





































Ecclesial Futures
2024 – Volume 5 – Issue 1

67
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18529

A R T I C L E

DOI: 10.54195/ef18529

Digital Worship as Fostering or Inhibiting 
Social Inclusion and Social Cohesion

Geneva Blackmer

Abstract
This paper seeks to address the ways and extent to which participation in digital 
worship might be seen as fostering or inhibiting social inclusion and social cohesion, 
and to assess the current state of research on this important topic from both a sociolog-
ical and theological perspective. It aims to broaden digital theological understanding 
beyond sacramental and ecclesiological concerns towards more wholistic concerns of 
participation and belonging, intersecting with the digital divide and theology of disa-
bility. Drawing on the work of Martha Nussbaum and the capabilities approach, this 
paper proposes consideration of digital participations with respect to their significance 
for cultivating participation in community by conducting a literature review of various 
studies. Further, it addresses ambivalences which arise out of these studies, as digital 
access seems to enhance certain forms of connectedness while rendering other forms 
less stable. Observation of these ambivalences is framed into research desiderata for 
future study on the interrelationship of digital participation in religious community 
and the facilitation of community and social resilience. With the intention of building 
upon this recent research to address the more specific question of what kinds of digital 
participation foster social inclusion with a focus on religious communities, it identifies 
concrete pathways for further academic inquiry, and suggests a framework for new 
practical theological questions centring justice and inclusion.

Keywords: Digital worship, Theology of disability, Social inclusion, Digital inequity, Digital 
theology, Capability approach

While scholars have investigated the subject of online religion for over 25 years 
(Campbell 2005), the theological discourse has largely remained concerned with 
questions pertaining to ecclesiology and the overall legitimacy and authenticity of 
the digital church. Surprisingly less prevalent are theological concerns surrounding 
the impact of the digital church in areas of access and social inclusion, including the 
actualization of liberation theologies like the theology of disability. If one expands 



68
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18529

considerations beyond systematic theological questions to encompass both practical 
theology and social theory, this creates space for reflection regarding how bonded 
groups relate to one another by way of systems and structures. In the context of the 
digital church, it is hard to consider these questions without drawing one’s attention 
to the problem of the digital divide and digital inequity. Conversations around the 
“digital divide” are frequently framed in a limited capacity which narrowly considers 
access as the only precondition for achieving digital equity. Evidence suggests that 
improving access to digital technologies does not necessarily predict social inclu-
sion and improved societal participation. Drawing on the work of Martha  Nussbaum, 
Amartya Sen and their capabilities approach, a more nuanced analysis must be 
pursued regarding what people are actually able to do and achieve in commu-
nity and how digital technologies foster or inhibit these capabilities. According to 
 Nussbaum (2011), just societies inherently promote a substantial number of oppor-
tunities and freedoms by which individuals possess equal autonomy to exercise their 
choice. Social inclusion and cohesion closely relate to Nussbaum’s central capability 
of “affiliation”, which involves the right to engagement in various forms of social 
interaction. Nussbaum notes that this capability pervades all other capabilities, in 
the sense that affiliation encompasses respect for each person as a dignified, social 
being; this precondition must be met for any capability to be actualized (Nussbaum 
2011: 34–40). Many studies have assessed the significance of digital participation in 
supporting mental well-being and social inclusion in a variety of forms, including for 
example, studies on digital participation among the elderly (Delello and McWhorter 
2017; Friemel 2016), among indigenous communities (Walker et al. 2021), and among 
refugee communities (Andrade and Doolin 2016). Others have considered the rela-
tionship between digital religious communication and social and community resil-
ience (Fröh and Robinson 2023). However, additional research is required regarding 
the more specific role of digital participation in facilitating social inclusion within reli-
gious communities. A recent study from Mora and Martínez (2022) explores digital 
diasporic spiritual consciousness among Venezuelan Evangelicals through the digital 
worship collective, Adorando en Casa (AeC). Their findings suggest that the incorpo-
ration of social media into regular church worship channels has fostered improved 
sense of community and belonging among diaspora communities who have been 
able to reconnect with churches in their home countries through digital worship 
projects. Further consideration is required regarding the correlation between the 
type of social inclusion fostered by digital religion and the concerns of other justice 
issues, including the theology of disability, and the extent to which these interests 
overlap.



69
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18529

Theological Framework
There is a great deal of concern and hesitation among church leaders regarding the 
legitimacy of the digital church, and a strong desire to preserve the physicality of 
communal, sacramental, and liturgical embodiment. Further, there is increasing 
anxiety that the digital church will serve as a substitution or replacement for histor-
ical modes of worship (Chow and Kurlberg 2020). Introduction of a new perspective 
to digital church that is less theological, and more ecumenical, does not intend to 
invalidate these concerns, nor to suggest that digital religious spaces can unequivo-
cally replicate or replace the physical presence of embodiment which occurs during 
in-person worship services, nor to take a position regarding its role in sacramental 
life. Rather, it simply offers greater weight of importance to social issues than theo-
logical ones, particularly digital equity, and social inclusion. In a post-pandemic 
context, willingness to give new ecclesiological consideration for digital religious 
spaces is inherently interdependent to maintaining relevance in the contemporary 
world. Demonstration of how digital worship can positively foster religious commu-
nity in online spaces should not be viewed as a threat, but a supplementary asset and 
enhancement of existing church worship structures which occur in physical spaces.
The existence of a new, growing, digital spiritual community does not diminish the 
fundamental importance of physical, in-person communion. However, to dismiss 
religious experience in digital spaces as invalid, based on digital hesitancy alone, 
challenges even the most traditional ecclesiology. In Colossians 1.18, the church 
is understood as the body of Christ, the essence of which is a divine and spiritual 
reality, not an inherently physical one. A Christological ecclesiology is one which 
fundamentally challenges this notion of church as a purely social, historical human 
institution (Chia 2020). This is not to dismiss the role of “place” in the context of 
worship. Afterall, in Exodus 26, God commands the Israelites to build the tabernacle, 
describing its specifications in great detail. Place of worship, symbol and ritual are 
all elements of great importance which provide a strong foundation and direction 
for the praise of God. Although God will “meet” the Israelites at the tabernacle, it 
is important to note that it is not anchored to one location. This suggests that the 
place of worship is synonymous with encountering God’s presence (Musa 2020). 
In effect, space facilitates a relationship between God and the worshipper and the 
worshipper and themselves. The nature of space helps to facilitate the experience 
of worship as both transcendent and immanent. Certain attributes of space culti-
vate this feeling of transcendence, including scale and volume, light, art/architec-
ture, and organization. All these elements should be considered when facilitating 
worship in digital spaces (Schiefelbein-Guerrero 2023) In 1 Corinthians 3.16-17, the 
Church is described as the Temple of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit indwells in the Church 
through both the individual and the community. This theologically informed under-
standing inherently challenges the notion that the Church’s identity is dependent or 



70
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18529

bound by  historically contingent forms, or that the character of the Church is dimin-
ished or altered by external circumstances that shape her model of worship. The 
digital church cannot be exempt from this spiritual reality of communion with God, 
composed of the members of Christ’s body, made possible through faith and the 
power of the Spirit (Chia 2020).
Beyond the ecclesiology of the digital church, consideration must also be given to how 
Christian worship is defined. Worship, like church, is characterized by human activity, 
yet it also transcends human experience. Christian worship is made possible only 
through the grace of God and the power of the Spirit; a doxological response cannot 
be actualized externally from this context. It is the Spirit that gathers the church and 
cultivates unity among its individual members, fostering spiritual community. It is 
only by the agency of the Spirit that Christians can participate in worship and there-
fore this participation in worship as a spiritual reality cannot be diminished regard-
less of whether the gathering engages a traditional space or a digital one (Chia 2020). 
It seems the dilemma is less related to the authenticity of digital worship and more 
a resistance to the deconstruction of traditional hierarchical worship and communal 
structures. Digital worship challenges conventional models of community in favor 
of a worship space that is more dynamic, adaptable and organic. The digital church 
transcends its historical geographic network of community towards a fellowship 
which is united more by way of relationship (koinonia) than by affiliation (ekklesia) 
(Campbell 2022: 71–2; O’Lynn 2022).
If fellowship (koinonia) is cultivated through Christ alone, then surely this cannot be 
eliminated by the limitation of virtual gatherings (Chia 2020). If God’s presence exists 
at all times and in all places, this affirms the sacred throughout all things, places 
and history. Digital church offers a unique opportunity to bridge the gap between 
the secular and the sacred, the traditional and the contemporary. As digital spaces 
continue to become more prominent in public spheres, the Church must bring the 
gospel to its audience. This is a natural trajectory, and if approached with the inten-
tionality of keeping God at the centre of worship, it can draw believers closer to God 
and cultivate a heightened sense of community (Musa 2020). The very heart and 
essence of the digital rests in the cultural reality of communication; it is this very 
concept which presents a theological invitation into the mystery of the triune God, 
and the communication of God’s existence by way of revelation throughout the course 
of human history. In the ultimate revelation found through Jesus Christ, as the Word 
incarnate, salvation is communicated through his life, death and resurrection. Illumi-
nated by the Spirit, the Church becomes the vessel which spreads the good news of 
the gospel throughout the world. As modes of communication continue to evolve in 
the wake of technological progress, digital religious communication may be under-
stood as an advantageous new strategy for fulfilling this mission (Zsupan-Jerome 
2014: 2). Further, the adoption of polymodal forms of worship, which allow for full 



71
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18529

participation both in person and online, are inherently more inclusive of those who 
are unable to return to physical in-person worship spaces due to medical vulnera-
bility and disability (Schiefelbein-Guerrero 2023).

Literature Review
While digital spaces are inherently value-neutral until their applied application, 
recent studies suggest a strong correlation between participation in digital access 
and an enhanced sense of community belonging among a diversity of populations. A 
case study conducted by Andrade and Doolin (2016) involving 50 resettled refugees 
and the use of ICTs (Information and Communication Technologies) focused specif-
ically on measuring its potential to foster increased social inclusion and societal 
participation. In the study, these New Zealand refugees were provided with 30 hours 
of basic computer training, a refurbished desktop computer, and internet access, 
as part of a government-funded initiative. After a series of interviews with partic-
ipants from eight different countries, the authors noted that the pervasiveness of 
ICTs in society, or simply providing access to the necessary tools, did not automati-
cally promote social inclusion. With an interest in what individuals are actually able 
to do and achieve with ICTs, Andrade and Doolin identified five capabilities improved 
during the study with the incorporated usage of ICTs: participation in digital society; 
effective communication; improved understanding of new society; social connec-
tivity; and expression of cultural identity (Andrade and Doolin 2016).
A comprehensive review of recent literature, policy responses and case studies, 
conducted by Walker et al. (2021) regarding Indigenous youth in Australia, demon-
strated the correlation between access to digital technology, improved mental health 
and wellbeing, and increased societal participation and social inclusion. Their find-
ings determined that due to inequities in affordable access to digital technologies, 
only 63% of Indigenous Australians have access to the internet at home. Concur-
rently, their research also concluded that when access to digital technology and 
social media is achieved, it strengthens cultural identity, improves mental health, 
and reduces isolation from community and country (Walker et al. 2021). Note that 
access in this case presupposes participation, or one’s ability to effectively use the 
technology provided.
Other studies, such as Delello and McWhorter (2017), focus on technology usage as a 
mechanism for counteracting social isolation and an overall decline in health among 
older adults. The researchers conducted a case study at a senior living centre in 
the Southwestern United States involving access to and usage of iPad technology. In 
addition to providing access to these devices, the study offered small group training 
sessions which included information about content sharing and social media usage. 
Upon conclusion of the study, it was determined that access to iPad technology 



72
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18529

and improved digital literacy resulted in increased social connection with friends 
and family members and enhanced societal participation (Delello and McWhorter 
2017). A second study related to technology usage among seniors was conducted by 
Thomas Friemel (2016), in which a random representative sample of 1,103 seniors in 
Switzerland over the age of 65 were interviewed. The interviews conducted revealed 
that only a quarter of seniors in Switzerland engage in regular internet use. Friemel 
found that barriers to usage disproportionately affect seniors over the age of 70. In 
all cases, the existence of a social context in which encouragement from friends and 
family is prevalent, coupled with opportunities for learning in private environments, 
were strong predictors for technological engagement (Friemel 2016).
Collectively, in the case of refugees, Indigenous youth and the elderly, these studies 
unanimously affirm that technological access does not necessarily predict social 
inclusion or societal participation. They also conjointly suggest that when certain 
preliminary conditions are met regarding equitable access, tailored digital literacy 
training to improve user ability, and a social context which fosters encouragement 
and support from friends and family, all three groups experience a heightened 
potential for digital engagement. Further, strong evidence suggests that when the 
culmination of these conditions is achieved, resulting in increased digital engage-
ment, it has the potential to foster improved sense of community belonging, social 
inclusion, and societal participation.

Ambivalences
Despite the obvious potential for benefit presented in these studies, certain ambiv-
alences undoubtedly arise, as digital access seems to enhance certain forms of 
connectedness while rendering other forms less stable. As Andrade and Doolin 
(2016) suggest, access to technology is helpful, but it is not always adequate in actu-
alizing capability and fostering participation. Further consideration must be given 
to what Schejter (2021) calls the “right to communication”, or the ability to commu-
nicate, in the context of the digital religious community. Utilizing the framework of 
Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach, Schejter makes the argument that communica-
tion should be understood as a fundamental right and capability. Schejter’s theory 
on the “right to communicate” asserts that free expression is a universal right that 
is interdependent with communication and therefore technological characteristics 
for communication should be made universally available in a digital age. In a digital 
society and participatory culture, the author views communication as a required 
function for participating in political, cultural, social, educational, and commercial 
spheres of life, making it a necessity for community belonging. In this context, partic-
ipation extends far beyond the right to own or have access to digital media, and 



73
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18529

communication is a basic requirement for humanity’s well-being and their ability to 
function within any society or social institution (Schejter 2021).
While technology can be useful in facilitating the navigation of new contexts, further 
consideration is required to determine if the social or cultural cohesion cultivated 
through technological connection bonds participants more to their localized commu-
nities, their communities of origin, or some other facet of the global community. This 
raises important questions surrounding the nature of the type of “cultural cohesion” 
or “social cohesion” produced by digital religious engagement. In the case of Andrade 
and Doolin (2016), refugee participants reported the use of ICTs to make sense of 
New Zealand society and to become familiar with the new culture and way of life. 
Many participants said they felt more comfortable communicating in an unfamiliar 
language with the use of ICTs rather than face-to-face or in-person interactions. 
Regarding social connectivity, many refugees reported the use of digital commu-
nication, such as social media, to connect with other members of their particular 
ethnocultural group in New Zealand and in other parts of the world. It also afforded 
them the opportunity to connect with friends and family in their home countries and 
maintain certain expressions of their cultural identity, such as accessing resources in 
their native language (Andrade and Doolin 2016).
In Walker et al. (2021), similar findings suggest that participation in digital technol-
ogies and social media by Indigenous youth enhance cultural identity, and connec-
tions to both community and culture. The authors emphasize the importance of 
access to Indigenous culture, connection with Elders, family members, and commu-
nity as an underlying facet of Aboriginal social and emotional wellbeing (Walker 
et al. 2021). In both cases, social and cultural cohesion often manifests within the 
local community but is informed by connections with unique ethnocultural identi-
ties that do not necessarily fit the dominant social discourse. In the case of Mora 
and Martínez (2022), the digital worship collective Adorando en Casa  (AeC) was 
specifically designed to facilitate religious experience among Venezuelan Evangel-
ical diasporic communities on a global scale, with membership spread across South 
America, the United States of America, Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica and Spain. The 
study demonstrates the effectiveness of digital religious communication as a mech-
anism to affirm and strengthen religious cultural identity and sense of community, 
inspire collaboration, and provide emotional and spiritual support in digital spaces 
(Mora and Martínez 2022). While the intentionality of this initiative was to inspire 
global community among diaspora communities with a shared religious identity, 
evidence from Andrade and Doolin (2016) and Walker et al. (2021) suggest digital reli-
gious communication has the potential to foster social and cultural cohesion across 
a diversity of religious traditions and ethnocultural communities on a local, national 
and global level.



74
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18529

Theology of Disability
Historically, theology of disability often centered the perception of what able-bodied 
people believe is in the best interest of persons with disabilities. Disability is often 
viewed as a flawed human condition, inherently representing a disadvantage or a 
problem to be corrected. This perception of disability as human flaw is unfortunately 
reinforced within biblical representation as New Testament authors draw parallels 
between healing and forgiveness of sin (Lk. 5.18-26; Jn 5.14) or lack of faith (Mk 5.34; 
10.52; Lk. 17.19). This model inherently perpetuates disempowerment, exclusion and 
isolation. Thankfully, contemporary discourse surrounding disability has shifted its 
perspective to consider disability as more of a social problem, rather than a specific 
medical problem impacting individuals. With this understanding, a person becomes 
“disabled” only when barriers to access exist. In this way, impairment becomes 
socially transformed, not only as disability, but as an obstacle to full societal partici-
pation (Reynolds 2008).
Theology can wrongly equate disability with questions of theodicy and the problem 
of suffering because it falsely presumes that all persons with disabilities suffer. If 
disability is understood as an affliction sourced from God in parallel with prosperity, 
it is quite natural to fall into the trappings of “otherness” rather than to acknowl-
edge one’s limited understanding of God’s compassion. Recognition of humanity’s 
limited capacity for divine knowledge should undoubtedly lead to humility rather 
than judgement (Morgan 2021). A more accurate understanding is that persons 
with disabilities suffer not from their impairment but rather the failure of society to 
practice radical inclusion, and consequently, the perpetual dehumanization of their 
circumstances by able-bodied people (Michalko 2002). It follows that any theology 
of disability must be liberatory, centring the voices of persons with disabilities, and 
granting stigma only to the institutions and social attitudes whose barriers construct 
disability, rather than misdirecting this stigma towards non-conventional bodies 
( Eiesland 1998).
When discussing the capability of “affiliation”, Nussbaum highlights the social reality 
that all aspects of society and public policy must be understood in the context of 
relationships. She discusses the insufficiency of making options available without 
proper consideration of this interdependence (e.g., employment options and work-
place relations or privacy boundaries within healthcare). These considerations, 
which fundamentally centre human worth and dignity as social beings, is an impor-
tant lens by which both theology of disability and the digital church can be practically 
understood and applied (Nussbaum 2011: 39–40). Nussbaum’s framework points to 
the interrelationship between digital theology and theology of disability, recognizing 
the inefficacy which inevitably occurs when responses are done in insolation rather 
than affiliation (e.g., addressing digital access in separation from literacy).



75
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18529

This intersection can perhaps best be understood within the framework of theology 
of access, which considers the realities of how persons with disabilities are able to 
exhibit presence and participation in all aspects of church life and society. This scope 
expands well beyond the right to physical access of houses of worship to encompass 
a wide range of barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from full participation 
in ecclesial life. This includes concepts of worship and sacrament that intrinsically 
include language, sight, hearing and other elements that could potentially create 
barriers for “authentic” participation (McLachlan 2021). These components which 
inherently exclude many persons due to lack of consideration for diversity of bodies 
are quite synonymous with critiques of digital worship and its ability to cultivate 
full embodied presence. This suggests that current digital ecclesiology might require 
radical deconstruction of bias towards non-conventional bodies.
If the task, or concern, of theology of disability is rooted in the liberation of persons 
with disabilities from the limitations imposed by institutions, social structures and 
human perception, does it not offer the same considerations as a sociological perspec-
tive of the digital church? Digital worship offers a valuable space for social inclu-
sion in many of the same ways that theology of disability challenges us to consider. 
Further, it serves as a readily available means for church bodies to mitigate barriers 
to access related to theology of disability, socially transforming the church in a way 
that upholds equal value and participation of all its members. The incorporation of 
theology of disability into digital theology proactively corrects many of its inherent 
limitations by fundamentally broadening its spectrum of accommodations. Reflec-
tion on the capability of “affiliation” fosters consideration for the interrelationship 
between the accessibility of digital church and barriers faced by persons with disa-
bilities. For example, offering church services online is advantageous for those with 
differing levels of mobility or those who suffer from compromised immune systems 
resulting in higher risk at in-person communal gatherings. By centering one’s under-
standing of the digital church and digital worship within the framework of justice 
and radical inclusion, one’s theological questioning moves beyond the sacramental 
and ecclesiological towards more wholistic concerns of participation, belonging and 
salvation.

Conclusion
A more serious pursuit of theological questions related to justice, inclusion, and its 
intersection with the digital divide calls for the following types of considerations. 
The presence of ambivalences suggests much potential opportunity for the future 
of research on the interrelationship of digital participation in religious community 
and the facilitation of community and social resilience. First, in consideration of 
 Schejter’s (2021) “right to communication” and the case study presented by Andrade 



76
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18529

and Doolin (2016), it can be deduced that simply providing access and opportunity 
to engage in digital worship and other forms of digital religious communication does 
not necessitate community participation, nor does it necessarily facilitate social 
cohesion in the way of shared religious experience and enhancement of collective 
religious identity. Evidence suggests that to truly alleviate digital inequities requires 
movement beyond bridging the gaps between the “haves’“ and “have nots” to ensure 
that members of faith communities are actually able to achieve the full potential 
of their capabilities required to engage in the type of full digital participation that 
can bring about radical social cohesion. All the studies presented here (Andrade and 
Doolin 2016; Walker et al. 2021; Delello and McWhorter 2017; Friemel 2016) suggest 
that when certain preliminary conditions are met (e.g., equitable access to ICTs, 
customized digital literacy training, and social/community support), digital engage-
ment offers the potential to produce improved sense of community belonging, social 
inclusion, and societal participation.
This observation raises important questions regarding whether faith communities 
can effectively aid in the facilitation of meeting these necessary preconditions within 
their congregations. Further, what kinds of digital participation in religious commu-
nities foster social inclusion and thereby promote social cohesion? Plüss (2020) has 
already identified the occurrence of interchurch cooperation in which congrega-
tions in rural areas were successful in adopting new technologies by receiving help 
with digital material from more technologically advanced congregations. Addition-
ally, he identifies the increased implementation of analog methods of communica-
tion across various congregations during the global pandemic, to help parishioners 
mitigate access barriers or lack of digital literacy (Plüss 2020). Further research is 
required to consider, does ecumenical cooperation have the potential to help alle-
viate digital inequities which impact religious institutions and their members, so that 
all parties can actualize their capability for full digital participation?
The second gap brought about by observation of these ambivalences is the lack of 
case studies specifically related to digital religious communities necessary to address 
more specialized facets of research, e.g., Do any observable digital participations 
exist specifically in religious settings/communities that foster inclusion and cohesion 
in those religious communities? Do any observable digital participations specific to 
religious communities/settings that foster inclusion and cohesion exist in the wider 
community (e.g., beyond the religious setting)? This article reviews a sample of ethn-
oculturally diverse, non-religious studies by which inferences can be made regarding 
their relationship with online religious communities, but only the Mora and Martínez 
(2022) study deals with this question directly. The findings of Andrade and Doolin 
2016; Walker et al. 2021; Delello and McWhorter 2017; Friemel 2016 suggest that, 
when appropriate conditions are met, digital communication has the potential to 
improve mental and emotional well-being, enhance sense of community belonging, 



77
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18529

and foster social and cultural inclusion and societal participation. The study by Mora 
and Martínez (2022) demonstrates evidence that these attributes are transferable in 
a digital religious setting, with the potential for additional benefits, including facilita-
tion of collective digital religious experience, direct worship collaboration, emotional 
and spiritual support through digital prayer spaces, improved sense of belonging 
and connection with home countries among diaspora communities, and a strength-
ening of a more specific religious identity and sense of religious community. Further 
studies like Mora/ Martínez are required to draw stronger conclusions regarding the 
transfer of benefits found within non-religious digital communities to online reli-
gious spaces, and to produce stronger determination of the unique benefits that 
only digital religious communication can provide.
Finally, further consideration must be given regarding the extent to which addressing 
digital inequality inadvertently addresses the concerns of theology of disability and 
how an interdisciplinary approach to these two disciplines can collaboratively foster 
justice, social inclusion, and social cohesion.

About the Author
Geneva Blackmer earned a Master of Ecumenical Studies from the University of Bonn 
and a Master of Arts in Religious Studies from Athens State University. She developed 
this article as a Research Assistant (Wissenschaftliche Hilfskraft) for the University of 
Bonn’s Faculty of Protestant Theology in the department of Intercultural Theology 
and part of the GNET (@gnet_bonn) research team. Contact: gblackme@uni-bonn.de

References
Andrade, Antonio Díaz, and Bill Doolin. 2016. “Information and Communication Technology 

and the Social Inclusion of Refugees.” MIS Quarterly 40 (2): 405–16. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/26628912.

Campbell, Heidi. 2005. Exploring Religious Community Online We Are One in the Network. New 
York: Lang.

Campbell, Heidi A. 2022. “Understandings of the Church as Revealed in Quarantine: Reima-
ging the People of God.” In Ecclesiology for a Digital Church: Theological Reflections on a New 
Normal edited by Heidi A. Campbell and John Dyer. London: SCM Press, pp. 59–73.

Chia, Roland. 2020. “Life Together, Apart: An Ecclesiology for a Time of Pandemic.” In Digital 
Ecclesiology: A Global Conversation, edited by Heidi A. Campbell, 20–27. College Station, TX: 
Texas A & M University: Digital Religion Publications, An Imprint of the Network for New 
Media, Religion & Digital Culture Series, www.digitalreligion.tamu.edu.

Chow, Alexander, and Jonas Kurlberg. 2020. “Two or Three Gathered Online.” Studies in World 
Christianity, 26 (3): 298–318. https://doi.org/10.3366/swc.2020.0311.

mailto:gblackme@uni-bonn.de
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26628912
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26628912
\\nas-1\projects\Radboud University Press\Ecclesial Futures\2024\1\1 Originelen\1 Input\Manuscripts\www.digitalreligion.tamu.edu
https://doi.org/10.3366/swc.2020.0311


78
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef18529

Delello, Julie A., and Rochell R. McWhorter. 2017. “Reducing the Digital Divide: Connecting 
Older Adults to iPad Technology.” Journal of Applied Gerontology, 36 (1), 3–28. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0733464815589985.

Eiesland, Nancy L. 1998. The Disabled God toward a Liberatory Theology of Disability. Nashville, 
Tenn: Abingdon Press.

Friemel, Thomas N. 2016. “The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among 
seniors.” New Media & Society, 18 (2), 313–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814538648.

Fröh, Johannes, and Matthew Ryan Robinson. 2023. “Digital Religious Communication and the 
Facilitation of Social Resilience, Part 1: Theoretical Model and Proposal.” Journal of Religious 
& Theological Information. https://doi.org/10.1080/10477845.2023.2232622.

McLachlan, David. Accessible Atonement: Disability, Theology, and the Cross of Christ. Waco, TX: 
Baylor University Press, 2021.

Michalko, Rod. 2002. The Difference That Disability Makes. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Mora, Fernando Adolfo, and Enrique García Martínez. 2022. “Venezuelan Evangelical Digital 

Diaspora, Pandemics, and the Connective Power of Contemporary Worship Music. Reli-
gions 13 (3): 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13030212.

Morgan, Heather Renée. 2021. “Disability and Gregory of Nazianzus’s Oration 14: No Body 
Without Our Bodies. Canadian Journal of Theology, Mental Health, and Disability, 1 (2), 147–58. 
https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cjtmhd/article/view/37804.

Musa, Bala A. 2020. “Reimagining Place and Presence in the Virtual Church: Community and 
Spiritual Connection in the Digital Era.” In Digital Ecclesiology: A Global Conversation, edited 
by Heidi A. Campbell, 53–58. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University: Digital Religion 
Publications, An Imprint of the Network for New Media, Religion & Digital Culture Series, 
www.digitalreligion.tamu.edu.

Nussbaum, Martha C. 2011. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. 
Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press, https://doi.org/10.4159/
harvard.9780674061200.

O’Lynn, Rob. 2022. “What Comes Next: Continuing the Digital Ecclesiology Conversation in 
Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Religions 13 (11): 1036. https://doi.org/10.3390/
rel13111036.

Plüss, Jean Daniel. 2020. “COVID-19, the Church, and the Challenge to Ecumenism.” Transforma-
tion, 37 (4), 286–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265378820961545.

Reynolds, Thomas E. 2008. Vulnerable Communion: A Theology of Disability and Hospitality. Grand 
Rapids: Brazos Press.

Schejter, Amit M. 2021. “It Is Not Good for the Person to Be Alone: The Capabilities 
Approach and the Right to Communicate.” Convergence 28 (6): 1826–40. https://doi.
org/10.1177/13548565211022512.

Schiefelbein-Guerrero, Kyle K. 2023. Church After the Corona Pandemic Consequences for Worship 
and Theology. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Walker, Roz, Kim Usher, Debra Jackson, Corinne Reid, Katrina Hopkins, Carrington Shepherd, 
Reakeeta Smallwood and Rhonda Marriott. 2021. “Connection to ... Addressing Digital Ineq-
uities in Supporting the Well-Being of Young Indigenous Australians in the Wake of COVID-
19.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (4), 2141. https://
doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042141.

Zsupan-Jerome, Daniella. 2014. Connected toward Communion: The Church and Social Communi-
cation in the Digital Age. Collegeville, Minn: Liturgical Press.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464815589985
https://doi.org/10.1177/0733464815589985
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814538648
https://doi.org/10.1080/10477845.2023.2232622
https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13030212
https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cjtmhd/article/view/37804
\\nas-1\projects\Radboud University Press\Ecclesial Futures\2024\1\1 Originelen\1 Input\Manuscripts\www.digitalreligion.tamu.edu
https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674061200
https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674061200
https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13111036
https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13111036
https://doi.org/10.1177/0265378820961545
https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565211022512
https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565211022512
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042141
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042141

