Can Virtual Churches Have Real Fellowship?

The following discussion argues that, although virtual participation far outweighs no participation when only these alternatives exist, the physical assembly of believers best facilitates fellowship as the Creator intended. The first section will examine a biblical understanding of five concepts: fellowship, the church, digital technology, virtuality, and human ontology. The second section will then apply these theological findings to evaluate the idea that virtual churches can support real fellowship.

Part One: Establishing Biblical Bases

A Biblical Understanding of Fellowship

The English word fellowship is a common way to translate the Greek term koinonia.4 It describes the unity of the church (Acts 2:42; 1 John 1:7), our union with Christ (1 Corinthians 1:9, 10:16; Philippians 3:10), and our relationship with the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 13:14; Philippians 2:1) as well as the Father (1 John 1:3). Negatively, we read that light can have no koinonia with darkness (2 Corinthians 6:14) and that we cannot have koinonia with God while walking in darkness (1 John 1:6). This word also describes Christians’ shared efforts in providing aid (2 Corinthians 9:13; Philippians 1:5; Hebrews 13:16) and in missionary work (Galatians 2:9; Philemon 1:6).

In the Greek cultural context of the NT, the term koinonia could refer to business, marriage, generosity, or relatedness with a “deity.”5 The NT usage of koinonia reflects these cultural understandings. However, the NT adapts and expands the word’s meaning to describe fellowship among Christians or between Christians and God, with practical components such as sharing.6 While most of the NT’s 20 usages of koinonia refer to having or giving a share in something or being in partnership, three cases specifically convey the idea of fellowship: Acts 2:42, Galatians 2:9, and 1 John 1:3.7 These three passages are worth considering in more detail.

Implications from Three Key NT Passages on Koinonia

In the wake of Pentecost, Acts 2:42 recounts that early church members “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship [koinonia], to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” The term devoted implies that fellowship requires effort and intentionality. Fellowship is active rather than passive, consistent rather than sporadic, a lifestyle for embodied participants rather than an event for distant spectators. Key aspects of fellowship as seen in Acts 2:42–47 include praying together, eating together, listening to the public teaching of Scripture together, worshipping in person, and helping one another through practical sharing.

Theologian Douglas Estes, a vocal advocate for virtual churches, contends that Acts 2:42–47 cannot be a “complete paradigm” for contemporary churches.8 However, other NT Scriptures support the ongoing importance of many elements this passage depicts. For example, later NT epistles promote the public teaching of Scripture (1 Timothy 4:13, 5:17), group intercessory prayer (James 5:14–15), breaking bread together (1 Corinthians 11:23–34), corporate spiritual pursuits when the church “comes together” (1 Corinthians 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26), and practical sharing (Hebrews 13:16; 1 Timothy 6:18; Galatians 6:6; Romans 12:13; 2 Corinthians 9:7; James. 2:14–17; Ephesians 4:28). Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s classic study of Christian community reflects and expands upon many of these elements, including reading Scripture together, praying together, eating together, singing praise in unison, working together, confessing sins to one another, and sharing communion.9

Turning to the second key passage, Galatians 2:9, we find the Apostle Paul describing how he and Barnabas received “the right hand of the fellowship” from Peter, James, and John. Through this interaction, Peter and the other apostles who evangelized Jews commissioned Paul and Barnabas to evangelize Gentiles. This passage implies that one form of fellowship entails partnering to proclaim the one gospel that saves both Jews and Gentiles into one faith.10

The final key passage, 1 John 1:3, indicates that Jesus’ sacrifice enables vertical fellowship (with God) from which horizontal fellowship (with other humans) flows.11 John relates this fellowship to “walking in the light” as forgiven members of God’s family. A few verses later, 1 John 2:3–11 connects walking in the light to loving others out of obedience to Jesus’ commands. Walking in love enables fellowship, making love integral to koinonia. Because love is not self-seeking (1 Corinthians 13:5), authentic koinonia flows from other-centeredness instead of self-centeredness.12

The Thematic Development of “Fellowship” Throughout Scripture

Beyond these passages that employ the word for fellowship, the theme of fellowship progressively unfolds throughout Scripture. Genesis opens with God creating humans for perfect vertical and horizontal fellowship in Eden (e.g., Genesis 2:18–15; cf. Genesis 3:8–13). Tragically, human sin destroyed both dimensions of fellowship. Later at Babel (Genesis 11:1–9), humans tried to unite in rebellion instead of obedience, perverting the unity that engenders true fellowship under God. God judged humans by confusing their language, limiting their possibilities for horizontal fellowship. The rest of Genesis describes how God began to create Israel as the chosen nation through whom a royal descendant would restore both dimensions of fellowship.

When God made the Mosaic Covenant with Israel at Sinai, he gave them laws that would facilitate the best degree of vertical and horizontal relatedness available at the time. Later OT writers, including psalmists and prophets, portrayed how keeping God’s covenant coincided with both dimensions of fellowship, expressed in the ability to physically assemble for worship and feasts. Disobedience, however, meant exile, dispersion, and alienation from fellowship with God and his covenant community. But even at the best of times, true fellowship with God was not fully possible under the old covenant, as illustrated by the veil in the tabernacle (and later, the temple) that separated sinful humans from God’s holy presence.

By God’s grace, this situation radically changed through the events the Gospels record, beginning with God sending his own Son to earth. Jesus’ death ratified the new covenant that enables restored horizontal and vertical fellowship. Rising again, Jesus established his church as the community that, while on earth, points toward the total restoration of fellowship in God’s final kingdom. The book of Acts records the church’s early days, while the NT’s subsequent epistles include instructions for the church. These instructions assume that believers will physically assemble to exercise embodied practices that sustain fellowship, including breaking bread together at the Lord’s supper (1 Corinthians 11:23–26) and greeting one another with a “holy kiss” (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26). Finally, the book of Revelation portrays a day when God creates a new heaven and earth where humans will enjoy perfect horizontal and vertical fellowship forevermore.

To summarize, Scripture consistently connects obedience to God with life and with both dimensions of fellowship. Disobedience, however, corresponds to death and the disruption of fellowship. Jesus alone enables both dimensions of true fellowship, to be fulfilled in eternity.

Three key takeaways emerge from this biblical overview of koinonia. First, fellowship is essential to life as our Creator intended, from Eden to the eschaton.13 Second, fellowship is an other-centered, wholistic lifestyle sustained by multiple activities. Third, various aspects of fellowship portrayed in Scripture presuppose in-person assembly.

A Biblical Understanding of the Church

In Scripture, the English word church appears as the Greek term ekklesia. The Hebrew word the Septuagint translates as ekklesia is קְהַ֖ל (qahal).14 This term only refers to physical gatherings of God’s people, while another term ( עֵדָה, `edah, meaning congregation) can also describe the people of God apart from gatherings.15 In the NT, ekklesia likewise refers to a real gathering of people but is more expansive than only local congregations (Acts 9:31; Ephesians 5).16 Thus, the concept of a local gathering is necessary but not sufficient to express the term’s full meaning. Paul’s uses of ekklesia mainly refer to local assemblies; however, Colossians and Ephesians portray a broader view of the universal church while maintaining its connection to local churches.17

The Thematic Development of “Church” Across Scripture

The biblical theme of God’s assembled people begins in Exodus with the gathering at Sinai, establishing a pattern that later feasts would point back toward.18 Deuteronomy focuses on the physical location where the assembly is to worship, while Psalms supplies hymns for and about assembling to worship. The prophets, meanwhile, depict disassembly as divine judgment and reassembly as the hope of restoration following repentance.

In the NT, Matthew portrays Jesus as the promised prophet who will regather the assembly of God, fulfilling the postexilic prophetic promise.19 This new assembly, the church, consists of redeemed Jews and Gentiles alike. NT metaphors for the church as a body, temple, and bride highlight its nature as an embodied gathering.20 The church’s fulfillment will be the eschatological gathering of God’s people in God’s final kingdom (Hebrews 12:18; Revelation 7:9–12, 14:1–3), which local churches point toward on earth.21^,22 Thus, Scripture portrays churches as physical assemblies meant to locally manifest the universal church,23 which will culminate as an eschatological assembly.

This overview demonstrates how both the OT and NT take for granted that God’s people will physically assemble for worship. Indispensable church practices, including communion and baptism, are likewise understood from a biblical-historical perspective to require in-person meeting.24 Historically, then, Protestants have viewed in-person assembly as essential despite having remote communication techniques such as writing.25 Even the apostles, while making use of such technologies by penning letters, emphasized in-person communication as preferable (Romans 1:11–13, 15:23–24; 1 Timothy 1:4; 1 Thessalonians 3:10; 2 John 1:12).26^,27 More importantly, Scripture explicitly exhorts believers to continue meeting together in Hebrews 10:24–25. While Estes argues that this passage does not mandate physical assembly,28 such a conclusion does not clearly fit a historical-grammatical reading.29 Ultimately then, Scripture and history unite to reveal that fellowshipping in-person when possible is basic to being part of the church.

A Biblical Understanding of Digital Technology and Virtuality

Unlike the topics of the church and fellowship, digital technology and virtuality are not subjects that Scripture addresses directly. However, scriptural principles certainly speak to these issues. For example, various theologians cite the dominion mandate (Genesis 1:26–28) to suggest that our ability to develop technology is a gift we should use to serve God’s purposes for us, including cultivating creation. Churches must steward this gift wisely and well, knowing that in a fallen world, every new technology brings gains and losses alike.30 Rather than being neutral objects, technologies are value-laden tools that can powerfully affect our worldviews, thinking, habits, interactions, and relationships in inadvertent ways.31^,32 Given these effects, Christians must carefully consider how using technology to virtualize the church could engender unintended consequences, including impacting fellowship. Approaching technology this way reflects the recognition that even practices that are not strictly immoral may not be beneficial for building up the church (see 1 Corinthians 10:23).

With these factors in mind, we can turn to examining a biblical view of virtual reality. Regarding reality, Christians affirm that our self-existent God, who is the source and basis of truth, created an objective reality that is not merely a matter of subjective perception. Consequently, Christians recognize the highest standard for certainty is God’s Word rather than human sight (see 2 Corinthians 5:7 and Hebrews 11:1), feeling (see Jeremiah 17:9), or understanding (Proverbs 3:5). In these ways, Christianity stands against postmodern assumptions that subjective experiences, interpretations, or sensations are the authority for truth.

Accepting God as the foundation for truth and knowledge bears implications for understanding the difference between virtual and physical reality. Christians, by accepting objective truth, can understand virtual worlds as sensory illusions consisting of immaterial, programmable data that physical humans perceive by interacting with physical machines. By prioritizing objective truth over individual perception, Christians have a basis to prioritize physical reality above virtual reality.33

In contrast, secularism allows for equating perception with reality. Michael Abrash, the chief research scientist for Meta Occulus, and David Chalmers, a philosophy professor at the New York University, adopt this perspective to argue that virtual realities are as real as physical realities.34^,35 If reality is simply the story that a human brain pieces together from sensory data and if virtual data makes for as meaningful a story as physical data, then physicality need not matter more than virtuality. Correspondingly, theologians who argue that virtual churches are real places blur the lines between physical and virtual reality in ways that accord better with secular philosophy than with a biblical worldview.36

A Biblical Understanding of Humanity

Along with these concepts, a final topic to consider biblically is human ontology (that is, our essence or nature). From a detailed analysis of Scripture, theologian John Kleinig demonstrates that God created humans to be body-soul unities who are not reducible to merely their material or immaterial aspects.37 Kleinig also describes how Jesus’ incarnation and bodily resurrection highlights the significance of embodiment.38 Like Jesus, Christians will still be body-soul unities in eternity (1 Corinthians 15:44–53; cf. Matthew 10:28), affirming that embodiment is integral to God’s intentions for humans.

Together with making humans embodied beings, God designed us to be relational beings (Genesis 2:18). Human embodiment and relationality interconnect, with the bodies God gave us corresponding to the (general and specific) relationships God purposed for us.39 Not surprisingly then, fellowship as the Creator intended has embodied dimensions, seen in aspects such as eating together, singing together, and greeting others with appropriate physical touch. Bonhoeffer rightfully emphasized these embodied dimensions, saying,

The physical presence of other Christians is a source of incomparable joy and strength to the believer . . . . The believer feels no shame, as though he were still living too much in the flesh, when he yearns for the physical presence of other Christians. Man was created a body, the Son of God appeared on earth in the body, he was raised in the body, . . . and the resurrection of the dead will bring about the perfected fellowship of God’s spiritual-physical creatures. The believer therefore lauds the Creator . . . for the bodily presence of a brother.40

Part Two: Engaging the Debate About Koinonia in Virtual Environments

Evaluating Arguments That Virtual Churches Can Facilitate Real Koinonia

Having considered a biblical understanding of koinonia, the church, technology, virtuality, and humanity, we can apply these concepts to evaluate the idea that virtual churches can support real fellowship. Arguments for this idea often fall under four categories: (1) arguments regarding presence, (2) arguments regarding embodiment, (3) arguments that virtual environments are superior platforms for fellowship, and (4) arguments regarding key aspects of fellowship. The following analysis identifies and briefly responds to eight of these arguments.

Arguments Regarding Presence

The first argument claims that technology lets humans be authentically present in nonphysical spaces; therefore, virtual environments do not limit fellowship based on a lack of presence.41 However, this argument not only conflates virtual and physical reality in ways more aligned to secular philosophies but also inappropriately neglects humans’ body-soul ontology.

A second argument regarding presence states that even during in-person church services, congregants are not truly “present” with others if their minds are wandering.42 Attention is essential to presence, and Christians can pay attention to online services just as well as physical ones. In response to this argument, while genuine engagement in a church service or other gathering certainly requires attention, this does not imply that physical presence is dispensable.

Arguments Regarding Embodiment

The third argument says that because humans cannot access virtual environments without depending on their bodies, virtual environments do not ignore the body.43 However, humans’ dependence on their bodies supports the reality that humans are body-soul unities and that the body matters. Christians should be wary of approaches that in practice treat the body—including bodily presence and identity—as though insignificant. Exclusively virtual churches can easily entail such approaches,44 suggesting that caution is in order.

A fourth argument seeks to reframe the incarnation’s implications for embodied worship by pointing out that Jesus took on a human nature both in body and soul. So saying that only in-person assembly appropriately reflects the incarnation is a form of materialism.45 Furthermore, Jesus’ incarnation speaks less about in-person meeting and more about showing humble servant-heartedness (e.g., by washing feet).46 In response to this argument, it is worth noting that an emphasis on physical assembly does not require endorsing materialism because Christians understand that church members assemble as body-soul unities. To affirm the body is not to deny the soul. Meeting in physical environments affirms humans’ material nature without denying their immaterial nature. But virtual environments omit half this equation. Additionally, many examples of Jesus’ servant-heartedness on earth involved personal contact (e.g., foot washing) or otherwise presupposed the body’s importance (e.g., healings). In sum, Jesus’ incarnation still stands as an argument supporting the significance of embodiment and, by implication, of embodied fellowship.

Arguments That Virtual Platforms Are Superior Platforms for Fellowship

The fifth argument says virtual churches enable more fellowship than physical churches by allowing 24/7 connectivity to other members and to spiritual support.47 However, members of physical churches can already use everyday technologies to access other members and spiritual support 24/7. The fellowship that Acts 2:42–47 and Bonhoeffer portray is far more than an on-demand “connectivity” that can be accessed and disabled by logging in and out.48 Moreover, empirical research suggests that digital communication during the Covid pandemic undermined well-being, unlike in-person communication,49 suggesting that virtual environments do not fully give people the type of connectivity they need. Fellowship as the Creator intended is much more than digital connectivity.

Trying a different angle, a sixth argument suggests that virtual churches enable better fellowship because they let attendees remain anonymous. Such anonymity encourages openness about uncomfortable topics, sets marginalized populations at ease, and comforts members who have experienced trauma.50^,51 While this argument may seem compassionate, the problem is that, to the degree that genuine welcome52 and genuine fellowship require authenticity, anonymity in fact precludes koinonia. Physical churches can address the need for compassion by offering biblical counseling or care groups where attendees can talk freely about uncomfortable topics, address trauma, and find healing amid embodied community.

Arguments Regarding Key Aspects of Fellowship

Adopting another positive approach, a seventh argument points out the ways virtual environments can effectively platform key aspects of fellowship including Scripture teaching, prayer, encouragement, confession, spiritual conversation, and helping others remotely.53 Certainly, virtual environments can facilitate these aspects of fellowship to a considerable degree. This observation is especially encouraging for situations where in-person meeting is impossible. However, virtual environments cannot facilitate the embodied dimensions of these aspects, such as praying with the laying on of hands or helping others in ways that require in-person contact. Virtual environments also cannot fully facilitate other key aspects of fellowship, such as singing in unison or sharing communion. Even various authors who generally advocate for virtual churches concede that digital platforms cannot fully facilitate certain aspects of fellowship.54^,55^,56 Digital technology’s capacity to facilitate some aspects of fellowship explains why virtual participation is better than no participation if only these alternatives exist. However, virtual environments still cannot sustain authentic koinonia as God intended.

A final argument to the contrary focuses specifically on communion. According to this line of reasoning, virtual platforms do not necessarily preclude communion as an aspect of koinonia because avatars may partake of communion (and even be baptized) on a human’s behalf.57 However, even the most vocal advocates for virtual church environments tend to concede that, biblically, communion entails physical eating and drinking (and that baptism should entail physical water).58 Practicing the ordinances as an isolated individual defeats their unitive purposes for Christian fellowship. Most importantly, Jesus did not assume a virtual body, suffer virtual anguish, die a virtual death, occupy a virtual tomb, or experience virtual resurrection. So virtual ordinances cannot appropriately reflect Jesus’ sacrifice, death, burial, and resurrection.59 In the end, then, none of these eight common arguments adequately overcomes the problems that virtual environments pose for real koinonia.

Other Reasons Why Virtual Churches Pose Problems for Real Koinonia

What are some further examples of these problems? First, virtual churches promote faulty views of anthropology, undermining fellowship. People are not patterns of pixels60 but biological-spiritual unities physically located in the bodies God gave them for specific purposes (Ephesians 2:10). To imply that humans can access authentic fellowship virtually is to neglect the objective realities of embodiment and to prevent people from actualizing all the dimensions of authentic fellowship.61

Relatedly, any message suggesting that avatars are truly “persons”62 is theologically inaccurate and contributes to problematic views of personhood. Avatars cannot worship God or be redeemed, as Estes acknowledges.63 Treating people and avatars as interchangeable blurs the line between humans and machines. Such blurring also contributes to the problematic notion that humans can experience “fellowship” with AI-driven avatars or other chatbots.64

A second problem is that virtual church environments can predispose individuals to hide or misrepresent their identities, preventing transparent fellowship.65 Virtual platforms allow humans to represent themselves as avatars that bear no resemblance to their actual persons (including on the levels of gender and species). Platforms that let humans represent themselves as nonhumans not only prevent horizontal fellowship among humans as humans but also misrepresent the theological reality that Jesus came in human flesh to redeem human beings for vertical fellowship. Even avatars that visually resemble the humans they represent often bear other names and identities, such that virtual church members do not truly even know one another by name,66 undermining deeper fellowship.

A third problem is that the context of authentic fellowship is “under the Word,”67 but virtual churches cannot adequately fulfill Scripture’s mandates for churches.68 These mandates include physical assembly (Hebrews 10:24–25), the ordinances of communion and baptism, and church discipline. While Estes writes that church discipline is possible in VR churches,69 Brady Hanssen argues that virtual church discipline is impossible in online environments.70 Guichun Jun, who generally advocates for online churches, concedes discipline is problematic.71

A fourth problem is that virtual environments may easily promote unbiblical mindsets that undermine fellowship. One of these mindsets is expressive individualism (EI), which views individuals as independent, autonomous islands with the right to express their wills through total self-determination.72 The assumptions behind EI run contrary to those behind the biblical concept of koinonia.73 Additionally, the anthropology behind EI neglects certain realities of embodiment,74 as do exclusively virtual church environments. EI also encourages atomization,75 as do virtual church environments that normalize unnecessary physical isolation from other humans. Jun, despite largely endorsing online churches, recognizes their individualistic, atomizing tendencies as problematic.76

Another unbiblical mindset related to EI is that of the therapeutic culture. Members of a therapeutic culture believe life’s highest priorities are personal happiness, comfort, convenience, well-being, and the ability to “follow one’s heart.”77 Online churches that cater to individual convenience and customization can easily foster a therapeutic mindset.78 However, this self-centered mindset opposes the other-centered orientation behind koinonia.

Compounding these issues, a fifth problem of virtual church environments is that, by undermining fellowship, exclusively virtual churches impede the church’s eschatological purpose. The local church is meant to point to the realities of God’s kingdom and to represent the universal church in heaven.79^,80 Christians do not expect to experience virtual fellowship at the eschaton, but the physical gathering of all God’s people (Revelation 7:9–10). Virtual churches do not appropriately anticipate or represent kingdom realities, undermining the purpose of earthly churches.81

Answering Final Objections

At this point, some may argue that, even if virtual churches cannot facilitate all aspects of authentic koinonia, concerns about evangelism and adaptability should override concerns about koinonia. If such counterarguments are correct, then exclusively virtual churches should still exist, rendering the above discussion irrelevant even if its conclusions are true. These objections are worth considering in more detail.

Objections Regarding Evangelism

An initial objection states that because digital technologies are important tools for evangelism, churches should use digital technologies to host virtual services. This argument implies the importance of virtual services should override concerns about impacts on physical fellowship. In response, it is important to point out that a tool must be appropriate for the goal or task in question. Virtual technologies are indeed important and appropriate tools for evangelism; however, evangelism is not the church’s only goal. Virtual environments cannot completely fulfill other imperative goals, like fellowship. Therefore, virtual environments are not appropriate substitutes for physical environments. Churches should certainly use virtual technologies for evangelism, but not as an unnecessary replacement for physical assembly.

Relatedly, another objection maintains that the metaverse is a major mission field that needs churches in it despite any potential limitations for fellowship. But again, virtual churches cannot adequately fill all the roles of the local church, which is meant to represent the universal church. Consequently, virtual churches can only give metaverse users a stilted representation of the church—a virtual portrayal of Christianity without biblical imperatives like (physical) water baptism. Planting churches in VR as substitutes for physical churches82 may in fact undermine missions by creating only “virtual converts” who believe their virtual baptism and virtual interactions with churchgoing avatars can substitute for embodied Christianity. Christians can instead plant other types of spiritual outposts in the metaverse (such as informal “chapel” spaces or cafés for prayer and spiritual dialogue) without purporting that these can fill the roles of a local church or provide complete koinonia.

Objections Regarding Church Adaptation

Still other counterarguments speak of the church’s adaptability. One such objection points out that throughout history, churches have always adapted to technological-driven changes, so churches should adapt again now by going virtual.83 In response, it is true that (1) means of sharing the gospel change with cultural and historical context and that (2) Christians need to make the best use of various tools available, exercising good stewardship. However, evangelism and stewardship efforts should not occur at the expense of God’s designs, intentions, and other commands for humans, including (when possible) in-person fellowship. Additionally, part of stewarding technology well is considering its unintended consequences and limitations. Proper adaptation requires using new tools/technology only within biblical boundaries and only for suitable goals—e.g., to support local church ministry but not substitute for local churches.

A final objection maintains that churches must remain culturally relevant. This objection first observes that much of human life has transitioned to digital spaces and then concludes that if churches do not go virtual, then churches will become irrelevant.84 Importantly, though, the fact that a cultural transition is happening does not mean its effects are positive or worth replicating. Scripture, not culture, must dictate our usage of technology and our approach to ecclesiology.85 The church can still be present on virtual platforms without using these platforms as an unnecessary substitute for physical assembly. In fact, if churches increasingly neglect to meet people as embodied beings with embodied needs (including the need for embodied fellowship), this will contribute to the church making itself irrelevant in real life.

Conclusion

In the end, examining the concepts of koinonia, the church, virtuality, technology, and anthropology through a biblical worldview lens reveals that fellowship as God intended involves embodied dimensions that virtual environments cannot replicate. On the plus side, virtual environments can facilitate multiple aspects of fellowship including public Scripture teaching, prayer, spiritual conversation, confession, and helping others remotely. However, virtual environments can support neither the embodied forms of these aspects nor other key aspects, including communion, sharing “daily bread” together, singing praise in unison, being personally present with others as embodied humans rather than avatars, or helping others in person. These considerations support the conclusion that, although virtual participation in church is more conducive to koinonia than no participation when only these alternatives exist, the physical assembly of believers best facilitates authentic koinonia as the Creator intended.

This conclusion withstands common counterarguments and objections, leaving practical implications for today’s churches. The potential for virtual environments to impact koinonia stands as a reminder for churches to evaluate technology biblically, consider its consequences, and use it for appropriate goals. The goal of evangelizing unbelievers is an essential but separate objective from the goal of facilitating koinonia between believers. Virtual technologies can powerfully support the former goal but can only incompletely support the latter. Churches then can best accomplish their missions by saying “yes” to using virtual environments for evangelism and “no” to using them as a substitute for in-person churches or Christian community. To this end, further research could be conducted on effective methods of metaverse evangelism outside of virtual church contexts, such as in informal virtual “chapels” or cafés for spiritual dialogue.

Because virtual environments can still facilitate some aspects of fellowship, congregants who cannot physically meet in person can greatly benefit from virtually participating in their physical local churches as an alternative to no participation. However, local churches will not ultimately help the wider body of Christ by treating virtual attendance as an equivalent substitute for in-person fellowship. By instead promoting in-person assembly when possible within a broader lifestyle of embodied fellowship, churches can disciple Christians in the context of authentic koinonia as the Creator intended.