Avatar Discipleship – Who am I engaging with the avatar or the person?

How do you disciple Christians in the metaverse? Is it possible to disciple a person represented by an avatar? Who are you discipling, the avatar or the invisible person it represents?  Who are we really engaging with? These are questions often discussed in the church I work with in Virtual Reality (VR). These aren’t just questions that are relevant to VR. According to recent statistics in America[1] over 25 million attend church online. People use the description ‘in person’ for those who attend onsite church, but if we are ‘online’ are we not present ‘in person’ as well?  If I attend church via Zoom or YouTube then the experience may be different to onsite, I am ‘in person’ irrespective of my location or medium used. We use the phrases ‘in real life’ or ‘to meet in person’ as if when we are online, we are not ‘real’ or personally present, just a name represented by our avatar or computer screen.

One of Simon’s avatars.

An avatar is the visible representation of the invisible. Originally an avatar was the manifestation of the divine when visiting earth in a human form seen predominantly in Hinduism. With the advent of the metaverse the avatar has taken on a different context, it is the self representation of participants the virtual world.[2] However, it also needs the presence of a real person who is controlling the avatar. The avatar cannot exist without the real person, if the avatar speaks, it is the actual human who is speaking, when the real person stops the game or app, the avatar ceases to exist. During games the avatar may be injured or killed, but the real person, unless wearing a haptic suit, would not be impacted. With the need for a real person to be present is this any different to when we use avatars to represent us in all different aspects of life, at the gym, working in uniformed organisation or even within the home environment.

A Kenyan friend was recently ordained as an Assistant Bishop and for the ceremony he wore the relevant robes. These are not the normal robes he would wear when leading his church, I would argue these transform him into an ‘avatar’ as the visible represents the invisible. It is similar to when I was a teenager in the 1980s, our family would have our ‘Sunday best’ to wear to church, we wore them to reflect the persona (or avatar) expected at church.

Ceremonial robes.

I would argue the same person is there whether online or onsite. The avatar is a visible representation of a real person as it cannot move or speak without the embodied person being present. It is the visible representation of the invisible, but an avatar is just a ‘body’ that we use to engage in an environment, perhaps no different from the body we inhabit to engage with our work, relationships and religious activities. We use different avatars in these instances and in the metaverse.

Mark Zuckerberg  said ‘The defining quality of the metaverse will be a feeling of presence, like you are right there with another person or in another place. Feeling truly present with another person is the ultimate dream of social technology….’[3] This theme of presence is important as we desire to engage in the activity with other people and enjoy the experience. Dr Peter Phillips stated ‘while it is true that physical presence seems to be the best way for humans to experience mutual presence with one another, it is wrong to say that it is the only form of presence.’[4]  From experience the metaverse accessed through a Virtual Reality headset can be immersive, you forget your surroundings and become immersed in the VR world.

The difficulty is perhaps building relationships in the metaverse with people represented by their avatars, but is this any different from developing  friendships with those we meet in our various onsite circles, whether work, social or home. I would we suggest we put on an ‘avatar’ that represents the persona we are portraying whether that be a uniform, specialist clothes or equipment. We speak about a work/life balance indicating they are two different spheres of our life and perhaps use a different avatar for both.

The Christian position is that we are created in the image of God based on Gen 1:26-27. There are various interpretations as to the meaning of ‘image’ but one is Von Rad’s representative view that  ‘humanity is placed upon earth in God’s image as God’s sovereign emblem. Humanity is only God’s representative, summoned to maintain and enforce God’s claim to dominion over the earth.’[5]

Barth advocates a relational approach based on four criteria namely visibility, communication, activity and finally emotions.[6] The avatar relationship is different from a robot one, it is human to human as opposed to human to device, therefore I can show emotion in my communication with the other person. With visibility Barth is not referring to the outward person looking eye to eye, but communicating with the inward person, not the outward form. Gooder indicates the soul is the ‘unique core that makes a person truly human’ and uses the word ‘me-ness’[7]  to describe this ‘real essence of’ a person. Martin Heidegger uses similar terminology in describing the soul as the ‘thatness and whatness’ or ‘I-myself-ness,’ of being human[8]. The avatar is made in our image, its purpose is to represent the individual and to engage with other avatars. Barth’s position is the relational approach, another reflects God’s relationship with Adam and Eve and subsequently humanity which Charlotte von Kirschbaum describes as a ‘shared existence’[9] and the avatar could be seen as the user’s helper, complimenting them. I am involved in a discipleship group using Discord, but our participants all met through church in VR and developed our friendship beyond that.

---

References

[1] American Bible Society report State of the Bible 2024 https://sotb.research.bible (accessed 10.5.24)

[2] Hsin Lin and Hua Wang, ‘Avatar Creation in Virtual Worlds: Behaviours and Motivations’, Computers in Human Behaviour, 34 (2014), 213–18.

[3] Luis Bravo Martins and Samantha G. Wolfe, Metaversed (Wiley, 2023).

[4]https://www.christiantoday.com/article/twitter.communions.cutting.edge.digital.mission.or.theological.nonsense/55380.htm

[5] Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis, Revised Edition A Commentary (Westminster John Knox Press, 1973), p. 59.

[6] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics. Vol.3, The Doctrine of Creation: Part 2, ed. by G.W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, trans. by H Knight and others (T&T Clark, 1960).

[7] Paula Gooder, Body: A Biblical Spirituality for the Whole Person. (Fortress Press, 2016).

[8] John Haugeland, Dasein disclosed: John Haugeland’s Heidegger, ed. by Joseph Rouse (Harvard University Press, 2013), pt. 2 Chapter 3 .

[9] Charlotte von Kirschbaum and Charlotte von Kirschbaum, The Question of Woman, ed. by Eleanor Jackson, trans. by John Shepherd (Eerdmans, 1996), p. 58.

---

© Simon Werrett, 2024.

This work is licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

Cover Image: Provided by the author.