Keywords

1 Introduction

Although virtual environments (V.E.’s) could simulate many different faiths, i.e., systems of religious beliefs, the focus here is on Christianity. The Christian faith has been communicated along the historical path leading from New Testament times to the Church of today. That faith needed communication to survive. The Apostle Paul asked the Roman Christians, “And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?” (Romans 10:14, [New Revised Standard Version]). Paul sent people to preach. Others since him have used communication technologies to communicate the faith.

While earlier scholars (Mazuryk and Gervautz 1996) equate V.E. with virtual reality (V.R.), V.E. is the broader term. V.E. technologies are computer-generated, three-dimensional-appearing, multi-sensorial, interactive, graphical simulations. Figure 1 shows that some V.E.’s, such as virtual reality, some augmented reality, and desktop digital games with head-mounted displays (H.M.D.’s), are immersive technologies, while other V.E.’s, such as desktop digital games without H.M.D.’s and some augmented reality, are not immersive technologies. As this paper will show, immersive refers to the technologies rather than the experiences of the users. These technologies may be considered communication technologies because they communicate or represent reality. This paper analyzes V.E.’s as possible communication technologies of Christian faith.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Immersive and Non-immersive virtual environment technologies.

Full size image

2 Dimensions of Faith

What are the dimensions of faith that Christians have communicated? The dimensions are the component aspects of the belief system and the many actions Christians have taken to proclaim that faith. Christians have spoken, written, read, and heard proclaimed texts about Bible stories and verses, moral teachings, theological teachings, Christian-living examples, and inspiring stories of Christians throughout the millennia. They have read and said the liturgy. They have read and sung words to the hymns and songs. They have heard music of instruments and the voices of worship leaders and fellow parishioners. They have felt the waters of baptism, the wood of the communion railing, and the cups of communion. For holy communion/the Eucharist, they have tasted the bread and the grape juice, which Welch originally developed as a substitute for communion wine. They have tasted their own tears in response to an affective sermon or after learning the news of the death of a fellow church member. They have smelled the scent of the flowers on the altar or the overpowering perfume or cologne on the person sitting in front of them. If a virtual environment could be used to communicate the faith, then the V.E. could draw upon many of these dimensions.

3 Virtual Environments

3.1 Inherent Qualities of V.E. Technologies

For McLuhan (1994, p. 34), all media are extensions of people’s senses. Most media extend what we see and hear, but some extend other senses as well. Virtual reality and augmented reality extend the human mind and body into the world. Both of these V.E. technologies immerse human users, not their avatars.

1. Of Virtual Reality

Virtual reality (V.R.) or immersive V.R. is one of three virtual environments (V.E.) on which this research is focusing. The other two V.E.’s of concern are augmented reality and desktop V.E., such as serious games and simulations. Ivan Sutherland developed the idea of the first V.R. system in 1968 (Mazuryk and Gervautz 1996, p. 2).

Writing a decade before the introduction of the Oculus Rift and other reasonably-priced head mounted displays (H.M.D.’s), Burdea and Coiffet provide the following definition:

Virtual reality is a high-end user-computer interface that involves real-time simulation and interactions through multiple sensorial channels. These sensorial modalities are visual, auditory, tactile, smell, and taste (Burdea and Coiffet 2003, p. 3).

V.R. has many beneficial inherent qualities. Immersive V.R. allows users to interact with a virtual environment. Users can transverse the V.E. by moving their feet, their hands, the rest of their bodies, and their heads in physical space by donning H.M.D.’s and wearing haptic sleeves and gloves. The adjective haptic refers to the quality of touch.

Virtual reality technology, especially desktop V.E., affords the creation of virtual environments and virtual worlds, which are a type of V.E. Schroeder (2008, p. 2) sees virtual worlds as “virtual environments that people experience as ongoing over time and that have large populations which they experience together with others as a world for social interaction.” The development of reasonably-priced, commercially-manufactured V.R. head-mounted displays (H.M.D.’s) such as the Oculus Rift, which probably will cost approximately $300 instead of $10,000 for earlier H.M.D.’s, should lead to an explosion of V.R. applications. V.R. H.M.D.’s and headphones allow people to step into V.E.’s and see and hear 3D worlds. The addition of haptic technologies will afford the ability to touch and feel the contents of the V.E. If a worship service were simulated in V.R. with haptic capabilities, for example, the user could touch and feel a virtual holy-communion cup.

2.Of Augmented Reality

This research is focusing also on augmented reality (A.R.). Like those of V.R., the technologies of A.R. can be immersive. Broll et al. (2008), for example, presents A.R. games on mobile phones, but these technologies are not immersive. Milgram et al. (1995, p. 283) define A.R. broadly as “augmenting natural feedback to the operator with simulated cues” and more narrowly as “a form of virtual reality where the participant’s head-mounted display is transparent, allowing a clear view of the real world.” Klopfer and Squire (2008, p. 205) “define ‘augmented reality’ broadly as a situation in which a real world context is dynamically overlaid with coherent location or context sensitive virtual information”. Milgram’s stricter definition focuses on the technology, while the definition of Klopfer and Squire lifts the experience. However, Klopfer and Sheldon (2010, p. 86) refer to A.R. as a “technology that blends real-and virtual-world experiences”. As with the recommendations for V.R., the understanding of A.R. should start with technological definitions before advancing to the affordances; otherwise, the result is a comparison of incompatibles.

Augmented reality has beneficial qualities that can lead to many interesting applications of the technology. Studying the educational uses of A.R., Wu et al. (2013) states that A.R. “enables students to use 3D synthetic objects to augment the visual perception of the target system or environment.” Wu describes A.R.’s benefits:

With mobile devices, wireless connection, and location-registered technology, the pervasive or mobile-A.R. system could enable ubiquitous, collaborative and situated learning enhanced by computer simulations, games, models, and virtual objects in real environments…. The affordances of such a system could include portability, social interactivity, context sensitivity, connectivity, and individuality. (Wu et al. 2013, pp. 43–44).

The benefits found by Arvanitis et al. (2009) particularly interest this research. They found that A.R. helps students to visualize complex and invisible concepts. In an example of non-immersive A.R., Wagner (2012, pp. 89–91) declares that a digital screen at the Abbey at Cluny, France, allows visitors to peer through it and see not war-ravaged ruins but an overlay of how the Abbey looked hundreds of years ago when it was in good repair. She proposes that a temple created in Second Life could be located in the physical world. Only people wearing A.R. H.M.D.’s could see the temple. In an example of immersive A.R., a hologram of Christ or biblical characters could be projected into a room. Visitors could see the projected hologram from multiple points of view, or visitors with A.R. H.M.D.’s could see the image, with which they interact via artificial intelligence programs. Such uses of the technologies could help people to learn more about the faith and possibly provide spiritual insights unavailable through other means.

3.2 Theology of Virtual Environments

The study of virtual environments raises fascinating theological issues and questions. What is virtual, and what is real? What is the locus of the virtual? Blascovich and Bailenson (2011, p. 22) state, “Historically, virtual reality is perhaps most commonly found in religion.” French social scientist Durkheim (2012, p. 381) declares, “But religion exists; it is a system of given facts; in a word, it is a reality.” Christianity and other religions believe in the existence of the unseen spiritual realm. Lewis (1952) wrote, “If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that we were made for another world.”

The writer of the Gospel of John contends that Jesus Christ came from God and that after His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension returned to God. Since our earthly lifespan measures only a blip compared with the rest of eternity, Blascovich and Bailenson (2011, p. 23) ask if this corporeal life really is the virtual. Bryson (1996) reminds the reader that “virtual reality is an effect, not an illusion.” Wagner (2012, p. 4) states, “Both religion and virtual reality can be viewed as manifestations of the desire for transcendence”. Many Christians recite the Nicene Creed, which at the end speaks of the hope for this transcendence, “We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen” (United Methodist Hymnal 1989, p. 880).

3.3 Non-immersive Virtual Environment Technologies

N.I.V.E. technologies include desktop virtual environments without H.M.D.’s and non-immersive A.R. Although not immersive these technologies have communicated and may communicate the Christian faith or at least dimensions of it.

4 Desktop Virtual Environments Without Head-Mounted Displays

While the Internet helps congregations to communicate their message and make connections within and without the church, the key communication technology event of the creation and use of non-immersive virtual environments (N.I.V.E.’s) has and will afford the user opportunities for more-involved interaction. Linden Lab moved N.I.V.E.’s online with Second Life, but few churches have taken advantage of offering worship there. Even though Second Life (Linden Lab 2014) considers itself “The largest-ever 3D virtual world created entirely by its users” and even though The United Methodist Church (U.M.C.), for example, has eleven-million members worldwide, only ninety-one people belonged to the U.M.C. group in Second Life in 2014. The largest Christian church on Second Life was LifeChurch.tv. Avatars visited that church, which posted their times of worship. During worship services the avatars sat, stood, walked around, or flew around the worship space as a video showed a live-action sermon. People used their church-going experience on Second Life as a supplement to the physical church where they belong, whether that church is one of the twenty LifeChurch.tv locations in the United States or other churches, as their primary church, or in other ways.

A socio-cultural analysis of Second Life churches reveals some foundational changes in what “going to church” means. LifeChurch.tv and other churches have online churches as well. People can “go to church” by attending a church only online. They can watch a video of a worship service, submit prayer requests, and give their offerings online, but they probably use their real name. “Going to church” on Second Life takes the online worship experience to a more-involved level. People’s avatars can enter the three-dimensional virtual environment, turn around, see and hear all around them, and interact with other avatars and virtual agents. But having the ability to create their avatars as people or even things dissimilar to them provides them with different identities with which to interact in a virtual worship space. LiveChurch.tv has discontinued their Second Life ministry, but a few dozen other churches still worship in that online V.E.

5 Non-immersive Augmented Reality

While non-immersive V.R. and non-immersive V.E. show people other worlds, non-immersive augmented reality (N.I.A.R.) technologies provide more information about this world. N.I.A.R. technologies can or could allow people to recognize more dimensions of reality than they can humanly sense. Such capabilities complement the Christian understanding that two realms coexist: the spiritual realm lies over the physical realm. As described earlier in this review, Christians believe that they are not of this world because their Founder was not from this world. In John 17:14–15, the author of the Fourth Gospel writes a prayer that Jesus prayed for his disciples on the original Maundy Thursday: “I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one.” Even though the disciples “do not belong to the world,” Jesus did not want them to leave the world; rather, Jesus wanted to send them into it and thus continue his ministry after his death. A.R. gives its users located in this world the ability to see and/or hear information that humans cannot naturally sense.

People have responded to N.I.A.R. mobile applications by their expecting more from a photograph on a mobile device than only a picture. Currently, N.I.A.R. mobile applications allow people to take a photograph with the camera on their smartphone, tablet, or other mobile device and superimpose on the photograph information about the photo’s subject. Bolter and Grusin (2000) would label such use as “hypermediation,” in which the medium of the screen calls attention to itself. The mobile device knows its location from triangulation among cell towers and/or from a global positioning system (G.P.S.). The A.R. app identifies the subject in the photograph by knowing the geotag of the camera’s subject. This identification coupled with connectivity to the Internet give the A.R. app the online information related to that geotag. As a result people with A.R.-equipped mobile devices might have less social interaction with local people because they can read their “hypermediated” smartphones rather than ask people for information.

The information provided by A.R. includes audio as well as video. In fact, Sony introduced the Walkman portable cassette audio-player in July, 1979 (Verma n.d.). Museums began loaning them to their patrons so that the guests could take guided tours and stop at paintings and listen to descriptions of what they were seeing. That technological system worked well as long as the patrons traveled through the museum along the proscribed path because the Walkman did not know its location. Auditory A.R. on a digital mobile device, on the other hand, knows its location. Applications can say more information about museum items in any order of presentation, direct the blind where to walk, alert drivers, and speak in the dark.

The ubiquity of mobile digital devices and the reasonable cost and multiple affordances of N.I.A.R. technology proffer the church many possible uses of N.I.A.R. People could take self-guided tours of church buildings. They could aim the phone’s camera at the ruins of a cathedral in Europe and see on their screen a representation of how the building looked and how worshipers used it during the Middle Ages. They could aim at an empty piece of land today and see on their screens the architect’s vision of a proposed church building. They could take it to the Holy Land and see and hear not only buildings as they appeared during the first century, but also, virtual reenactments of the Bible stories that occurred in the places. United Methodists could take A.R.-equipped devices to Epworth, England, and point them at the parsonage of Reverend Samuel and Susanna Wesley and see on their tablet a virtual reenactment of six-year-old John Wesley’s being rescued from the second-story window as the house burned. These uses of N.I.A.R. technology could assist people, especially those who prefer visual and auditory styles of teaching, in their learning about the faith. Also, they could repeat the experiences in order to help them better remember and understand.

Critics could argue that N.I.A.R. technologies promote private engagements with places and things. If they were alive, Plato (1892) and Ong and Hartley (2012) could levy the same complaint against written materials. N.I.A.R. technologies make possible self-guided tours and solitary learning. Their users turn to the printed characters on the screen or the simulated voice coming from the speakers rather than ask the docent in the museum, the fellow traveler on the sidewalk, or the religious leader in the church. However, they could look at the process in the reverse: the users of N.I.A.R. could become the ones who tell others what they have learned, what their human senses could not impart to them.

5.1 Immersive Virtual Environment Technologies

I.V.E. technologies add the benefit of immersion. Churches have participated in the event of the creation and use of immersive virtual environment technologies (I.V.E.T.’s) less than they have in all of the other key communication technology events. The high cost of earlier H.M.D.’s, the related-scarcity of immersive virtual reality (I.V.R.) equipment, and the public’s unfamiliarity with the application of the technologies have precluded churches and individual Christians from developing and using I.V.E.T.’s. However, the upcoming advent of reasonably-priced and widely-available consumer H.M.D.’s such as the Oculus Rift should open the market for I.V.R. applications.

1.Immersive Virtual Reality

Widespread use of I.V.R. has yet to happen, but Western culture might be ripe for the church to utilize I.V.R. when the technology is broadly available. Ryan (2001, 1) observes, “the idea of V.R. is very much a part of our cultural landscape,” such as witnessed in science fiction books and films and, as this research contends, in the church. Christians and even non-Christians, especially during times of crisis or turbulence, have sought solace, the sacred, and occasionally political asylum by entering a sanctuary. The worship services, prayer services, and even the room itself have provided spiritual meaning in an environment set apart for worship. Via a “cultural sociological approach”, Lynch (2012, p. 87) argues, “Sacred meanings are not, therefore, free-floating signifiers but materially mediated”.

While the physical sanctuary can serve as a material medium, I.V.R. can present a digital version of sanctuary because I.V.R. can be defined as “an immersive digital environment that is isolated from the real world” (Rhodes and Allen 2014). I.V.R. made for churches could serve as sanctuary by helping people, especially spiritual seekers, to temporarily escape from worrying about the problems of this world and to explore another world, such as a possible three-dimensional depiction of heaven. Although the possibility exists that users might exchange a hunger for the future heaven for a desire for the immediate simulacrum (Baudrillard 1981), an I.V.E.T. representing a New Testament view of heaven could pique people’s interest in the spiritual, provide a respite, and encourage people to learn more about the faith.

Churches could use I.V.R. developed for them so that people could “act within a world and experience it from the inside” (Ryan 2001, p. 20). Ryan’s observation about activity within the virtual world is instructive for the church because her contention prepares a seedbed for ideas for possible future development. She (Ryan 2001, p. 20) writes, “In V.R. we act within a world and experience it from the inside”. Animations on television and film show the viewer scenes, but I.V.R. allows the viewer to enter the inside of a digital scene and interact with that environment from a first-person perspective or as a third-person avatar in what Second Life (Johnson 2014) calls “the third-person object view”. Users of the V.F.E. could “experience [the learning and cultic worship of various faiths] from the inside” (Ryan 2001, p. 20).

A possible additional feature of I.V.R. technologies, haptic ability could uniquely communicate dimensions of the faith. The “laying on of hands” appears throughout the New Testament, especially in the Book of Acts. In the history of the church, this impartation has signified important events, such as at baptisms, confirmations, ordinations, weddings, and healing services. For those receiving the touch, the “laying on of hands” indicates the congregation’s affirmation and the Holy Spirit’s activity. A user of I.V.R. could don not only a H.M.D. and headphones, but also, haptic sleeves and gloves, which would afford the sensations of touch. Kinesthetic learners especially might appreciate and/or benefit from using haptic technologies because touching helps facilitate their learning.

If a Christian worship service were simulated in V.R. with haptic capabilities, the user could touch and feel a virtual holy-communion cup, a bound Bible, and the water of a baptismal fount. Haptic clothing, such as vests, shirts, pants, boots, and hats could proffer the wearer the abilities to feel a pat on the back, the hardness of a bare wooden pew, the softness of a pew or chair cushion, the water and towel of a foot-washing, and the imposition of ashes on the forehead. Christians believe that God entrusts humans to care for the divinely-created earth and that the Second Person of the Trinity put on flesh and bones in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Such theologies of stewardship and incarnation respectively encourage Christians to appreciate the physical realm, which we humans can lovingly touch. The use of I.V.R.’s haptic features thus could foster an appreciation for creation and the incarnation in ways that other key communication technology events cannot.

2. Immersive Augmented Reality

As with the relationship between non-immersive V.R. and I.V.R., immersive qualities can greatly enhance A.R. While the graphics of N.I.A.R. appear from only one point of view, graphics surround the user(s) in immersive A.R. (I.A.R.). Google Glass and other see-through H.M.D.’s are examples of I.A.R. Google Glass wearers can walk, drive, and operate in the world while seeing both the physical world and the virtual overlay of information. They can turn their heads, move their bodies, and see from different points of view.

Religious uses of I.A.R. might act as hierophanies within the culture. History of Religions Professor Eliade (1987, p. 7) identifies a hierophany as happening when “something sacred shows itself to us”. In other words, a hierophany is a “manifestation of sacred realities” (Eliade 1987, p. 11). Lynch (2012) disagrees with the sacrality’s being an ontological reality. For him a group in the culture, rather that the thing itself, determines sacredness; however, that collective could identify a religious use of I.A.R. as a hierophany. Wagner (2012) asks if an I.A.R. projection of Christ into a room coupled with an A.I. interface could be labeled as a hierophany. She (Wagner 2012, 91) contends, “With augmented reality, the virtual world steps out of the computer ‘box’ and into our lives with incredibly powerful implications for religious experience”.

I.A.R. serves well as a metaphor for a Christian understanding of reality. The Apostle Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, Greece, “…we look not at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen; for what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal” (II Corinthians 4:18). In other words, the seen physical world is temporary in comparison to the unseen eternal realm of God. As the H.M.D.’s of I.A.R. allow the wearers to look through the lens into the physical world while reading the writing on the lens, a person of faith can look at the physical realm but know that the unseen spiritual realm overlaps what he or she naturally sees. Faith as trust is required to see what cannot be seen.

6 Conclusion

While reviewing interdisciplinary literature, this research has shown the importance of technologies for the communication of Christian faith. Marshall McLuhan’s (1962) insistence that new communication technologies do not replace old ones; rather, new ones add to the repertoire of possible technologies that people, in this case Christians, may use to communicate the faith.

The use of the newest communication technologies, virtual environments, affords communication of dimensions of the faith not possible with earlier technologies. N.I.V.E.T.’s such as N.I.V.R., N.I.A.R., and desktop digital games offer high amounts of interactivity for users, such as students in Sunday School. Since the 3D-graphical representation of Bible accounts, historical events, worship services, and possibly abstract theological concepts in V.E.’s allows them to be experienced “from the inside” (Ryan 2001, p. 20), students can glean a first-person perspective of the faith. A.R., especially I.A.R., can uniquely represent the Christian understanding that people of faith simultaneously reside in the physical and spiritual realms. As “an immersive digital environment that is isolated from the real world” (Rhodes et al. 2014), I.V.R. uniquely makes possible the creation of virtual sanctuary and the representation of the otherworldliness of heaven.

Knut Lundby (2013, p. 226) realizes, “Religions are to a large extent shaped by their dominant means of communication”. For most of church history, that medium has been the book. Will the faith of the future pin such high importance on the bound book? The first-hand study of I.V.R., I.A.R., and desktop V.E.’s with H.M.D.’s, although not the “dominant means of communication”, might be able to reveal that V.E.’s can communicate dimensions of the faith that other, earlier technologies have been unable to do or do as well.