See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/346024152

Virtual Reality Church as a New Mission Frontier in the Metaverse: Exploring

Theological Controversies and Missional Potential of Virtual Reality Church

Article  in  Transformation An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies · September 2020

DOI: 10.1177/0265378820963155

CITATION READS

1 1,817

1 author:

Guichun Jun
Oxford Centre for Mission Studies
5 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Guichun Jun on 19 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

963155
research-article2020
TRN0010.1177/0265378820963155TransformationJun

Article
Transformation
1­–9
Virtual Reality Church as a New © The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Mission Frontier in the Metaverse: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0265378820963155
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265378820963155
Exploring Theological journals.sagepub.com/home/trn

Controversies and Missional

Potential of Virtual Reality Church

Guichun Jun
Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, Oxford, UK

Abstract
The combination of COVID-19 and the Fourth Industrial Revolution has brought an unprecedented new
normal, which has affected all aspects of human life, including religious activities. As a consequence, church
mission and different ministries have found themselves more dependent on media. Furthermore, the
convergent digital technology continually develops augmented reality and virtual reality, in which churches
are planted and continue to carry out their mission and ministries. Although virtual reality churches are new
mission frontiers in the digital age, there are several theological issues from the conventional perspective of
church ministry and mission. This paper aims to address the controversial theological issues and reflect on
them from an ecclesiological perspective to explore a theological possibility to overcome the issues and to
justify their mission and ministries in virtual reality.

Keywords
Church 4.0, Church and media, Mission for digital natives, Virtual reality church, Church’s mission in the
metaverse, Ecclesial nature of virtual reality church, Ecclesiastical practices of virtual reality church, Future
mission of the church in the digital age, Cybersociality and future church

Introduction: Church 4.0

Hans Küng (1976: 4) says, “Every age has its own image of the church, arising out of a particular
historical situation; in every age a particular view of the church is expressed by the church in prac-
tice, and given conceptual form by the theologians of the age.” He continues to say that the essence
of the real church is expressed in historical form and suggests two important principles to under-
stand the permanent features of the church expressed in a specific historical context: (1) The
essence and the form of the church cannot be separated, and (2) The essence and the form of the
church are not identical (Küng, 1976: 4–5). The first principle implies that the permanent elements
of the church have been expressed in various forms of the Church. It means that whenever we look

Corresponding author:
Guichun Jun, Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, St. Philips and St. James Church, Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2
6HR, UK.
Email: gjun@ocms.ac.uk
2 Transformation 00(0)

at the forms of the Church in various scopes of historical context, we can also find the essence of
the church reflected in its historical forms. The second principle implies that the constant concept
of the church has been expressed relevantly in the constantly changing circumstances so that it is
natural to understand the essence of the church in the variability of its historical forms.
The church was born in Jerusalem through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This was the
moment the church 1.0 was launched in its historical form with its identity as a community of
believers and its great mission to make disciples of Jesus through preaching the Gospel. The church
was growing in persecution by both Judaism and the Roman Empire. The era of the church 2.0
began when Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine
the Great. The church began to be institutionalized by clericalism emphasizing the ecclesiastical
authority during the medieval period. The religious reformation opened the era of the Church 3.0
within Western Christianity in the 16th century when Protestantism was born as a reaction to the
medieval Roman Catholicism. During each era, the church expressed the essential nature of it in
diverse forms and images based on their own ecclesiological understandings. Now, we are facing
new dawn of significant paradigm shift in both ecclesiological concept and its expression as we
enter into the period of the church 4.0 due to the combination of COVID-19 and the Fourth
Industrial Revolution (hereafter, FIR).

Church and Media

Media is the means of communication. The church and its mission history cannot be separated
from active utilization of the diverse types of media (Helland, 2000). The religious reformation
was accelerated by the invention of the printing press. Printing technology enabled the reformers
to print the Bible and theological books. Mass media such as radio, television, and movies have
been effectively used for evangelism. Needless to say, the Internet has brought a new dimension of
the Church’s mission from creating websites to using online platforms to run the church. This
could be through providing online services, small group meetings for prayer and bible study, and
creating useful Christian content in social networking and YouTube in this COVID 19 era. COVID
19 is not only a pestilence but also a game-changer, which has advanced the FIR in our daily lives
as a new normal. Evolutionists, such as Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge (1977) proposed
“the theory of punctuated equilibria” to reconsider the tempo and mode of evolution against gradu-
alism. They argued that evolution did not happen in a gradual and constant process, but in stressful
times when living creatures went through circumstances of high tension or pressure to change. The
theory indicates that there were inflection points in the history of life, which pressurized popula-
tions of living creatures to evolve. COVID-19 is obviously an inflection point that demands a para-
digm shift in all aspects of human life. Digital technology has helped most human activities as
possible to somewhat carry on since COVID-19 broke out. A new term “untact,” a combination of
the prefix “un” and the word “contact,” explains that humans do things without direct contacts with
other humans (Lee, 2020). The combination of social distancing measures due to COVID-19 and
high-speed Internet technology has ushered the possibility for a contact-free society in not only
business and economy but also social, cultural and religious life.
When the UK government announced a national lockdown in March 2020, many churches
regardless of their denominations introduced online services as a temporary solution. As the pan-
demic situation has been protracted, the Church’s acceptability and usability of Internet platforms
and social media for not only Sunday morning services but also various weekly meetings have
been spontaneously increased. The COVID-19 social distancing measures as a result of COVID-19
have forced churches to be closed physically. Literally, churches became empty without their con-
gregations in person. However, empty pews in the church of England have been replaced by
Jun 3

packed-out virtual congregations, according to The Economist (4 June 2020). A quarter of Britons
have attended an online religious service since lockdown began, providing a boost to a faith that
has seen dwindling church attendance (The Economist, 4 June 2020). This is another good example
that churches have adopted cutting-edge technology and taken advantage in their mission through
online platforms. However, there is a fundamental question at this point. Are churches going back
to their traditional forms in a post-COVID-19 era or will they continually developing digital min-
istries to become a new form in the new normal? Here is an answer predicted by Canon Mark
Collinson, who is the principal of the school of mission in the Diocese of Winchester: “Those who
have found God in digital church may want to keep God there rather than discover transforming
participation in the physical Body of Christ” (Collinson, 2020).

Emerging Churches in the Metaverse

Is it possible for people to find God in the digital world? This question is vital to rethink and
reshape the direction of the future mission of the church. The digital era started during the 1980s
(Calver and Calver, 2016: 11). Millennials (or Generation Y born between 1981 and 1996) and the
members of Generation Z (or Zoomers born between 1997 and 2012) are all native speakers of the
digital language of computers and the internet (Prensky, 2001). According to research conducted
by the University of Greenwich, the level of Internet usages of those between 10 and 29 years of
age in Korea is 99.9%, and between 30 and 39 years of age at 100% (Lee, 2020). The Internet of
Things developed in the era of the FIR has three distinctive features: hyperconnectivity, super-
intelligence, and hyperconvergence. The FIR aims to converge all the information technologies to
create a new world called “the metaverse,” which is the combination of the prefix ‘meta (beyond)’
and the word ‘universe’. Hence, the metaverse means “a shared virtual space beyond the universe,”
where the FIR and COVID-19 usher the digital natives in. These digital natives are familiar with
the metaphysical nature of life and immersed in it (Geraci, 2014: 3) not only to escape from the
stress and anxiety of the real world but also to enjoy the cybersociality that is a new form of social
interactions (Chandler and Munday, 2020).
Do the highly converged technologies developing hyper-reality where physical and virtual real-
ities are merged create crisis or opportunity in mission? The answer can be found in what Leonard
Sweet, a theologian and church minister, said to the contemporary Christians, “The future is not
something we enter. The future is something we create” (Hawkins and Clinton, 2015: 6). As I
argued that the church has actively accepted and utilized all kinds of media for its mission, it is a
time to seriously consider how it conducts its mission to be a continually faithful witness in the
shared metaverse. There are already churches being planted and operating within virtual reality.
These churches are not just entering the future but creating a future mission in the virtual world.
One example is VR church (vrchurch.org) whose basic belief and mission statement are same as
other traditional evangelical churches, but they try to be radically inclusive for all kinds of believ-
ers who prefer to meet and worship in the shared virtual reality, including atheists (French, 2018).
D. J. Soto, the leading pastor of the VR church, believes that VR technology provides a new avenue
for mission, and it is a radical paradigm shift from the conventional reality formed and developed
within the brick-and-mortar institution to the VR environment, which is not limited by geography
(Round, 2019). Soto claims that the VR church is more effective in making Christian faith real and
experienceable by creating virtual environments such as “Christmas World” where the participants
can visit Bethlehem and walk through the village and experience the area virtually firsthand
(Round, 2019). Unlike analog churches, VR churches are able to accommodate nonbelievers, even
atheists in their services, which creates opportunities for them to explore Christion faith by hearing
the Gospel and fellowshipping each other in small groups (French, 2018).
4 Transformation 00(0)

Theological Controversies over the VR Church

Although it is obvious that the VR church is a missional frontier in the digital age, it needs to
develop its biblical and theological foundations not only to overcome theological controversies but
also to justify its mission and practical ministries. Here are three major theological controversies
of the VR church and brief theological reflections on them.

The Origin and Nature of the Metaverse

It is natural to ask whether the metaverse (VR) is within God’s universe. Based on the Judeo-
monotheistic worldview and traditional Christian theology, the sovereign God created the universe
and faithfully maintains it. All things were created by Jesus and nothing was created without Him
(John 1:3). All things visible and invisible were created through Jesus and for Him (Colossians
1:15-16). Therefore, it is right to say that VR is within the universe of God, who is a supernatural
and metaphysical being (Gatoto, 2020). It means that VR is also a domain where God reigns with
his sovereignty and power. However, it needs to be clearly stated that VR is a product of human
civilization rather than God’s direct creation. Man interacts with God’s creation to produce cultural
products in the history of civilization like the relationship between a tomato, which is an item of
God’s creation, and a pizza, which is an aspect of human culture (Sandlin, 2013: 21). Therefore,
VR is a reality within the space and time created by God, but human perceptions may be possessed
with the illusion when they are fully immersed due to the audiovisual stimuli (Schatzschneider
et al., 2016: 1378). It is not that humans teleport into a totally different space or time, but their
brains instantly adapt the head-mounted display environment while their physical bodies remain in
the real world (Murray and Sixsmith, 1999: 315). This is closely connected to a particular concern
of some theologians asserting that VR technology ultimately aims to fulfill disembodiment by
creating a virtual world to live without the physical body (Tilley, 1995: 120). It may be possible
that users may experience pseudo-disembodiment due to the illusion of their minds when they are
fully immersed in VR. However, the functionality and directionality of their avatars in forming
their virtual identities and participating in activities are controlled by the users’ cognitive percep-
tions and mental functions in their physical bodies (Ajana, 2005). Our psychological functions are
determined by and dependent on our physical body, even in VR. It means that the ontological
feature and functionality of VR do not support the classical Platonic dualism splitting body, which
is evil and soul, which is good (Rodin, 2000: 75). Therefore, it is not acceptable that VR church’s
worldview is close to the ancient heresy called Gnosticism (Bazin and Cottin, 2004: 50), claiming
that salvation means being transcendent beyond the physical and material, which are evil to the
spiritual (Casberg, 2016).
The aforementioned origin of VR leads us to two critical issues regarding its nature. First, people
like Margaret Wertheim (1999) claim that VR is a spiritual space like the biblical heaven where
humans are no longer bound by the natural laws of the physical world. The underlying philosophies
underpinning these thinkers’ viewpoint on the religious nature of VR are utopianism and transhuman-
ism. They believe that VR is a pearly gate leading human into a spiritual utopia through physical
transcendence. There is a VR platform called “Second Life,” which offers more than 30 religion
spaces for all the major religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism and Christianity with
the ultimate aim to develop a spiritual utopia in VR (Khong, 2020). However, VR is neither an eternal
space where people can live their second lives nor a place where they can escape from their physical
death, although some commercial advertisements propose eternal life within VR (Botz-Bornstein,
2015: 53). Second, technology is neither good nor evil, nor is it neutral (Kranzberg, 1985: 50). Thus,
whether VR is good or evil will be dependent on how we cultivate this virtual environment with good
Jun 5

values for a constructive civilization, in particular for God’s mission. Unfortunately, gaming and
pornography are at the forefront of developing VR content at present (Snijders et al., 2020: 13). This
reveals both the significance and urgency of the cyber mission of the Church in VR.

Ecclesial Nature of VR Church

Douglas Estes (2009: 33), the author of the famous book SimChurch, raised a significant question:
“Is it legitimate to regard VR Church as an authentic expression of the church of Jesus Christ?” He
defines VR Church as “a community called by God to expand His kingdom and a regular meeting
of believers confessing Jesus as Lord in VR” (Estes, 2009: 37). He asserts that VR church is not a
figment in imagination or fiction but true people of God meeting in VR as local churches meet in
the physical reality (Estes, 2009: 37). In other words, VR church’s ecclesial nature as a community
of the people of God made alive by the Spirit of God interacting with them (Estes, 2009: 108). Like
other traditional churches, VR church can also be authentic and valid as it has the nature of univer-
sality by confessing the same beliefs yet has adaptability and flexibility to be relevant to and mis-
sional in the contemporary culture. What makes the church authentic is not its geographical location
or architecture, but the presence of God as His people worship Him in Truth and Spirit (John 4:21-
23). Since COVID-19 broke out and the UK government imposed various restrictions on the reli-
gious sector, local churches have not been able to meet physically at their worship premises but
meet through various Internet platforms. Recently, Rev. Nicky Gumbel of Holy Trinity Brompton,
the founder of the Alpha Course, explains, “the Holy Spirit can work through Zoom” (The
Economist, 4 June 2020). The presence of God and His works are not limited and restricted by
locations, space or time, even in VR (Blythe and Wolpert, 2004). God presents Himself through
His Spirit not only in the physical sacred buildings but also in the virtual world (Parry, 2014: 144).
This is in much the same vein as what John Calvin said about the Church in Institutes of the
Christian Religion: “This Kingdom (the church) is neither bounded by location in space nor cir-
cumscribed by any limits” (McNeill, 1960: 1381).

Ecclesiastical Practices of VR Church

Although the ecclesial nature is fairly persuasive, there are still several issues that VR church needs
to develop in practical theology such as conducting sacraments, sense of community, ecclesiastical
authority for discipline, authentic meaning of discipleship, etc. The two sacraments, Eucharist and
Baptism, are significant symbolic rites for the Church that have been practiced for two millenni-
ums. Regardless of denominationalism and preferrable liturgical theology, one thing in common is
that the sacraments have been conducted while both the conductor and participants are physically
present. However, in VR church, it is not humans, but their created avatars who participate in the
sacraments in VR church. Avatars receive bread and wine in the communion and are baptized on
behalf of physical humans who created them. This is problematic to the traditional liturgical theol-
ogy, especially to catholic theologians who believe transubstantiation claiming that bread and wine
are converted into the body and blood of Christ at the consecration. This particular issue raises a
question regarding religious ontology to understand the meanings of existence and presence
between humans and their avatars. In this matter, Estes (2009: 62–63) explains that avatars not
only represent their human users but also are symbolic evidence that the human users’ presence is
in VR church. He asserts that human users can be telepresent in VR church while their real exist-
ence is in the physical reality, as God concurrently presents Himself everywhere through His Spirit
(Estes, 2009: 120). In this case, there is a detachment between one’s existence and presence.
However, this phenomenon of detachment between one’s existence and presence can be observed
6 Transformation 00(0)

and experienced in the physical church contexts. One example is that people often think of various
things so that their minds are traveling to various places while their physical presence is in the
church building on Sundays. The other example is that people can present themselves via online
worship services, although they are physically on the other side of the globe.
The second ecclesiastical issue of VR church is that there may be no true sense of community
in several aspects. People may watch online service in VR and believe that they are part of the
church (Brown, 2019). According to research, factors to foster a sense of belonging in higher edu-
cation within virtual worlds are immediacy, interactivity and group cohesiveness (Wankel and
Blessinger, 2012: 5). These findings are not much different from the factors for increasing a sense
of belonging in virtual church contexts. These factors require more than attendance or participa-
tion, which may increase the level of religious consumerism for just spiritual satisfaction through
acquisition of what they desire. The factors require a high level of commitment to and involvement
in the vision and mission of the church in VR. In this contemporary postmodern society, it is hard
to see believers fully committed to the vision and mission of their local churches because hyperin-
dividualistic lifestyles have become a cultural norm, and this seriously weakens the sense of com-
munity in the local churches. Thus, it is not an overstatement to say that VR churches would face
more serious problems caused by an atomistic sense of self-connected with an excessive form of
individualism pursuing self-indulgence (Randels Jr., 2000: 167). Another aspect to theologically
wrestle regarding the sense of community within VR church is how does the avatar-mediated vir-
tual church community can build credibility and trust among the members? Research reveals that
perceived anthropomorphic images of avatars in VR influences the level of credibility and trust in
people’s virtual relationships without having a clue about others’ physical attributes and identity
(Nowak et al., 2008: 83). One can wear an avatar of any gender, age, race, species, or shape, and
meets others superficially with their created form of self-presentation (Blascovich and Bailenson,
2011: 5). It is likely that people are better able to predict the trustworthiness of humans than the
trustworthiness of avatars, for the majority of interaction among people has taken place in face-to-
face settings throughout human history (Riedl et al., 2014: 83). However, there may be a theologi-
cal clue in the origin of the word “avatar” and its contextual theologizing to know whether it is
possible for people to build trustworthy relationships through their avatars in VR. The word “ava-
tar” is derived from a Sanskrit word ava-tri, which means “descent” (Hess, 2016). Ava-tri (avatar)
is used in religious contexts to describe “divine descent” (Kuruvila, 2002: 54). Interestingly, Indian
Christians used the concept of the avatar to understand the incarnation of Christ for generations
(Boyd, 1975: 127–128). The biblical truth that Christ gave up His equality with God and became a
man and lived among His people can give a glimmer of theological hope for the possibility that
people may be able to build a trustworthy Christian community in VR through their embodied
avatars. The Son of God, a spiritual being, became the Son of Man, a physical being. Jesus was a
fully divine being and a fully human being. In other words, incarnation expresses a dialectical
relationship between Man who needs God and God who needs Man (Schade, 2017). The relation-
ship between a user made of material atoms and his or her avatar made of code and pixels could be
viewed from the same perspective. Research reveals that users regard their avatars as shared agen-
cies through emotional intimacy while they practice self-differentiation in their relationships with
their avatars (Banks, 2015). It means that the user–avatar relationship (UAR) is not always one-
way that an avatar represents its user as a created and controlled being but dialectical as they share
experiences, moral decisions, and responsibilities of their behaviors (Banks, 2015).
Finally, there is no ecclesiastical authority in VR church to deal with the sins of individuals and
discipline to censure and restore them from their sins. Church discipline is one of the primary bibli-
cal practices that God is honored when it is rightly administered and dishonored by its absence
(Adams, 1974: 19). Some theologians deliberately include church discipline as one of the
Jun 7

non-negotiable elements along with the preaching of the word and the sacraments, without which
the church cannot be the church (McAlpine, 2011: 6). The final ecclesiastical issue in light of sense
of community is that VR church lacks the corporate aspects of discipleship. The church is not only
a place of worshippers but also a community of disciples. Christ is present not only in the encounter
of word and faith in the life of the individual believer but especially in the living memory of the
church (Lorenzen, 2004: 49) where believers grow steadily to learn how to live the way that Jesus
lived from the exemplary lifestyle of mature disciples (Kim, 2020: 14). This kind of radical meaning
of Christian discipleship seems to be only possible through physical interactions among believers in
the physical reality. This is a particular challenge that VR church needs to overcome as some of VR
churchgoers are already describing themselves as “bedside Baptists” and “pillow Presbyterians”
since their spiritual journey with Christ in VR may be at a slack pace (Brown, 2019).

Conclusion: An Unprecedented Style of Church in the New Normal

We are living in a rapidly changing world, facing challenges and opportunities at the same time in
God’s mission. COVID-19 and the FIR have brought a new dimension of futuristic lifestyle in VR.
Seabrook (1995: 66–68) says that a private home in the real world uses walls to keep the world out,
whereas a homepage on the web drills a hole in those walls to let the world in. The highly conver-
gent media and communication technology are taking digital natives into a status that they do not
much care if an experience is real or virtual, and many of them will prefer the digital aspects of
their lives to physical ones (Blascovich and Bailenson, 2011: 3). In this challenging time, we need
a paradigm shift in our ecclesiological perspective if we want to turn it into opportunities. According
to Geraci, there are two religious possibilities opened to virtual worlds: (1) “they provide new
places to practice old religions”; and (2) “they provide new locations for the creation of meaningful
lives without recourse to traditional religious communities” (pp. 11–12). If VR church maintains
the essence of the church while it takes a brand new form to be continually expressed as an authen-
tic part of God’s community based on the concept of Hans Küng’s ecclesiology, it is clear that it
needs to take the first possibility. It is absolutely necessary that VR churches need to collaborate
with the traditional churches to develop their theological foundations as well as to overcome min-
isterial limitations and challenges (Kim, 172–173). Furthermore, it is urgently requested that the
traditional churches need to plan more sound VR churches as there are already spurious churches
in VR. If masons, architects and artists were needed to build physical spaces for worship in the
past, we need coders and futurists to build this unprecedented style of church in the metaverse
(Estes, 2009). As Christ was incarnated as flesh for God’s mission, so the traditional churches need
to incarnate into VR for the same purpose and reason. VR is a vast mission field, as 97% of users
are non-Christians (Kim, 2013: 162). Until its 3.0 version, the Church has emphasized “Belief first,
then understanding.” St Augustine (354–430) advised “Believe in order to understand” (crede ut
intelligas), and Anselm (1033–1109) similarly stated: “Unless I believe, I shall not understand”
(Plummer, 2013: 36). This ancient thought continued until the medieval period faced a powerful
challenge of Enlightenment that separated human reason from religion. Since then, “science and
religion” and “reason and revelation” have been divorced (Adamson, 2019) so that there is a ten-
dency to regard science and technology secular. In this age of digital revolution, it is necessary that
“science and religion” and “reason and faith” need to be reconciled to effectively undertake God’s
mission as the church enters into its 4.0 version.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
8 Transformation 00(0)

ORCID iD
Guichun Jun https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6233-1743

References
Adams JE (1974) Handbook of Church Discipline. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Adamson P (2019) First believe, then understand Available at: https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/First_
Believe_Then_Understand (accessed 26 August 2020).
Ajana B (2005) (Dis)embodiment and Cyberspace: a phenomenological approach. Electronic Journal of
Sociology 7: 1–10.
Banks J (2015) Object, Me, Symbiote, other: a social typology of player-avatar relationships. Available at:
https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5433/4208 (accessed 7 September 2020).
Bazin J and Cottin J (2004) Virtual Christianity: Potential and Challenge for the Churches. Geneva: WCC
Publications.
Blascovich J and Bailenson J (2011) Infinite Reality: Avatars, Eternal Life, New Worlds, and the Dawn of the
Virtual Revolution. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Blythe T and Wolpert D (2004) Meeting God in Virtual Reality: Using Spiritual Practices with Media.
Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Botz-Bornstein T (2015) Virtual Reality: The Last Human Narrative? Leiden: Brill Rodopi.
Brown D (2019) Online Church: Ministries use VR, Apps to deliver digital services and virtual baptisms.
Available at: https://techxplore.com/news/2019-05-online-church-ministries-vr-apps.html (accessed 18
August 2020).
Calver G and Calver A (2016) Game Changers: Encountering God and Changing the World. Oxford: Lion
Hudson Plc.
Casberg CT (2016) The surprising theological possibilities of virtual reality. Available at: https://www.chris-
tianitytoday.com/ct/2016/november-web-only/surprising-theological-possibilities-of-virtual-reality.
html (accessed 17 August 2020).
Chandler D and Munday R (2020) A Dictionary of Media and Communication (3rd edn.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Collinson M (2020) Like it or not, online services are here to stay. Available at: https://www.churchtimes.
co.uk/articles/2020/17-april/comment/opinion/like-it-or-not-online-services-are-here-to-stay (accessed
20 August 2020).
Estes D (2009) SimChurch: Being the Church in the Virtual World. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
French K (2018) This pastor is putting his faith in a virtual reality church. Available at: https://www.wired.
com/story/virtual-reality-church/ (accessed 18 August 2020).
Gatoto JK (2020) Metaverse: The Metaphysical Nature of Life. Independently Published.
Geraci R (2014) Virtually Sacred: Myth and Meaning in World of Warcraft and Second Life. Oxford; New
York: Oxford university press.
Gould SJ and Eldredge N (1977) Punctuated Equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered.
Paleobiology 3(2): 115–151.
Hawkins R and Clinton T (2015) The New Christian Counselor: A Fresh Biblical & Transformational
Approach. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers.
Helland C (2000) Online religion/religion online and virtual Communities. In: Hadden JK and Cowan DE (eds)
Religion on the Internet: Research Prospects and Promises. London: JAI Press/Elsevier Science, 205–224.
Hess A (2016) What do our online avatars reveal about us? Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/
magazine/what-do-our-online-avatars-reveal-about-us.html (accessed 17 August 2020).
Khong Y (2020) Spiritual utopia in the virtual space: living in the heavenly second live. Available at: https://
cfds.fisipol.ugm.ac.id/article/543/utopia-dalam-ruang-spiritual (accessed 25 August 2020).
Kim DH (2013) Being the church in the virtual world: a study on the virtual ecclesiology (SimChurch) of
Douglas Estes. Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology 45(4): 141–168.
Kim JY (2020) Analog Church: Why we Need Real People, Places, and Things in the Digital Age. Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press.
Kranzberg M (1985) The information age: evolution or revolution?. Economic Impact, Washington DC. 55:
67–73.
Jun 9

Küng H (1967) The Church. New York: Sheed and Ward.

Kuruvila KP (2002) The Word Became Flesh: A Christological Paradigm for Doing Theology in India. Delhi,
India: ISPCK.
Lee JY (2020) The South Koreans left behind in a contact-free society. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/work-
life/article/20200803-south-korea-contact-free-untact-society-after-coronavirus (accessed 20 August 2020).
Lorenzen T (2004) Resurrection and Discipleship: Interpretive Models, Biblical Reflections, Theological
Consequences. Eugene, OR: Wipt & Stock Publications.
McAlpine WR (2011) Sacred Space for the Missional Church: Engaging Culture Through the Built
Environment. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.
McNeill JT (1960) Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Louisville: Presbyterian Publishing
Corporation.
Murray CD and Sixsmith J (1999) The corporeal body in virtual reality. Ethos 27(3): 315–343.
Nowak KL, Hamilton MA and Hammond CC (2008) The effect of viewer perceptions of avatar anthropo-
morphism and realism on judgments of credibility and homophily, and avatar choice. In: 11th annual
international workshop on presence, 16-18 October 2008, pp. 77–84.
Parry RA (2014) The Biblical Cosmos: ApPilgrim’s Guide to the Weird and Wonderful World of the Bible.
Eugene, OR: Cascade.
Plummer R (2013) Understanding the Bible: A Guide to Reading and Enjoying Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI:
Kregel Publications.
Prensky M (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. New York: MCB University Press.
Randels GD, Jr (2000) Ethics: the virtuous and/in/of the virtual. The Annual of the Society of Christian Ethics
20: 165–179.
Riedl R, Mohr PNC, Kenning PH, et al. (2014) Trusting humans and avatars: a brain imaging study based on
evolution theory. Journal of Management Information System 30: 83–114.
Rodin RS (2000) Stewards in the Kingdom: A Theology of Life in All Its Fullness. Downers Grove, IL: Inter
Varsity press.
Round B (2019) Exploring the Church – in virtual reality. Available at: https://medium.com/faithtech/explor-
ing-the-church-in-virtual-reality-44d002617970 (accessed 18 August 2020).
Sandlin PA (2013) Christian Culture: An Introduction. Mount Hermon, CA: Center for Cultural Leadership.
Schatzschneider C, Bruder G and Steinicke F (2016) Who turned the clock? Effects of manipulated Zeitgebers,
cognitive load and immersion on time estimation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer
Graphics 22(4): 1387–1395.
Schade MJ (2017) Incarnation: The Harmony of One Love in the Totality of Reality. Lanham, MD: University
Press of America, Inc.
Seabrook J (1995) Home on the Net. The New Yorker (16 October 1995), 66–68.
Snijders D, Horsman S, Kool L, et al. (2020). Responsible VR: Protect Consumers in Virtual Reality. The
Hague: Rathenau Instituut.
Tilley MA (1995) Broken and Whole: Essays on Religion and the Body. Lanham: University Press of America.
The Economist. (2020) Online Services Swell the Church of England’s Congregations. The Economist
Group Limited. Available at: https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/06/04/online-services-swell-the-
church-of-englands-congregations (accessed 20 August 2020).
Wankel C and Blesinger P (2012) Innovative approaches in higher education: an introduction to using immer-
sive interfaces. In: Increasing Student Engagement and Retention Using Immersive Interfaces: Virtual
Worlds, Gaming, and Simulation. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Wertheim M (1999) The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace: A History of Space from Dante to the Internet. New
York: W.W. Norton.

Author biography
Guichun Jun completed his doctoral study at Oxford Centre for Mission Studies and became a research tutor
in 2016. His research interests are in the area of Congregational Studies, in particular, in church conflict and
futuristic church ministry in the era of the fourth industrial revolution from the perspective of multi-academic
disciplines.

View publication stats