Embodied or virtual?

 I would like to return to one of the big questions from the pandemic.  What is embodied worship and does it really matter?  As I wrote recently, there seemed to be an assumption in debates that there were those who cared passionately about Scripture’s injunctions to gather or assemble for worship, who believed that this must be embodied, that this required in person whilst on the other side of the debate who didn’t think it really mattered.

In a previous article I explained why I thought this assumption misunderstood the nature of the disagreement with the result that we didn’t always hear one another well. There were I think those who risked a slide into a Gnostic type view of the world and church who saw “virtual” as a positive even. However, in the main, most Christians I know did see in person gathering as something that matters. 

As I’ve commented many times, my own experience throughout COVID was that when we first ran something on Facebook, I was relieved. It was possible, we wouldn’t be cut off from one another completely, something was possible, a form of gathering. However, I longed for something more. Then we started Zoom gatherings and this was so much better than Facebook, we could see one another, hear one another pray, we weren’t just watching the person live streaming and typin gin comments.  However, I still was longing for something better.  Eventually we began to meet again, still longing for the day when we could sit next to each other, remove face masks, sing etc.  Now, we can do all of those things and it wonderful. It’s better than where we were but I’m still longing, still anticipating, still looking forward to a better gathering still when we will all join together before the throne of God in eternity. I don’t think there is any disagreement about that.

The disagreement came in a different place. It wasn’t “does it matter whether or not we gather? “ or “should our gatherings be embodied?” It was whether or not something like a Zoom event counted as a gathering of the church.  This primarily affected decisions about things like whether or not we could participate in The Lord’s Supper together. This revolves around the question about what counts as “embodied”? Is Zoom embodied or virtual.

At the recent Affinity Symposium on COVID and the Church, it was argued that this is a binary matter. You’re either embodied or virtual.  From that perspective, Zoom and Teams are virtual events.  I’ve argued, from early in the pandemic against that position.  It’s worth going through those arguments again.

First of all, I think we need to be careful about what we mean by virtual. In this context it is a reference to something not existing as such in reality but as a software creation.  What this means is that people have found ways to create a kind of virtual reality and some people have even attempted to create virtual church, something predating COVID. It’s possible to join an online event where you create an avatar that “attends the service” and where little emoji goblets of wine and pieces of bread are shared.  That is very clearly a long way from being gathered church.  One of the big problems with virtual reality is that it enables me to create a false persona and hide behind it.

Were we doing that with Zoom gatherings?  I would argue not.  When I’m in a Zoom meeting, I do not become disembodied. I’m physically there. Furthermore, you are able to see my facial expressions and hand gestures, you can also hear my voice and get the tone of what I say.  There are restrictions, for example we cannot physically touch through a handshake or a hug. You are dependent upon audio-visual projection to see and hear me but there again, that may well be the case in a lot of large churches too.

So, I would argue that if there is a binary distinction between virtual and embodied then what we did via Zoom and Teams falls on the embodied side.  However, there is something else going on and that isn’t binary, it’s the question of proximity, how proximate are we to each other.  The greatest proximity is when we are in a room together and can touch, hear, see one another, especially if without technological intervention.  There is a sliding scale from there as we begin to distance from each other.  That’s where technology comes in. It’s role is to effectively reduce the distance, to bring us closer to one another.

This is important because we are not dealing here with explicit or even implicit Biblical teaching, we are dealing with our philosophical definition of terms. It has implications because it will help us to begin to think about how we view and care for those who have become isolated and those with physical impairments such as with sight and hearing which resulted in diminished or lost senses. 

Now, in subsequent debates, it has been suggested that the issue is not just about whether we are “embodied” individually but rather, it is about the church itself being embodied when gathered. The basis for this is that the church is “a body.”  Therefore we are a physical entity and must assemble physically. 

Now, there are a few problems with that argument as I think someone unwittingly highlighted when commenting on the discussion at the Affinity COVID symposium.  They asked “what is a body if it is scattered across a number of rooms?” then suggested “dead”.  Now, that might be slightly amusing, if in poor taste but it does highlight a few things.  First, the local church is scattered out around the room each Sunday and possible into other rooms if you have age related teaching.  We don’t think of that local church as dead.  Nor do we think that it dies and ceases to exist when its members go out to their neighbourhoods and workplaces in the week.  Furthermore, the church worldwide is what is primarily described as “the body of Christ” and guess what? Yes it is scattered around the world.  Is the Church less of a body or less alive because of this?  Of course not.

So, I find the handling of language about bodies and embodiment intriguing here because as soon as we have moved from describing individuals to describing corporate entities, it is clear that we no longer intend a literal meaning to the words “body” and “embody”.  We are very clearly dealing with a metaphor.

It is crucial when dealing with metaphors to understand what the purpose of them is.  So, why does the New Testament describe the church as “a body”. Is it to suggest that we must be as physically close and connected as possible if we are to be a living church?  I’d argue not.  It is to remind us of our interdependence upon one another, our priority to care for each other, the value that Christ places on us and our unity of faith, purpose and identity.

Once again, this is pastorally significant as it gets us thinking about why being together as God’s people matters.  This is why during the pandemic, lots of us, recognising the impact of lockdowns and social-distancing gave a lot of time, thought and energy into mitigating those losses. 

Once again, we are not arguing over the meaning of Scripture, we are debating terms outside of Scripture.  It’s okay to disagree on this but we do need to be wary of turning a minor philosophical disagreement into a major theological schism.