I can see that, and of course it wont be for everybody. But I am thinking there is only a certain point in which the church can ignore an engagement platform that will possibly be used by 1/4 of the world. There are already people ministering it, and there are already virtual "churches" in it. And, most likely this will not be something a lot of older people get involved in, as it is at the cusp of revolutionizing social interaction. I dont think when someone talks on the phone with somebody, they believe they are not dealing with a "real" person. In the same way, it seems in the Metaverse, people actually dialogue, vocally, similar to talking on the phone as opposed to banging away at keyboards. I dont know. Just seems like it is headed to be a pretty big thing. I know initially, people were skeptical, as in the beginning numbers dwindled. But it looks to have taken root, at least in the younger crowd; and as being such, it may become their accustomed way to engage as generations progress.
I think there is an underlying social aspect, which is being engineered as we speak. Dont know much about it, but it seems like there is being built not only games, and not only avenues of commerce, but an actual social stratosphere similar to Ready Player One, that will mimic virtually how societies are now set up physically. While there are a lot of kids on there, there are also quite a bit of adults. As of right now, I think there are roughly 120 Million regular Adult Users (calculated by the statistic that 80% of users are 16 and younger.) If that statistic stays, by 2030, it will be 500 Million Adults.
No, we shouldn't. I'm thoroughly convinced the medium is truly integral to the message. In this case, I foresee a flattening, a simplifying, a perverting, of the message of Christ given the platform--which is focused on consumption, entertainment, engagement, etc.
I can see your point. But if you go to Youtube, and look up Metaverse Church, to date, there are already 100's of videos on it. This doesnt seem to be something that the Reformed Church can avoid. Most likely, it will be the last to enter such spaces, because it seems Reformed leaning people tend to cling to a lot of "traditional" modes of doing things; but regardless of its wide-spread involvement or not, a Christian presence in the Metaverse is happening before our eyes whether we personally participate in it or not. Given that a little over of 1/4 of the world are projected to be using it regularly by 2030, and can only imagine those numbers by 2050; this isnt a matter of "if" at all; but will churches choose to ignore such a large mission field to cling to how former generation did things?
It’s not an issue of clinging to “how former generations did things.” It’s a matter of the flesh to face nature of the church. In person, real body to real body fellowship is inherent to the nature of the church. That is something the Metaverse can’t provide and will always lack in and of itself.
I agree. I dont think there will be a day when "everyone" is in the Metaverse. But if projections come to fruition, more than 1/4 of the world is still a lot of people. I do agree the sacraments cannot be administered digitally, so even so called "churches" in the Metaverse would be nothing more than evangelistic efforts in the hopes of pulling people out of a digital-only framework and into local churches. Yet, even if the effort is relegated to only evangelistic efforts, with that amount of possible users, it seems hard to ignore.
I see your point as well, and I have some friends who have been involved with "metaverse church". My great concern with churches entering that space is the loss of the physical nature of the church. A disembodied gathering is not the same thing as physically gathering with a congregation. Outreach can and should happen in all kinds of places online, but to try to replace gathered worship with a virtual version is to lose something fundamental about what gathered worship is-- not to mention all of the problems online "church" creates for membership and accountability.
I think I would envision, as it grows, and transforms from mostly a gaming platform, to one that consists of a gaming, social, commercial, and employment platform; for mainly Christians just to have a presence. There is no need to really mimic a church model. I kind of think that problematic if the indented goal from the gate is not to get people in physical churches. But one could as easily create a pub, lounge, lecture hall, etc. type environment, where groups are gathered from people all over the world to discuss for instance the works of Perkins, the Gospel of John, Calvin, etc. These things in themselves would be evangelistic. Also, if popularity rises, it could be used as a tool for church planting, i.e. as a way to gauge where people could be sent to establish physical churches by the amount of digital attendees in certain locales. Given that the platform is still in its infancy, I think it it easy to possibly disregard the tech as nothing to write home about. Much like people did home computers when they first came out. But I think give it 20-30 years, and much of the environment of the Metaverse will be more akin to reality then we will like; and it may be within most households like home computers are now. With a million different ways Christians can engage the Metaverse, it may be wise for churches to take a second and consider if and how they will do so? And potentially not be in the same boat we many times are, i.e. reactive instead of proactive.
Maybe the same reason that many churches have already done the same thing with computers, video, audio, etc. As time progresses, and different mediums of connection and communication arise, churches adapt to those areas, and seek to further the Gospel by engaging with them. If we were to be strict about the Face-to-Face model, the Puritan Board might not exist. But we are not. So we might want to be careful not to disregard something that is an emerging technology, simply because we are not used to it, when we engage in what may be similar ways now; though potentially, futurely archaic, when what is now emergent, becomes the norm. Also, I never mentioned replacing personal interaction for digital; only to have a digital outreach AS WELL as a personal one.
In context, the "face-to-face model" is the model of the Church. And that is Biblical.
But this is the thing. When most of us use a computer, do we consider ourselves "tech-savvy?" No. The same way, future generations are not going to consider using the Metaverse any more tech savvy than using AI or robotics in their daily lives. Yes, you can call emerging technology all the evil names you want; the Amish too dont have an electric bill. But for most of society, if the upward trend continues, it will be as common as us posting on the Puritan Board today. You are free to have a "so what" attitude, I am sure you will not be alone; but I think for others, if projections are correct and that in a short time 1/4 or more of the world are regular users of the Metaverse, churches getting involved will be common place. Just might start now to think what that may look like; again, as not to always be reactive, but proactive. 100 years from now, if the Lord tarries, society may look nothing like it does now, just like we resemble very little of 1924. But like you say, there are still people that prefer Model T's, and they are free to live life hand-cranking their engines for as long as they like.
I agree with this 100%. Every bit of it. I dont think it is a notion of "have to" but "will we" given that such a large percentage of humanity may eventually become regular users?
Brother. I think it is obvious I am talking about churches thinking how they will, if at all, adopt formal ministry presences in the Metaverse. This is why I mentioned the Youtube videos, and the scores of actual churches, with physical locations; (not just lone rangers), already doing this. On a personal level, individual believers can engage in a sort of evangelism in personal discussions, but, churches can also claim spaces to engage in formal ministries (with the same qualifications as physical ones) there too. It isn't an either/or, it is a both; like we already see in normal life. A Metaverse ministry would simply be another possible way to reach the lost, not a replacement of other methods, so that by utilizing all methods, reaching the most may happen.
It was related to your seemingly passive attitude of "why bother." Ignoring technological advances doesn't make them go away, it only leaves you left behind. And doing so may leave one reactive, instead of proactive; which may play into why many people think Christianity no longer influences culture, but simply reacts to it. It is like Dr. McMahon's fluency in AI technologies and its possibility for evangelistic purposes. People may bah humbug him now, but in a few years he will be teaching those who finally come to their senses that this is the new way. A lot of us are resistant to change, but with AI, Meta, Robotics, all advancing at a very rapid rate; the next 20 years are going to be pretty crazy. And those who are not making themselves somewhat familiar with these things may be limited in reach.
I think you're imagining that Christians could take the lead in this and show they're relevant and what not, but it's far more likely to turn out like the AI priest that said to baptize with Gatorade.
The problem is, Christian Rock did have a major influence on culture. The Jesus Movement, which one of the major aspects of it were artists like Larry Norman, Randy Stonehill, Keith Green, etc. led to the spread of the Gospel, which led to the salvation of probably millions of people, and in many ways can be considered the last genuine revival America has seen. The offshoot churches such as Calvary Chapels, Horizons, and the ministries of people like Chuck Smith, Greg Laurie, Mike Macintosh, David Guzik, etc. are still thriving to this day. Of course, they are Arminian, but to say they or Christian Rock didnt have an impact is kinda wrong. Most of secular culture mocks Christianity period, for what ever they do. Trying to isolate the means of their mocking is wasted effort. Consider, most secular people scoff, mock, and slander the Puritans too.
Gotcha. No hate. Glad we could work that out. I understand you fully.
