The Methods May Change But…
Maybe you have heard the following quote: “The methods may change but the message is the same.” Typically it comes up when someone questions the methods a church uses to communicate the message of the gospel. Perhaps a church is using an unusual tactics of getting people in the door so they change the way they communicate their sermon from a preacher standing behind a podium to a more talk show format like on Oprah with every “sermon” now being presented as interviews with random people.
When this church is questioned about their tactics, they respond, “Well, there is nothing wrong with what we are doing. Our method is different from traditional preaching but the message is still the same.” Inherent in this thinking is the idea that the method of communication and the message are not connected in any way. In other words, there is no connection between the method one uses and the message that is conveyed. But the reality is that whenever the method changes, the message automatically changes as well.
Marshall McLuhan has been credited with being responsible for introducing us to the social impacts of technology on humans. He coined the phrase, “The medium is the message,” because he believed that every medium has its own message. The quote at the beginning of this article assumes that technology is neutral. But McLuhan believed that technology was powerful enough to shape our thoughts and values, regardless of the content. We generally think that as long as we are careful about the content, the medium itself is not really the issue. For instance, I used to think that television was a neutral medium. I did not think there was anything wrong with television at all, that I could watch whatever I wanted as long as I did not watch anything R-rated. I assumed that as long as I was watching “quality” television, TV was good, and if it watched R-rated stuff, TV was bad. I was focused more on the content (R-rated shows) than I was on the medium (television) itself. According to McLuhan, “The content of a medium is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind.” The content of the medium distracted me from the real message it was sending.
Shane Hipps who wrote, “The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture” made the following comment about TV, “We are oblivious to the ways the medium, regardless of its content, reduces our capacity for abstract thought, makes us prefer intuition and experience over logic and reasoning, and revives tribal experiences in an individualistic culture.” This statement reveals the truth that I believe every medium has an embedded message that presents itself as truth, but is really a lie. One of the lies of television that Shane’s comment exposes is that experience is better than reasoning and logic. But that’s not always true.
Marva Dawn, who wrote “Unfettered Hope”, calls these lies, bluffs. She says, “Why is it that so many of us have bought into this technological revolution? We have to recognize the big “bluff” of the encompassing technological milieu—that we are misled by its bold (and often false) promises, which disguise the negative aspects of whatever is being endorsed.” She continues, “Do we see how the advertising world bluffs us into thinking that more technology or more implementation of the wired world’s possibilities is the only solution to world problems in economics and politics; to such church problems as the decline in worship attendance, and the reduction of membership numbers, or the lack of interest in “church”; and to personal or family problems?”
Technology is very skilled at hiding its lies. Lies that have had negative impact on the way we live out our faith. There are three major concepts that technology has bluffed is into thinking are true: (1) faster is always better, (2)faster will save time, (3) more stuff will solve my problems, and (4) I need the latest and greatest to keep from being outdated. When these ideas are deeply engrained in our minds it becomes difficult to remain content (Philippians 4:11; 1 Corinthians 11:1).
Christians are to be content no matter what the circumstances. But the problem is that at every turn the advertising world bluff us into thinking that what we have is not enough, too slow, outdated, and is not working. And every time we make a purchase or consume technology while subconsciously believing these lies, we are reinforcing them in our psyche. Perhaps this may explain why the same characteristics we use to measure the value of our entertainment, we use to measure the content of our religious experiences (i.e. sermons, congregational singing). Or maybe this is why so many of us, instead of being patient with the sanctification process, we get frustrated, give up and give in to our sins.
No matter how you slice it, the technological paradigm has had a really negative effect on Christianity. But let me be clear. It is not technology in itself but the way the entire paradigm impacts our thinking. Our use of technology should be accompanied with better questions. My friend John Dyer who is one of the smartest guys I know (and who I find myself regularly intimidated around) offers “A Model for Theological Reflection on Technology.” He has provided a great example of how to apply the model as well.
There are times where there is nothing we can do about advances in technology. For instance it would not be possible or even desireable to return to the horse and buggy. But there are situations where we can make choices that go against the rules of the technological paradigm instead of confirming them. And when we are presented with these opportunities, perhaps we should take them. For instance, we can shop at a local baker instead of a major chain store. There are times when choosing the local baker means he/she may not have the items we want, where the chain store always does. So what we do is we typically go to the chain store because it provides the quick fix to our problems. And this is precisely why the technological paradigm has been a dangerous influence in our faith.
Similar Posts:
Robert
I love theology and the challenge of making deep teachings non-boring. Let's face it, most of the time we hear theological teaching, it really is boring. Does it really have to be that way? Nope.
2 Comments
November 22, 2008
I’m lovin it. Here are two things I’m trying to figure out: (1) how not to come across as alarmist, (2) how not to be hypocritical about technology usage (since I use a lot of it…).
November 22, 2008
The alarmist issue is one that I am trying to be cognizant of as well because it is easy for someone to misinterpret me as saying that technology is evil and bad which is not really what myself, you or anyone else is trying to convey. For me the hidden messages of technology are so important for us to understand, that in my excitement, I can sometimes come off as alarmist. As far as being hypocritical about using technology although we use it, that is something that I think we will never be able to overcome because no matter how much we say technology is not REALLY the problem, people will always see us that way.