Virtual Sacraments?
One of the key challenges with online worship is how to incorporate the Eucharist. The Eucharist is a physical experience from witnessing the act to receiving bread and wine. But it is also a spiritual experience in that the key action is invisible, caused by God who acts within the liturgy. So would it be possible to have a virtual communion, a virtual sacrament?
The Revd Professor Paul S. Fiddes, who is Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Oxford and Director of Research, Regent’s Park College, has just written a very interesting short paper called, Sacraments in a Virtual World?
With his permission I reproduce it here; your thoughts are welcome!
…………………………..
Summary: An avatar can receive the bread and wine of the Eucharist within the logic of the virtual world and it will still be a means of grace, since God is present in a virtual world in a way that is suitable for its inhabitants. We may expect that the grace received by the avatar will be shared in some way by the person behind the avatar, because the person in our everyday world has a complex relationship with his or her persona.Argument:
1. The key theological question is whether the triune God is present, and whether Christ is incarnate (in some form, including the church) within the virtual world.[1] If the answer is yes, then one can conceive of the mediation of grace through the materials of that world, i.e. through digital representations.
Grace is, of course, not a substance but the gracious presence of God, coming to transform personality and society. In sacrament, God takes the occasion of bodies in creation to be present in an intense or ‘focused’ way to renew life.
2. One ought not to assume that cyberspace is a disembodied world. The net is composed of a form of energy, just as is the familiar ‘physical’ world in which we operate everyday. Moreover, the persons behind the avatars are in physical connection with the virtual world - through many of the senses (sight, hearing, touch - i.e. keyboard, mouse). Anyway, mental activity always has a physical base in the brain. Studies have shown that people feel a bodily connection with those with whom they are communicating over the net.
3. Theologically we should develop a notion of ‘virtual sacraments’ rather than an ‘extension’ of the consecration of elements over a distance, and their direct reception by the person employing the avatar. Within the logic of the virtual world, the cathedral in Second Life is a place where avatars worship God and avatars minister to avatars. The ‘person’ can thus only receive a virtual sacrament indirectly through relation to the avatar. There is a mysterious and complex interaction between the person and the persona projected (avatar), just as there is between the person and his/her personae in everyday life. Avatars do not, however, worship merely an avatar-God because there is only one God, for whom person and persona are identical and in whom ‘all things live and move and have their being’, including the beings of virtual worlds.
4. There can be an ‘extension’ of the sacraments from the church sacraments of bread and wine into the sacramentality of the whole world, since the world is held in the life of the triune God; for an expression of this, see Teilhard de Chardin’s Mass on the World. Many physical objects in the world can become a focus of mediated grace in continuity with the church sacraments, while remaining dependent upon the sacraments of dominical institution for their meaning. My suggestion about virtual sacraments thus falls somewhere into the spectrum between church sacraments of bread and wine and other sacramental media in the world. I do not want to suggest that virtual sacraments would be simply identical with the church sacraments, though given the context of a ‘virtual church’ I suggest they would be closer on the spectrum than - say - the sacraments of sand and light in RS Thomas’ poem ‘In Great Waters’ :
The sand crumbles
like bread; the wine is
the light quietly lying
in its own chalice. There is
A sacrament there …..
It might be said that the stuff of a virtual sacrament includes both sand (silicon) and light (photons)! Is there any less sand and light in a virtual world than in Thomas’ experience of the sea off the coast of Wales?
[1] This is not an outlandish question. The same question may be asked about the world which is inhabited by a schizophrenic, which appears completely real to the schizophrenic subject but which will be alien to others who share that person’s life.
Filed under Anglican, Virtual Reality | |
50 Responses to “Virtual Sacraments?”
Leave a Reply
I applaud Prof. Fiddes for having presented us with a very challenging way of looking at the sacraments. Especially his elegant set of contrasting paradigms for considering virtual sacraments (paragraph 3). He contrasts the paradigm (A) of virtual sacraments, in which the action taking place goes on within the virtual world itself, to a paradigm (B) in which the action within the virtual world is somehow seen as an extension of something happening somewhere else (i.e., clergyman with or without actual wafers). Supposedly then the action within the viturtual world in this paradigm B would then further extend to the person behind the avatar which was partaking of the eucharist.
I don’t agree, however, with is conclusion. Let’s begin here:
“Within the logic of the virtual world, the cathedral in Second Life is a place where avatars worship God and avatars minister to avatars. The ‘person’ can thus only receive a virtual sacrament indirectly through relation to the avatar.”
I disagree with this statement.
When we pray, we make clear that it is a person praying for a person, instead of an avatar praying for an avatar. The act of prayer already breaks the logic of the virtual world and transcends it.
We do not pray indirectly, through the avatars; the avatars are simply useful in providing an enhanced feeling of proximity, since Second Life’s dimensionality adds extra limitations to one’s virtual presence: one can only be in one place at one time - one chooses to come close to someone, or to be elsewhere. The avatars are in no way a “conduit” or even a medium; they do not “transmit” the prayer. The words of prayer are relayed through the SL chat or voice system; but these are the words of the prayer, and not the prayer itself. We do not minister to avatars, or engage in play-acting in ministry; we discern whether we are talking to the “real” person’s needs or not. I.e., we do not pray for a fairy’s broken virtual wing. Some may engage in this type of roleplay, but none in my group do as far as I know, and all are very concerned that we are indeed addressing “real” needs.
I would go further and say that avatars are never worshipping God. If this were the case, it would seem that in the first place some kind of play acting were taking place, with only a derivative extra involving the person engaged in the play acting becoming involved in “real” worship. Perhaps the avatars are worshiping God in a metaphorical sense, in the same sense we might speak of chalices or church bells worshiping God; but this is not the same as to say that they are engaged in worship proper.
Since the logic of the virtual world is disrupted already, we can no longer rely on it for making further deductions regarding virtual sacraments. Since the avatars are not involved in actually constituting the activity taking place, in a very real sense, they are absolved from the activity itself. I.e., it matters not what the avatar is - one prays for the person all the same, whether that person chooses to depict him/herself at the moment as an angel or as a golden retriever. In a certain sense, the Second Life platform mediates the interaction; but it is not a constitutive mediation. It has little bearing on the being or “content” of the interaction.
Likewise, one might watch a television program on any number of the hundreds of models of television sets produced throughout the years. The particular model will indeed have some effect on the rendering of the color, sound, etc. when one watches. But as a medium - a conduit - it has little to do with the actual program itself, it is a rather neutral type of transmitter of the message.
One might as well speak of somehow forming one’s telephone into the shape of a host in order to partake of the eucharist over the telephone.
When we speak of the presence of God in Second Life, that presence is almost exclusively do to the people interacting in chat and voice, and not due to the graphic content. It is largely the words that matter. The buildings, clothing, etc., are helpful, and are, in our context, merely an extension of one person helping another person. I have heard of no claims of God’s presence in areas of Second Life which are engaged in role-play, or rather, thoroughly caught up in the “logic” of the virtual world.
Thankfully, Prof. Fiddes is nuanced in his conclusions:
“Many physical objects in the world can become a focus of mediated grace in continuity with the church sacraments, while remaining dependent upon the sacraments of dominical institution for their meaning. My suggestion about virtual sacraments thus falls somewhere into the spectrum between church sacraments of bread and wine and other sacramental media in the world.”
I am glad that Prof. Fiddes points out that he here is not identifying “virtual sacraments” with the dominical sacraments. I would suggest, however, that exercising something within Second Life which is, itself, not a sacrament, but nonetheless appears to be a sacrament, would cause a great deal of confusion. It would not help when we try to explain that these are not real sacraments, but only virtual sacraments. The question would be, are they then sacraments, if not real? Would we need to acquaint all visitors partaking of such with a theology of mediated grace and a continuum between the dominical sacraments and natural grace?
The dominical sacraments are called sacraments because they are seen as very special signs - in a sense holy, set aside from the other things we do in church. They are not to be taken lightly nor admixed without forethought. Even a profound reflection like Prof. Fiddes’ here - contains too many generalizations - e.g., a rather monolithic notion of “incarnation” without exploration into the various ways in which we use this word. The great care with which some traditions carry out the sacraments is testimony to care and “set-apartness” which characterizes the sacraments for Christians, and I’d suggest we’d likewise set the sacraments apart - apart for “real life.”
Many thanks to Prof. Fiddes. Dealing with online ministry is challenging indeed. There are indeed many hidden quandries lurking in this territory which must be explored, and without reflections like this one, we will make no progress in conceptually charting out this intriguing and fruitful, yet complicated territory.
One of the reforms brought about by the establishment of our branch of the Church was to do away with the practice of “hearing the mass”. Many would go to mass and never take communion. In some places, taking communion was actively discouraged! In other places, many would go to mass and conduct business or network while it was going on, only to pause when the bells were rung at the consecration of the elements.
The nature of a sacrament is: An outward and visual sign of an inward and spiritual grace. The forms used in our sacraments are: In Baptism…water. And in the Lord’s Supper…Bread & Wine. These are physical elements that in our branch of the Church (and most others) an ordained minister must touch to consecrate. And in our branch they are commonly believed only to become efficacious upon the faithful receipt thereof.
Our sacraments are specific means to receive specific graces. And therefor these “vitual sacraments” would be a return to the “Bad Ol’ Days” of the errors of the Roman Church before the Reformation!
Many ways to fellowship remain, i.e. Morning & Evening Prayer, the Litany, Prayers for the Sick & Dying. As well as Bible Study, Church History Lessons and Catechism Classes.
In my opinion, The Lord’s Supper (and Baptism, for that matter) should never be a part of anyone’s online life! Get up and get yourself to church to receive these Graces from God.
I am a little bit concerned… not only are people going to virtual church online, because its more convenient, but now they will be having virtual communiion. Second life takes the place of real life relationships, people dont have to go out and make friends, and take the risk of face to face intimacy, they can hide behind an avatar and pretend to be someone else.
I have been invited to church on second life many times, many times i have said, no… I am going to turn off the computer and go to real life church.
There is too much of a temptation, to not move out of your comfort zone, and face the real world with real people and real risks.
For this reason, I think that virtual communion for some people will take the place of real life participation and interaction with others.
Only time will tell the effects of the virtual world on our society.
These things are too wonderful for me! I tend to agree with Mark Whiteside, but I think I’ll leave it to the philosophers from there ….
[…] you’re confused about which world you’re in, try this one for size: Virtual Holy Communion? at Brownblog […]
Some people may be in favor of it and perhaps some day I could change my mind (at the moment I don’t see that happening though)… but for all that folks can have community and pray together virtually (and I have certainly benefitted from such things), my understanding and experience of the Eucharist is such that I don’t see how it could work virtually.
I need someone else physically present with me in order to celebrate the Eucharist. The computer might connect us and allow us to communicate, like a phone does, but I’m not calling someone and setting the phone on the altar while I pray to overcome the “can’t pray the Eucharistic prayer by yourself” rule, and to me being able to communicate (by phone, computer or whatever) while it is no small thing, it is not the same as being able to be together physically. Having lived across the country from family and friends over the years yes phones, text, & email keep us connected but it is not the same as when I get to spend time with them in person.
After all, the sacraments have outward, visible, physical symbols incorporated into them and we discourage the practice of private baptisms in favor of having the entire faith community present… we don’t send folks home with a cup of water to pour over themselves or phone in a prayer while they hold a glass of water from their kitchen sink.
I do appreciate that you encourage us to consider new things and think outside the box.
Peace, Lori (aka Revenelliri)
How interesting that Wilfried and I both mentioned the telephone in our responses… I hadn’t read through his before I posted.
Rev Lori, I don’t blame you, it was LONG, lol
I think that Prof. Fiddes makes some very insightful comments on this question, and I very much appreciate his work on this!
I think his main point may be getting lost here. He says, “Theologically we should develop a notion of ‘virtual sacraments’ rather than an ‘extension’ of the consecration of elements over a distance, and their direct reception by the person employing the avatar.”
I have come to the conclusion that sacraments within SL should not be a mere replication of “real life” sacraments. The act of receiving the Eucharist, for example, is a physical one, experienced within a specific time and place. Trying to reproduce that sort of experience in virtual space comes dangerously close to a parody of the act in physical space. I believe that the way forward in this regard is to examine the inner essence of this act, and consider how this would best be represented within virtual space. I think this will entail the use of poetic imagination, as Prof. Fiddes suggests. I share his sense that Grace is “not a substance but the gracious presence of God.” and I don’t believe that this presence is limited to physical means of transmittal.
I would also like to address the use of the word “virtual,” as I think that may cause some confusion. I don’t see an opposition between the concept of virtual and real, just as I don’t see an opposition between my physical person and the persona I inhabit within Second Life. Both are true expressions of who I am. Prof. Fiddes states that, “[t]here is a mysterious and complex interaction between the person and the persona projected (avatar), just as there is between the person and his/her personae in everyday life.” I find that this description very much resonates with my experience of Second Life. I don’t consider my virtual life to be a second-rate representation of my “real” life, but a wondrous opportunity to extend my range of experiences and relationships beyond those available to me in my physical life. So I wouldn’t see a virtual sacrament as “merely virtual” or “less than” a physical sacrament, but as another opportunity to experience God’s Grace.
I think that these matter will have to be considered long and hard, and that any implementation of them should be considered carefully. I look forward to further explorations into this topic!
An analogous scenario would seem to be when a fictional character (such as Henry Scobie in Graham Greene’s The Heart of the Matter) partakes of a sacrament. It may reveal truth at some profound level, but it cannot achieve reality. Henry Scobie does not, outside of the covers of a book and the imaginations of its author and readers, have existence, have a soul. His sacramental experience–and his struggle with Heaven and Hell–are imaginary.
Second Life is, in many respects, a work of fiction. It is authored in real time by multiple authors, but–for the most part–belongs to the same plane of existence as a book penned years ago by a single author.
Further, why would God subject His Son, Jesus, to the profoundest suffering in the physical realm when He might instead have sent His avatar to redeem avatars? How does an avatar take up its cross and follow Jesus?
Other food for thought:
Hebrews 2:14-18 (New King James Version)
14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%202:14-18;&version=50;
Interesting and potentially helpful as the virtual realm may prove to be for the Christian walk, much of the thinking behind attempts to stretch the bounds of its spiritual efficacy strikes me as a refusal to honor the risen Christ and to obey His commands. There is really no excuse for, and seemingly much disdain for the physical reality of the Body of Christ in, this kind of sophistry. Get to Church.
The Eucharist is a physical experience from witnessing the act to receiving bread and wine. But it is also a spiritual experience in that the key action is invisible, caused by God who acts within the liturgy (Mark Brown 22/06/09).
The Eucharist is actually a “mystery” and may (or may not) be all or any of the above. We can’t really be certain about what happens during the symbolic ritual, what part God plays, what God does (if anything), what “happens” or how it “works” etc - which is the old debate about consubstantiation or transubstantiation etc etc.
Many people ARE certain what happens during the Eucharist but these beliefs often come in each particular denominational “Membership Pack” along with the rules, views, rituals and positions on a variety of moral issues. Others point to the New Testament to define the Eucharist - extrapolating Jesus’ meeting with a small group of friends and sharing bread and wine after dinner; to somehow include eating bits of cracker and drinking vials of grape juice in a draughty auditorium with another five hundred anonymous people.
If the Eucharist truly is a holy and divine mystery, then I am happy to celebrate the Eucharist in person, on-line or underwater. I’ll also prepare myself to make space for the Holy One in whatever ‘place’ I happen to be as I always do, whether anything “happens” or not. I’m sure God will manage. I’m in.
One of the major advantages of meeting with other Christians online IMO is that we can do so without all the ‘baggage’ that makes offline relationships between different churches, and even different bits of the same church, problematical. A lot of these divisions are expressed through who we are ‘in communion’ or ‘out of communion’ with.
Why on earth introduce that into the virtual relationships we can share without such baggage? Why try and replicate our offline lives rather than work out what is unique about our online relationships in Christ?
“Within the logic of the virtual world, the cathedral in Second Life is a place where avatars worship God and avatars minister to avatars.”
- isn’t my experience at all - wherever I have been with other Christians in a virtual environment, whether a chatroom, a forum, emails or a 3D environment, it’s been very clear that it’s the real person I’m relating to - however imperfectly.
In real life we may also hide behind ‘personas’ we’ve built up to protect ourselves and in fact many people find that the anonymity of the net paradoxically frees them up to be more honest about who they really are - for good or ill!
What I take most from Paul Fiddes’ helpful paper is the possibility for experiences in virtual worlds to be sacramental (small ’s’ and not necessarily the dominical Sacraments). I am reminded of how Mark Howe from St Pixel’s (www.stpixels.com) speaks of how the typing of the Lord’s Prayer, often in many languages from all across the globe, has become almost a sacramental rite during their online services.
I am most grateful that this conversation has come before us. I confess it was one I tried to start back in November 2007 (http://tinyurl.com/mtyes8), and that a thoroughly enjoyable exchange ensued, but nothing much after. In the many months following all that, I’m happy to say that the technical details, while still worthy of consideration, don’t bother me very much anymore. The world is rushing in and the church, as usual, is finding ways to cope.
Beyond that, and in recognition of the good thoughts above, I’d only add that:
1. Cyberspace can be very good for the soul. (Duh, right?) My impression of technologies such as Second Life is that insofar as they enable the enhancement of a spirituality and development of moral character realized “in the real,” (i.e., lived in one’s offline life), what goes on in them should be held up as generally positive examples. Christian living, in the moral-ethical sense, is possible and practicable anywhere and everywhere, even as it happens in places that aren’t touchable, and that can change instantly.
2. A faithful and poetic imagination is the only thing that’s going to break open the possibilities inherent in the technology to deliver any sense of sacramentality. Quite often ministry can be described as a certain trafficking in persuasive metaphor for the sake of deepened relationship with God / self / others. It excels dangerous literalism. Take, for example, the theology of the hymn “Earth and all stars,” which repeatedly uses both objects and groups (some sentient, some inanimate) to say that God is worthy of praise:
Trumpets and pipes, loud clashing cymbals, sing to the Lord a new song!
Harp, lute, and lyre, loud humming cellos, sing to the Lord a new song!
The theology deployed by the writer of the hymn — a Mr. Brokering — is simply accomplished by wise metaphor: i.e., the hum of everyday industry is the song of praise made by all creation. It doesn’t matter if the trumpets are literally praising God; it’s “at least that true.”
So, keying on Cady Enoch’s counsel, is there a poetic and virtual equivalent of a sacrament whose use would not be immediately mired by questions such as “Is it efficacious?” In other words, doesn’t a new age giving birth to a new world demand a new sign?
3. Except perhaps for the occasional hermit whose ministry has been discerned and blessed, there is no suitable replacement in baptized ministry for the community of real people within real proximity to one another. Christian vocation is realized and clarified as it is lived out among others; Christian fellowship brings comfort to pilgrims in relation to one another. There is no substitute for tangible community; the Great Commandment and the spirit behind the Eucharist cannot be conveniently obviated by mediated reality. In the same vein, it is so heartening to see such concern over the fact that ministers are using this technology to minister to real-life needs.
4. I don’t believe it’s possible to be completely undifferentiated about one’s person, and given what I’ve seen, I’m not so sure that technologies operating at one remove from real life are much help. The only one who ever really succeeded at being undifferentiated is the one we already name and follow. The difference between who we are and who we are called to be is the stuff of confession, grace, reconciliation, and mercy. Any sacrament not taking that into account, be it tangible or digital, widely misses the mark.
Good thoughts, all! Keep the conversation alive!
Torey
Thank you Paul (and Mark for virtually hosting you
for a stimulating conversation. Recognising degrees of presence may be helpful in this (virtual? or distant and asynchronous, but nevertheless real) conversation. Even when “physically present” we are not always equally present. Is a eucharist where the words spoken are relayed to my ears (in a large church building, or even a football field) by electronic amplification as “present” as one where I hear the celebrant’s own unaided voice? Suppose then the celebrant is removed from me by some greater distance, another room for example, to allow for an overflow of people, they are less present… At what degree of presence do words, bread and wine become eucharist?
PS
I am working on a paper concerning “degrees of presence” for a teaching session at SBL in November, and am beginning to explore some of the ideas here: http://www.bigbible.org/blog/2009/06/virtual-sacraments-or-real-sacraments.htm and will no doubt post more as November gets ever closer.
Scripture teaches us to not separate body, soul and spirit when we present ourselves to Him, but to offer our whole selves. I wonder whether avatars produce confusion and disjointedness? Also, when you come to the Table of the Lord, is the persona that confesses sin the same persona that receives the Bread and Wine? Just a question.
This is an important issue which needs a lot of careful thought. I particularly endorse Gareth’s comment.
Thanks Mark for hosting this discussion.
Much in agreement with Gareth here. And Tim, thanks so much for your own interesting contribution. Interesting, I hadn’t really thought of whether Second Life is indeed a “world.” I suppose here one starting point would be Heidegger’s notion of Welt in the introduction and beginning of Being & Time. I haven’t even begun to think about this one, and perhaps won’t (time).
Cady - re. “I believe that the way forward in this regard is to examine the inner essence of this act.” Sacraments are an outward sign of an inward grace. If we wish to do away with the “outward” part, we aren’t really talking about sacraments any more. I agree though in the importance of the poetic imagination in what we do - but really everything we do is characterized by the poetic imagination - poesis merely means to “make” or “produce” - and the imagination is an element of all acts of human perception, cognition, and action. Meaning, basically: even the little things we do, like chatting, or the lovely things you do in the background, like building - are all acts of poetic imagination. We don’t need the sacraments for this. But let’s use the poetic imagination toward the end of the sacramental; Gareth’s advice here is truly apposite.
What would help as well is to learn more about grace. There is little use in turning about in circles on essences and sacraments when many of us have very little idea of what Christ told us about grace.
There is something “wholistic” about the sacraments - take away any “part,” and they are no longer the same whole. They can’t be neatly analyzed into an “inner” part that can be divorced from an outer part. The quest for “inner essences” was a rather nineteenth-century romantic affair especially popular amongst the Victorians - but the recognition that consicousness - the “inner” - is also “out there” - and is always transcending - has great implications, and that the search for inner essences is rather futile in many cases. Much of this has stuck around in certain rather lazy ways of doing theology and talking about God, but in hermeneutics and philosophy the ground was laid for overturning this notion as early as the late nineteenth century. Much of this quest seems to me to hearken back to Matthew Arnold’s notion of culture.
This happens to be a matter that I have been praying through for some time.I really welcome the opportunity to be part of this discussion and to read how others are seeking to engage these deep questions.
The first question for me is: what is the nature of the human communication and relationships that are experienced within the context of Second Life?
My experience of avatar: being one: communicating with others; engaging with and learning to manipulate the tools and resources of Second Lifel; appreciating the amazing creativity that is expressed in each image and object within this dimension or domain; and last but not least - praying and leading services of worship…
Apart from the digigliches that are unavoidable because of the limitations of technology and tools, nothing happens in Second Life that does not have some originating intention and active instigation of a human being. Even Mark’s last ’swim’ over the edge of the pulpit at the Cathedral on Ephiphany; and my own ‘flying’ around the ceiling unintended; were functions of our human selves attempting to act with intention and purpose within the realm of the Second Life.
One of the things that has deeply impressed me in these situations is the evidence of Grace in the acceptance and encouragement from others, to not be embarassed but to recognise this as simply a sign of the limitations we are all attempting to negotiate.
If the actions are those of a griefer they are just as problematic as if it occured in any other public place.
If someone comes out of sheer curiosity, or is not presenting their ‘true’ selves, is that any different to any other form of human gathering?
In short, the notion of this being ‘not real’ because it is communicated by ‘avatars’ does not bear out in my experience. It has the capacity to be profoundly real, with people developing deep attachments and forming full relationships which are then expressed in RL, ‘real’ life.
This brings me to the second consideration, for me: the connection between RL and SL.
In my short experience I have already heard several anecdotes of how individuals have transferred their learning about themselves from SL to RL, becoming generally more confident, more engaged and self-forgiving in their ‘real’ lives, as a result of their interactions in Second Life.
I beieve that it is psychologically very sound that this should be a common experience. Our emotional and phsycological selves are profoundly affected by images, sounds and meaning. Everytime we see a movie or listen to music and feel moved by what we see and/or hear … we are all responding to a representation or communication that is imparted from human to human through a mediated form of communication. That does not mean that our responses are somehow ‘not real’ or only a ‘mediated’ human experience, not a real experience.
The flaw with the argument above, about the fictional character not being real in a book, is the assumption that avatars are somehow fictional characters also. Fictional characters are a device by an author to communicate a story, and the story does not have to have any basis of fact. As fiction it is a device purely for entertainment. Avatars are a mediated form of communication, but the communication itself is very real. It is not ‘fiction’. It is hard to put a quotient or qualification of quality on any human communication. My experience of Second Life is that this mediated communication is far more than a movie, a book, or even a telephone call; and it can be as meaningful as face to face contact if the persons involved are open, honest and acting from their authentic selves.
We need to be very clear about the nature of our communication as human beings, before we can infer any questions about the nature of Divine activity within the same realm.
As it is right now, my RL commitments demand more attention. So I will have to return to address that aspect of the discussion.
I look forward to furthering this conversation and considering more what others have to share.
Re Gareth’s point about the Lord’s Prayer - I think this points up that each person’s experience may be different- I have experienced the typing of the Lord’s Prayer in St Pixels as quite profound if there are a small number present, but as a moment of profound self absorption as I’ve struggled to type fast enough to keep up - with no space to stand back and experience what’s happening - so not sacramental at all!
As a C of E priest working online it’s been helpful to broaden my Eucharistic theology. so I don’t see it just as deriving from the Last Supper but from other occasions where Jesus was present in the breaking of the bread - the feeding of the mulititudes, in the Emmaus story and greeting the disciples with a barbecue on the beach. So a Eucharistic community it becomes something more than people who engage in certain actions, to a style of community where the Eucharist is possible.
There are similar issues for any emergent church or fresh expression, unless they happen to be started by someone who is authorised to preside - the Share - the Guide website has recently published two blogs on it, the more recent one by George Lings:
http://www.sharetheguide.org/blog/archive/2009/06/22/lay-led-churches-and-communion-by-george-lings
contains a link to the earlier one that I wrote.
Bless you, Mark, for opening up this whole area of conversation and theological concern. It is one that has needed prayerful consideration for some time now, not only in terms of the eucharist, but also absolution. And bless Prof. Fiddes for his carefully articulated coverage of the issues involved. Far more folk than I are and will continue to be grateful for both of you…pt
“There is a mysterious and complex interaction between the person and the persona projected (avatar), just as there is between the person and his/her personae in everyday life.” To even put the thought into ones mind to plant a seed of error, to even hint that this is in someway accepted by GOD is a grave error and an abomination to Jesus Christ in which the Eucharist is. To think that somehow one can obtain graces from GOD, Jesus or even Mother Mary is absurd. What is one to do go to a website and look upon a photo of the Body and blood of Jesus and by reflecting on it obtains graces by doing so? What an absurdity the commandment of Jesus says one had to eat of my flesh and drink of my blood not grace upon it in some kind of image no matter what the medium in order to have not only life in you but to be raised up on the last day to have any kind of chance of going to heaven as there is more to it then that which is not subject to this writing. What you have spoken came from Satan and you are a slave to him, repent and believe in the Gospel of Jesus
[…] in virtual worlds. We have gotten off to a great start with Rev. Mark’s blog post on the conversation about virtual sacraments. Below are some of the other questions that have arisen so […]
Wow, lots of good discussion. Thanks folks.
I hope I didn’t come off as rigid, because I tend to be pretty open minded and creative. But there are some questions & issues I find myself running into if I’m thinking of Sacraments with a capital “S” crossing over to things like avatars and the people behind those avatars at their computers.
While some in SL or other 3D/virtual realities role play and so their their interactions with folks may be more fiction than genuine because they’re making up a story and interacting accordingly, I will echo what others have said, that most of the people I have interacted with have seemed to be presenting themselves in a way that’s genuine and a representation of their real personalities.
I’ll also admit that while often I have felt connected to God and felt the sense of being gathered together with my sisters and brothers in Christ during worship in SL, there are other times where (as one commenter shared) I’m more concerned about typing my responses, or am distracted by something in my house or by a side IM conversation. Although, I suppose it’s not much different than worring about juggling prayerbooks in RL and being distracted by that, or by car alarms outside etc.
I really liked the idea about exploring what might be experienced as sacramental in settings like SL, rather than figuring out a way to import current sacraments.
In seminary our litury professor had us read a little book called, “Sacraments of Life Life of the Sacraments” by Leonardo Boff. His premise was that depending on the circumstances and their meaning to you pretty much anything could be experienced as sacrament - even his father’s cigarette butt, because he received it in a letter when he was traveling far from home that told him his father had died (I think a heart attack), so included with notes from siblings, one of his sisters had included the cigarette butt, the last one his father had smoked. So it carries meaning and represents something that the average person digging through this man’s belongings might never guess.
Thanks again for the opportunity to explore and discuss this and for those who have shared thoughts.
[…] At our gathering the question of what form the sacraments take in a virtual world was posed. This post reveals that some people are really thinking about this issue. (Read not only the post but the comments for alternate […]
This is a fantastic discussion! When I’ve told people about my church experience in SL, I’ve mentioned the real worship and true prayer, but added that I do miss the Eucharist. I’m glad this is being seriously addressed, and I’ll return to this discussion to see what’s said after my comment.
Cady, Gareth, and Lori have mentioned the possibility of evolving practices which can be sacramental without taking the place of Sacraments, and I think this is the direction in which I’ll be thinking. Given my difficulty with movement controls in SL, I don’t see that I’d feel particularly blessed by having my avatar struggle up to the front of the church, attempt to touch items on the altar, then struggle back to a pew. But we may be able to come up with something that becomes, perhaps, “an outward and virtual sign of an inward and spiritual grace.” I’m excited to be part of a group thinking about this, and hopeful that we’ll evolve something that will be as meaningful to us as the rest of the SLAngCath experience, without attempting to displace the true Sacraments.
MimseyBorogove Susanowa
I’m beginning to regret that I piped up here. I also thought that I had laid to rest most of Prof. Fiddes’s arguments in my response, which was my intention, not to generate more debate. I don’t want to disrespect your own theology or notion of the sacraments, but I don’t understand the lack of respect for those who find discussing this inappropriate in this type of setting - i.e., calling on parishoners to voice an opinion. What may be appropriate in an academic setting or amongst theologians, is not always appropriate for discussion amongst parishoners, especially when there’s a lack of knowledgeable and pastoral moderation. I’m not sure whether Prof. Fiddes himself would approve of encouraging parishoners chime in on this topic in this manner. I can tell you that two people who I had been trying to encourage to be interested in the Cathedral have read this thread and probably won’t be taking part since they think we don’t take the sacraments seriously, and doubt we take anything else seriously. Sometimes I wonder about that myself. I am happy to help those whose views I think are in error, but I do not wish to lend respectability to this venture of chat on virtual sacraments, and am rather surprised that more do not see that we could either be seen as rather off our heads, or in sin and encouraging gnosticism.
God’s gift of rain falls on those who believe, and those who don’t; it could also be seen as “sacramental.” But if we begin considering the rain as sacramental, the category of the sacred hereby is in danger of losing its meaning entirely and the distinction between common grace and sanctifying grace blurred.
I do care about the Cathedral and wish others to do so. I think we must at some point acknowledge that we must make choices. Even if one were to believe that the thought of virtual sacraments has merit, as I do not, one could also see the relevance of forestalling the public debate until more were comfortable with online prayer, simply as a matter of calling and timing. Some callings mean we won’t effectively be able to participate in other types of work and exclude other types of callings.
Perhaps I can offer a constructive suggestion.
That we continue a new thread (if there is still any interest), on “the sacramental in virtual space”, as inspired by Gareth’s comment. We should begin by clearly distinguishing this from the dominical sacraments, an issue which I believe we’ve brought to rest here. This will prevent people from associating comments here with the rather lightening-rod title “Virtual Holy Communion?”
Add some moderation guidelines - i.e., trying to say something substantive besides “it’s so creative and we can experience the holy in a way that transcends merely mimicking church institutions” etc. … learn the principles of “meaningful theology”: when one uses the words “creative”, “sacred”, “imaginative”, “I’m enthusiatic about …”, it helps to provide some kind of concrete or conceptual references, for some grounding. Many of our members are quite proud of how their church is so much more “reasonable” than other churches, something which I sometimes wonder at. If so, represent your church and be reasonable in discourse and recognize the difference between rather empty statements of enthusiasm invoking wonder at the “sacred” and “creativity”, and try to add something to these words which also carries some cognitive content which one can chew on; and please keep in mind while doing so how often you have insinuated that people from other churches “have left their brain at the door.”
I’m thankful for many of the thoughts here … even though I think that this should have taken place in a different type of context … but I do think there are points where we’re approaching that edge of enthusiasm that doesn’t really carry much content with it. Remember good folks, this is what many have taken issue with the “fundamentalists” in ages past and the problems of “Schwärmerei.” If we are into fundy-bashing, we’d better at least leave a good bit of room between our own behavior and fundamentalism. And if we are talking about the sacramental, we’d better have something worthy to say.
Oh my, I come to this the day after I wrote it and sense I was still somewhat angry at how this thread influenced my friends - and said some rather snarky things about people who tout their church as being fantastic in the “reason” category. I should take my own advice and learn the right place and the right time to make such remarks, here certainly isn’t the right place.
I do think though that if this discussion goes on, it shouldn’t go on under “Virtual Holy Communion?” It seems to me that the consensus here is: a very resounding NO! - although there is space to discuss the “sacramental.” But in doing so, we should also bring more clarity to the field, rather than speaking in a mist of enthusiastic statements containing the words “creative,” “sacred,” “spirit,” etc., but with little grounding.
Some more knowledge of the ecumenical scene in Second Life is probably also of use here, in order to realize how this is likely to be perceived socially. As I have indicated on numerous occasions, many Christians are likely to be offended at the notion of virtual sacraments, and especially so in Second Life.
Quite a while back, the Lighthouse Church announced that it would be baptizing avatars. There was quite some consternation about this, including amongst some Anglicans. It made many exceedingly angry, and it seemed to me that this act reinforced a rather broad consensus amongst Christians active in Second Life that the sacraments are “not done” in Second Life. Not long afterward, the Lighthouse Church ministry ended (and was started up again by others). The main reason was unrelated to the baptizing of avatars, but this surely didn’t help.
It helps for such things to have a bit of Second Life ecumenical context and to know something of the cultural context. “Virtual sacraments” has become for many a sort of red flag - though I do suppose it is debatable as to whether this should be such a red flag. But given our rather isolated existence from other Christian sims, and the tensions we already have, it’s best, when we choose our actions, to keep the Second Life ecumenical landscape in mind.
Thanks for your three posts, Wilf. I can certainly understand some of your misgivings and frustrations about this discussion, especially as there have been several times in my ministry when I have been working on a person’s presumptions and prejudices only to find my efforts unravelled through their encounter with a Christian who reinforces those prejudices by their actions towards them.
I also understand and appreciate your words of caution about over-using the term ’sacramental’. The idea of a virtual Eucharistic celebration does not excite me: what does are those experiences and situations which possess a sacred character or mysterious significance which lead to a greater awareness of the presence of God. I believe, through my theology and personal experience, that such encounters can be found online as much as a quiet chapel, a misty mountain-top, or R S Thomas’ shipwreck.
The question of virtual sacraments comes up again and again by visitors to the Anglican Cathedral in Second Life - I suppose because the Eucharist is such an important element of Anglican worshipping life. In light of this, I don’t think the issue can be completely ignored.
As to the appropriateness of the setting of this discussion, outside of the halls of academia I find myself hard-pressed to think of a better one. Brownblog is an independent website, run by a private individual, which has developed a reputation for cutting-edge thinking about faith and technology. That’s why many visitors to this blog come here. They are an theologically diverse bunch and I find such debate stimulating, even whilst my sacred cows are in the spotlight.
Thanks, Gareth. I hope to respond shortly.
“The question of virtual sacraments comes up again and again by visitors to the Anglican Cathedral in Second Life - I suppose because the Eucharist is such an important element of Anglican worshipping life. In light of this, I don’t think the issue can be completely ignored.”
I think we need to be aware of the reality of Internet communication, which is that some people use it for role play and some people use it to entertain themselves by winding other people up. And I don’t judge people for that - the Church of Fools 3D phase nearly went under because of ‘attacks’ from trolls and ragers, which we saw at the time as spiritual warfare. It may well have been, on one level, but on another level that we completely missed at the time, the people who did that were coming to play. To them , we had created a play environment and invited them in and we were fair game.
In SL we are in an environment specifically set up for role play and for pushing the boundaries of what we would do in our ‘first lives.’
I think for these reasons I would agree with Wilfried that we have to be careful about how we discuss and decide on such issues. People may be quite insistent about wanting communion but to them it is a consequence free environment. Yet if ‘Anglican communion’ were to take place online, there would be serious questions in the real world about the authority by which it was done and whether it was sacrilegious.
I’m not convinced at the moment that everyone who asks about online communion is doing so because of a great need and desire to take communion which can only be met with through an online church.
If people aren’t simply wanting communion as an authentic ‘prop’ for their online play, it seems to me asking about communion is either a) shorthand for ‘are you a real church?’ - since communion is a recognisable mark of being church - or b) the sort of ‘consumerism’ that you can also easily encounter in RL churches - ‘I want.’
If online Christian community is to be authentic then we have to work at thinking through what it means to be church in this context, and out of that I think the discussion of sacraments would be about the development of authentic community.
But there’s no short cut - we have to build up authentic relationships before we can create authentic community, and that’s hard in any contexr. It’s always much easier to focus on doing than being.
No one has offered a cogent attempt at answering the question “Why?”
Even assuming (contra the better argument, in my opinion) that it is possible to partake of the sacraments via the Internet, what unmet need in the life of the Church does such a practice solve? Does the answer possibly run along the lines of it rendering unnecessary the messy reality of gathering physically with other believers (many of whom spend their entire lives offline) in all their human weakness, ugliness and sinfulness?
Reread the first few chapters of Acts and ask yourself why Jesus instructed His disciples to wait together in Jerusalem until the arrival of the Holy Spirit. Was it because the Holy Spirit would have difficulty reaching each of them had they dispersed? (Is the Holy Spirit less powerful than the Internet, my friends?) Might it tell us something about the way God chooses to meet and to bless and to empower His people in the context of physical community?
I find myself wrestling with my belief that ultimately no theology should be forbidden – all can be scrutinised, critiqued and debated – and the knowledge that sometimes such discussions can be damaging. Pam, I think the reasons for the questions about virtual sacraments are genuine and revolve around the option a) you presented: “shorthand for ‘are you a real church?’ - since communion is a recognisable mark of being church”. If it was any other reason, due to the sensitivity of the issue, I would gladly leave it to purely academic debate. But the fact is that the online churches (alongside other fresh expressions and pioneer ministries) are engaged in reconsidering the vision of what it is to be Church - what it means to be gathered as a congregation of believers, and what kind of activities Christians need to engage in. They attempt to meet the perennial challenge facing the Church: to maintain cultural relevance whilst retaining the core message and identity. They also wrestle with, and share in common, certain questions – such as, can a community truly be a church if they never offer the dominical sacraments?
Frankly, for me it is pretty much a non-issue for my ecclesiology. I am content not to challenge the belief that, as the Vatican has expressed it, ‘There are no sacraments on the Internet’ (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/pccs/documents/rc_pc_pccs_doc_20020228_church-internet_en.html). Where then does that leave internet churches? Can there be no true church on the internet?
As a person who has been heavily involved with ecumenical dialogue on a variety of levels throughout my Christian ministry, I know that insistence on a definition of Church that insists on the normativity of sacraments is a barrier to dialogue with some denominations, such as the Salvation Army and the Quakers, and even between churches whose concept of the Sacraments (and all that makes them valid) are radically different. Even within Methodist and Anglican spirituality, as important as they are to self-identity, are not these rites secondary in terms of what it means to be the Body of Christ? In embracing the dominical sacraments, it can be done in the knowledge that these do not exhaust the possibility of the presence of the living Christ among His people. Sacramental rites point to a deep reality which, when lived out, can make even online churches “sacramental” communities. The sense of connectedness to the wider Body of Christ means that the Church as a whole is fulfilling its ontological mandate, relying on each other as each component of the Body plays its part. In this light, if, a church comes into existence to reach the young, for example, then it is no less Church for them because it does not cater for the elderly. If, then, sacraments are ‘correctly administered’ in other parts of the Church, then it is not necessary to unchurch Christian communities which are not able, for practical or theological reasons, to partake in them. Thus, all that is needed in this is a sense of the catholicity of the Church, acknowledging and developing the relationships which bring koinonia with fellow disciples in Christ’s Body. The absence of the Sacraments do not preclude the possibility of ecclesial authenticity for missional Christian communities. If a community’s life stems from its faith in God, it has communion with the wider community of His people, and are participators in His mission, then there is room for flexibility in structures and methodology for the sake of mission.
Thank you Gareth for that thoughtful post. A lot of what you’ve said chimes in with my own instincts. I think the Internet offers an amazing opportunity to work with other Christians and anything that makes that harder should be avoided.
Matt’s question “what unmet need in the life of the Church does such a practice solve?” is a very important one, and is at the root of my comment about ‘consumerism.’
If I did come across a person via online church whose need to take communion was unmet, my first thought would be to try and work out how this could be achieved in real life.
I think there is provision in Catholic theology for Communion in all sorts of irregular situations if the need arises, but I think the basic requirement is that the need can’t possibly be met in any other way.
My point about consumerism is related to Matt’s point about avoidance - why would you want to ‘take Communion via the Internet’ if it were possible for you IRL? If it isn’t a deep need that can’t be met any other way - which would be extremely rare - then it has to be a question of either preference (consumer choice) or play.
Of course it could be said that we have gatherings online that won’t ever be replicated offline, because the people involved are never going to be physically gathered together in one place, and it is a way of affirming that particular gathering as an authentic part of the body of Christ. ISTM this results from a confusion created by having animated avatars in SL which look like people. We forget that what is really happening which is a form of real time communication across distance.
To me at the moment it makes no more sense to talk about having communion on the Internet than it does to talk about having communion on the phone. The experience of praying online is authentic because distance is no obstacle to prayer, but distance *is* an obstacle to sharing communion.
PS - of course some people have already worked it out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/worship-communion-wafers-post
Pam! You posted exactly what I was about to say. But this saddens me as well.
I suggest:
- for those who wish to have eucharist, we do all we can to enable them to have “real life” eucharist where they are. This can include helping them find a church, or, if they are not able to move from their location, trying to contact clergy in their area who are willing to go to them and provide the sacrament. If they are not willing to provide their location - we can assume then that it simply isn’t our calling to help them in this way at this moment. This may seem more difficult than doing it ourselves, but if it’s really what God has put on our hearts, why not try to help people get “the real thing” instead of presenting something with so problematic, and risk alienating our community from the rest of Second Life Christianity?
[…] The Rev. Jim Adams points to Sam Rocha’s series on Jean-Luc Marion’s God Without Being. Mark points to a guide of Delivering a Presentation Like Steve Jobs. Most interestingly of all, Mark Brown posts what Paul Fiddes writes about the possibility of digital Eucharist. […]
@Wilfried -
I’m sorry this thread gave your friends the impression that people who worship in Second Life are not serious, and I sincerely apologize if my enthusiasm for this discussion compounded the problem. Instead of asking your friends to come to services at the Cathedral, maybe you should encourage them to come to Saturday discussion and/or Sunday Bible study. Without the visual pageantry of the Anglican service, they might be able to see the true fellowship offered and received in these less formal situations. I’ve known people (and I think you have, too) who’ve come to the Saturday discussion dismayed to find church in what they perceive as a “gaming” environment, but some of them have stayed after realizing that we are, indeed, serious, and that we want to worship God in Spirit and in Truth.
MimseyBorogove Susanowa
CarynW,
I hate being a damper on enthusiasm, I really do! It’s just good when that enthusiasm is a bit informed, really … I have the feeling that many of us are rather barging into all of this without much knowledge, and sadly, that includes most of what I’ve seen at the Saturday Discussion group. The enthusiasm is definitely there, but there’s often a lot missing.
Maybe our mission is just moving too fast so we are missing our core purposes here. This has been a big criticism of a lot of the “emergent church” phenomenon. Maybe we have to have less services, discussions, and Bible studies, but make sure that when we do these things, we’re doing them well, and that our purposes are in line with what the Communion teaches. I think we might have been doing something we so often accuse the megachurches of: focusing on numbers, and missing content.
Here’s an article I wrote a while back on the problem of the “emergent church” phenomenon - http://bit.ly/84oz5
‘Is “emergent” a synonym for dodging the most challenging and controversial questions in theology with simplistic answers, in the hopes of attracting followers and being “relevant” by avoiding the difficult, or is it a movement toward more spiritual depth through recovering the theological insights and practices of previous ages?’
I recently heard Michael Moynagh, who works in theological training and fresh expressions in the Church of England, speaking at a conference and one thing he said really struck a chord with me. He said that we need to listen to people’s stories carefully so we can draw out the principles they are using and apply them in our own context - just copying what someone else has done without reflecting on it won’t work.
As a natural ‘reflector’, I can get far too bogged down in thinking about things and never get any further with them. So I value people who actually get out there an do things. However, there does have to be space for reflection and learning as well - and we shouldn’t just leave it to the ‘professionals’ but think about our own practice.
I’m fascinated by the range of views here and encouraged to see that people are indeed reflecting as well as doing.
A suggestion:
I suggest that the Cathedral Leadership Team consider that the discussion regarding “virtual sacraments” is closed, though we can go further on this blog.
One of the things in the past which has helped me a great deal in convincing people of the “seriousness” of what we were doing and that we were careful of not falling into gnosticism or empty roleplay was the fact that we have no virtual sacraments, and that we are against the policy of having virtual sacraments.
There is a complex theology of the eucharist which hasn’t yet been mentioned here, but is a very, very good reason for even avoiding discussion of virtual sacraments in a casual manner - i.e., without certain discussional markers and guidelines clearly in place. I had wanted to explain this but will not have the time.
This amounts, I think, to a very clear sense that we should not be involved in the virtual sacraments. I did not bring this up initially because it is somewhat complex, and really all I needed to do in this context was refute Prof. Fiddes’s arguments, which I believe I have in the first post above, and Bosco Peters has also very eloquently added his own refutation.
The very fact that we can not have virtual sacraments means that we do not need to have the aspiration of being, as it is sometimes expressed, “a full expression of church.” We may look like a “church,” but instead we are a kind of “gathering” or “community,” with purposes of ministry, and one of our intentions should be in helping those who do not have church communities, to find them when they are ready for this. And to help people toward this end, when they are not yet ready. It’s like a marking on a map, showing us that we belong to the church … but that we should not place ourselves on the same level of importance or authority as a church parish, we are something different. We can not, for example, invite people to consider our “church” amongst the many possible churches they might make their home church. So really we are more of a “para-church” type organization.
Simply telling people that this is part of our theology, and that it is informed by the example of the sacraments being “off the chart” of possibilities for ourselves, shows people that we have a clearer sense of our “place” as a ministry and that we are not involved in making wild claims or disrupting worship as we know it. And that we’re not like the “tv churches” with which so many churches have had problems - when their members have their first allegiance (and first priority in donations) to the TV Church of Pastor BillyBob, who is Doing Such Wonderful Things for All Those People. We are not gnostics. We are about praying with, and helping real people, and not some strange “very complex and mystical” phantasmagorial “energy” to which we impute divine characteristics. And we pray to God, and not some sort of spiritual effluence emmanating from our computer monitors, or a synergy which we suppose to be located in a virtual three-dimensional model hosted somewhere in California.
This has been powerful in assuring many people - believers in Second Life, who do not wish to pray in Second Life because they are afraid of “roleplay,” and people outside of Second Life, who are reluctant to explore a calling inside of Second Life - that the good that we are doing, outweighs the potential danger, and that we are well-informed and discerning about the dangers.
A Catholic friend of mine never prayed in Second Life, because he associated it with roleplay. I told him the above thoughts concerning the sacraments. He thought about it, I think, because a few days later he joined me in prayer, and prayed himself, as well. So if you are looking for something that’s an effective teaching - I believe this is. I haven’t gotten him to pray at the Cathedral yet, but I do hope the day comes that he does.
So I’d suggest the Leadership Team adopt a policy something like this, inspired by Gareth’s thoughts.
“We do not believe that the sacraments have a place in Second Life. This does not mean, however, that God is not working through the medium of Second Life, nor that His presence is not with us when we gather. To the contrary, we believe that God’s presence is with us when we come together in Second Life, and that what Christ tells us in Matthew 18:20 also applies to gatherings of real children Christ (not avatars) when they authentically come together in Second Life.”
I like Gareth’s vocabulary of the sacramental, but I left it out explicitly in the above. The reason being these:
- people in reformed / evangelical traditions frequently have an underinformed appreciation of the sacramental. They can be scared off by this word, associating it with uninformed liturgism: i.e., sacred poetry in services without much meaning but supposedly very profound and magic-like gestures and words. But we need more of such people, so let’s not scare them off. Once they are with us, hopefully they can gain more of an appreciation for the sacramental.
- people with very high church tendencies also may be skeptical by what we mean with the “sacramental” since frequently use of this word is combined with things they highly dislike - e.g., use of liturgy for promoting political purposes, or dubious “reforms” of the liturgy. And we do want people with very high church tendencies to worship with us as well and not feel alienated. [I suppose you can tell from this and the above that I really think we should be aiming at the classical sense of “broad church.”]
- it’s good to help educate and transform people, and not simply preach to them what they already believe in fully; we need to preach and educate on topics where our faith is weak, rather than “preaching to the choir” and gaining friends by vehemently expressing our belief in what they find Oh So Important. This type of behavior is called “preaching to the choir,” and is a bit “fundamentalistic.” It’s what Christ spoke of when he warned us of preaching those things which peoples’ “ears are itching to hear.”
We can express more or less the same thing with the words used above (though they surely do not capture the full spectrum of things we associate with “sacramental”), which I think state our vision nicely, and also are not likely to miscommunicate our intentions or unnecessarily alienate people or make them feel unwelcome. I also believe the above words capture the most important aspect of our common beliefs in what we are doing when we come together in Second Life.
It also makes clear another point: are we “together” and “gathered” when our avatars are together? We aren’t always, if we are away from our keyboards, or our minds are actively present, no matter what kind of actions our avatar at that moment might be displaying, and even though, at that moment, it is clear that the avatars are together.
However, we ARE together when we are focused and praying together. And this is much, much more than just a meeting of avatars.
I’ll be away from this site for a week or more so if I don’t address remarks please don’t take it to my being uninterested.
ah, missed a paragraph above - after the “ears itching” paragraph insert:
As far as our own congregation, I think we’re often too enthusiastic to be finding the “sacred” everywhere, and not attentive enough to relevant scriptural, theological (thinking maybe Rudolf Otto - but I’m no expert here), and even anthropological (such as Mircea Eliade) considerations regarding what the sacred is, and entails. But as Anglicans and as Christians, of course, our first concern, and only authority from God, are Scriptural concerns, in which we need more grounding.
and in the “suggested policy,” for “real children Christ” insert “real children of Christ.”
[…] celebrate the Eucharist on the internet. Mark Brown CEO of the NZ Bible Society posted this article a few days ago featuring the Revd Professor Paul S. Fiddes, a Baptist minister and Professor of […]
Rev Bosco has unfortunately had issues posting a comment, so I am posting on his behalf:
Thanks Mark for alerting us to this paper; I would have wished you had by now placed your own position here also. Thanks also for the personal invitation to respond - my response was too large for a comment and is placed here:
http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/virtual-eucharist/1078
Wilfried alludes to my response - but some readers here may not have found it. Over 7,000 people have read my post in the last couple of days - so it is clearly a relevant topic. Thanks for the thoughtful, thought-provoking comments both here and on my site. There is also some related humour at:
http://www.liturgy.co.nz/blog/church-internet/1090
Blessings
Bosco
http://www.liturgy.co.nz
@liturgy: http://twitter.com/liturgy
A wonderful discussion!
Apologies for not posting a substantial response or two.. I fly out to the UK in a couple of days and it has been a rather hectic time in preparation.
I will post sometime next week from the UK.
God bless,
Rev Mark
Sorry to come so late to the party.
I’m concerned that we’re being loose and fast with the whole concept of sacramentality. It has to do with the fundamental nature of the incarnation. Christ became flesh. While He is the WORD (LOGOS) - which is a powerful tool for communication and breaking down barriers of distance (geographical and chronological) - it is the sheer physicality of Jesus (the scandal of his particularity) that is the stumbling block.
The sacraments key in on this because they are physical signs that integrate our whole life into God. To simply physically receive them does no good (we simply press the teeth, as Augustine said). And their spiritual / intellectual / emotional benefit is inseparably tied to receiving them physically.
To look elsewhere is to tread perilously into the Docetic and dualistic waters of heresy, and to impose a generalized ahistoricity on the Church’s ministry.
Respectfully,
CLL+
I do not believe an avatar can receive communion. An avatar, however one may become attached to it, is still just a graphic tool. One may argue they can receive communion through a transmission on their fax machine. We are still just sitting alone in front of a machine punching buttons.
However the community that has been created in SL is very real, supportive, and caring. It is the people that make it so, not the avatars.
If people really desire to receive the sacraments in SL it can be seen as a cry in the darkness.
If anything, the church in SL should encourage individuals to find a local church where they can receive the sacrament, even if they do not attend regularly.
We should help raise awareness in individual churches to be familiar and welcoming of individual people who attend virtual churches and welcome them as an extension of the worldwide Anglican communion.
However I do believe it would be possible for a person to receive a blessing through their avatar in SL.
VK
Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, thank You that with You all things are possible. Thank you for being our Good Shepperd who cares for all our needs. Please make your presence and love always apparent to us. Lord Jesus Christ, please protect my children from people who have have evil intentions and influences towards them. Please protect them from all lies and deceptions of the devil. May we recognize the evil and with stand against the devil and resist him in every are of our lives. Please put a Hedge of Thorns for protection around them so that people with bad influences will not get near or leave them. I beg you to guide them in their decision and that they will be strong and determined to resist temptations. Please be the center of their lives and guide them in all Your righteous ways.
Lord, give me strength and the wisdom to understand my children . I beg you to erase my pains, anger and bitterness I have with their father. Lord, please let him realize his wrongdoings and repent for the pains he caused us. Lord, let us hold your hand,and fill us with your grace to overcome all trials and still to stand with firm and faith, resisting the evil one.
Lord, please have mercy on my son Mickey. Please dismiss the case against him. Please enlightened the people who filed the case against him and withdraw the case. I pray for the people helping him.
Lord heal my son Niccolo. Please give him the courage and the confidence.
Lord, I ask You to help and give my son, Patrick the wisdom to pass his entrance exams at UST and La Salle this month. Please guide my kids in their studies.
Please protect my daughter, Paola and may she take care of her brothers.
Lord, I pray for love, peace, and happiness in our family and home.
Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God , forever and ever. Mother Mary, St. Joseph of Cupertino and all the angels and saints, please pray for us. Amen.