I don’t have committee meetings, I’m getting to know my neighbors. And it feels like they actually want to know me.”

·      “Today, when I hear of a financial need or I see a friend who needs help, I give; I don’t need to wait for a ‘church response.’ I am the response.”

·      “Since I ‘dropped out’ of Sunday school and midweek programs, our family has started to volunteer one Saturday each month at a neighborhood food bank. We’re making a real difference, and I think Christ is pleased.”

·      “My husband and I go for walks on Sunday mornings. We talk and pray. And we’re no longer content with Christian clichés; instead we wrestle with God—together.”[3]

At first blush, the unsuspecting Christian could be drawn into these arguments and see them as positives. But are they?

Did you notice how many “I”s are in those lines? It is all about “me” and what “I” want. There’s no thought for other members of the body of Christ—no responsibility toward spiritually gifted individuals whom God has placed into the body to minister to one-another (1 Cor 12:12–27). These are selfish expressions disguised in deceiving postmodern rhetoric. In Keith Drury’s book, There Is No I in Church, he summarizes:

The privatization of faith may be more than just a philosophical problem; it may have a sin problem at its root. Our fallen nature drives us to become the master of our own lives rather than submitting ourselves to Christ and the church. Our love of private religion may simply be a lordship issue. We hate submission. We want to be spiritually self-sufficient.[4]

Entire families, who previously served faithfully, walk away from their local church because they do not agree with a church decision. Other individuals claim to be so offended by someone in the church that they leave never to return. In one case, the father of a departing family stated that he was now the pastor/elder of his new church that he conducted in his own home with just his wife and eight children in attendance.

What’s driving these kinds of decisions? How is it so easy for a family to leave the church they once loved, often over relatively small issues? Why is it that Christians minimize the need for Christian fellowship without considering the consequences?

Of course, some so-called “churches” should be avoided—the ones that don’t preach the gospel—the ones that teach damning heresy—the ones that are led by lying hypocrites. But that isn’t what I am referring to here. I am talking about Christians who do have a gospel-preaching church in their town, but who cannot find it within themselves to choose to love the people in that congregation. They are looking for the perfect church and haven’t yet acknowledged that they’re not so perfect themselves.

In their book, Why We Love the Church, Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck write: “These days, spirituality is hot; religion is not. Community is hip, but the church is lame. Both inside the church and out, organized religion is seen as oppressive, irrelevant, and a waste of time. Outsiders like Jesus but not the church. Insiders have been told they can do just fine with God apart from the church.”[5]

This kind of thinking is spurred on by author George Barna who encourages a revolution in the way we think about the church. He believes the organized church is not a necessary part of the believer’s experience. He writes, “There is no verse in Scripture that links the concepts of worshiping God and a ‘church meeting.’ The Bible does not tell us that worship must happen in a church sanctuary and therefore we must be actively associated with a local church.”[6] This kind of teaching is changing the way people think of the church today.

The Jesus character in The Shack explains that he doesn’t like religion and he doesn’t create institutions. Via the narrative of that runaway best seller, William Young claims that the church we see is only a man-made system.[7] Sadly, these anti-church sentiments encourage people to stay away from the body of Christ.

The Bible explains that people will avoid church when they are offended by the authoritative preaching of God’s Word (2 Tim 4:4). Explaining the implications of Scripture makes sinners feel uncomfortable. It’s what confronts their lifestyle choices. And the popular Emergent thinking of today’s postmodern ‘church’ is helping them to justify their selfish actions.

In his book entitled Preaching Re-Imagined, Doug Pagitt decries preaching and replaces it with “progressional dialogue.”[8] Emergent leaders have undermined the church that God Himself established and replaced preaching, public worship, accountability, responsibility, and genuine fellowship with couch conversations over lattes at Starbucks.

Those who walk away from the church are honest enough to explain: “I love Christ, but I cannot stand the church.” But to these, Keith Drury replies, “Sorry. You can’t behead Christ by taking the head without the body.”[9]

Now for those who have left the church and lived without preaching and fellowship for some time, often there can be a yearning for the very thing they have turned their back on. Sometimes, church-deserters want to find ways to satisfy their appetite for the nourishment they know they need, but cannot muster the humility required to return to the church—the source of that spiritual supply. So they turn to other options. Today, individualistic, me-centered people can get their live church fix from a distance at the click of a mouse. Once again, preaching and fellowship are being estranged.

Where do church-daters and church-haters turn for their church experience?  Some of them turn to streaming churches.  I’ll describe the streaming-church phenomenon next week. . .

---

[1] Keith W. Drury, There Is No I in Church: Moving Beyond Individual Spirituality to Experience God’s Power in the Church (Indianapolis, IN: Wesleyan Publishing House, 2006), 20.

[2] Ibid., 19.

[3] Dwight J. Friesen, Thy Kingdom Connected: What the Church Can Learn from Facebook, the Internet, and Other Networks (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009), 17.

[4] Keith Drury, There Is No I in Church, 21.

[5] Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion (Chicago, Moody Publishers, 2009), 13.

[6] George Barna, Revolution (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2005), 114.

[7] William P. Young, The Shack: A Novel (Newbury Park, CA: Windblown Media, 2007), 178–79.

[8] Doug Pagitt, Preaching Re-Imagined: The Role of the Sermon in Communities of Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2005), 18–24.

[9] Keith Drury, There Is No I in Church, 31.