Well put. I think something worth considering is how Jesus came, according to Scripture, in the "fullness of time" where God was no doubt not ignorant of the mediums available at that to time to record and communicate the Gospel. God did choose words over images, and Jesus is the Word of God. The "image of God", however, is not to be confused with a picture. The image Scripture references is the observable ethical reality of Jesus. The image of God is restored in us as our minds are renewed through worship and obedience to Christ's commands, which we can read about. As for pictures, the meaning is in the eye of the beholder. Dictionaries define meaning and hence God's preference for the medium.

Shane's article could be developed a little further to suggest more constructive ways of engaging the media of culture. While I'm grateful for the clarity with which he suggests that cultural media shapes faith, the gospel, and church, I look forward to reading The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture when it's available in Australia: the "call to take the red pill and see how deep the rabbit hole goes" is - or rather should be - only the beginning.

Could I suggest - even if only to stir up comment - that John's claim that "the logos became flesh" is the ultimate proof of McLuah's dictum? And that Jesus' "I am" sayings in the fourth gospel also present him as the medium and the message of, for example, the way, the truth, and the life. Similarly, on the basis of Romans 3.22, Francis Watson sees Jesus as "the embodiment of God's saving action... both the origin and the object of faith".

I realise that this latter claim is not identitical to McLuahn's. But, perhaps the division between form and content, means and end, medium and message belongs more to modernity than to Christianity? Maybe culture is not a mercernary, but a pilgrim?

Hmmm, interesting timing. I'm teaching a seminary course in "Media & Ministry" next spring and the course description is due in a couple days. I literally drafted a blurb this weekend that contained this nugget:
"Visual literacy is a primary learning modality of emerging generations and missional leaders must be equipped to pour the unchanging Gospel message through fresh, technologically-innovative wineskins."

(excuse the pomposity-- seminary catalogs like that kind of stuff)

I've always assumed it's vital that church leaders become fluent in the use of digital media (ie: film clips in sermons; visual iconography in worship; use of podcasts, blogs, etc. for Godcasting on the net).

But in the back of my head is a nagging doubt (that Hipps puts his finger on):
Is it just possibe that as the unchanging Gospel wine gets poured through technologically-innovative wineskins, it sours?

If the medium is the message (as Mcluhan contends), then here's what the Gospel is destined to become in 10 years: an image-based, emotionally-manipulative soundbyte that has all the resonance of a shampoo commercial.

Blogs, podcasts, image-based sermons, promo videos, graphics, message teasers... all these have become a part of everyday communications in our church context. But I'm aware that they work against many of the critical faculties necessary for spiritual reflection: sustained concentration, linear thought, the ability to cultivate silence and solitude.

Nevertheless, I've seen much good come from engaging technology (ie: the email from a podcast listener overseas who is breaking his porn addiction because of listening to our sermon podcasts online).

And I've seen the bad (ie: the complaints that a worship song is "played out" because folks are bored with the graphics).

And so, I'm ambivalent.

Why? Last month we had a podcast listener ask to become a "member" of our church community. He's never visited, and never will (lives across the world). He's a believer, but never goes to church. But he likes our online Bible teaching (via iTunes), and vibes with the "look and feel" of our church (presumably communicated by the images and graphic style of our website).

And so he wants to join our "virtual church"...is there such a thing?

And if so: is resistance futile?

Wow - this is the most insightful post I have read for a while! I love technology, I have often stopped to think about some of the counterfeits to authentic Christianity living it has helped to create. This article seems to hit the mark in providing at least one part of the explanation.

To me at least some of the of the problem areas relate to the way technology facilitates both communication and a measure of community but without relationship and accountability. For example:
* forums and emails are not a substitute for human contact and friendship
* podcasts cannot replace 'live' Spirit-inspired preaching
* shared branding cannot take the place of unity and oneness across congregations
* God TV or online communiy is no replacement for direct involvement in a local church

So true that any such issues cannot be a call for us to resist technology but I completely agree that we need to be awake to some of the less obvious implications of our methods. Great post!

Cant wait to read Shane's book. I have felt very alone in writing on the impact of new media on church and ministry - there are very few people thinking along the lines of the transcoding of the gospel into electronic media.

thanks for the heads up.

Quite the collision of cyphers in that last paragraph. Using "wind and the tides"... what that does is give technology the power of its creator. Because you are talking about wanton strategies of resistance. What can the created force on its creator? Wind and tides need to stay wind and tides... two forces of nature that humans cannot control in the real world. Technology on the other hand, can and should be controlled. Ah, but human nature can't stand controls. Our creative little hearts craft deception. Magic... now there is a study of technology. If you had said, "wind-farms and wave-pools" then you would have a funny idea that would draw a smile.

And never under-estimate the ideal of revolution. Not to mention, that your "call" is a cypher to the Matrix which robs the gold of Alice in Wonderland. What I find interesting about movies, which are a formidable adaptation of technologies, is that they are now recapitulating all stories from all times into one giant heart-tugging action sequence that ends within intimacy and salvation of the dirty little tennis-ball we live on called planet Earth. So to quote a movie cypher at the end of this article without qualifying it, may actually do more harm than good.

We understand the meaning of the matrix, the way the West was won....and how the rest was lost.

Hipps!!! Greetings from a fellow TCU and BYX alum. Thanks for the thought provoking article. I'll have to check out your book.

Here is a metaphor well worth considering...The following is taken from an essay written by Wendell Berry entitled, "People, Land, and Community." He is commenting on how the introduction of the tractor into agriculture has been a significant part of its destruction. The idea behind his thinking is true, I believe, within the context of this conversation as well. His point is whether we are thinking about these things or simply taking them as the next great thing that everyone needs, etc...listen in:

"The tractor has been so destructive, I think, because it is unlike anything else in the agricultural order, and so it breaks the essential harmony. And with the tractor comes dependence on an energy supply that lies not only off the farm but outside agriculture and outside biological cycles and integrities. With the tractor, both farm and farmer become "resources" of the industrial economy, which always exploits its resources. We would be wrong, of course, to say that anyone who farms with a tractor is a bad farmer. That is not true. What we must say, however, is that once a tractor is introduced into the pattern of a farm, certain necessary retraints and practices, once implicit in technology, must now reside in the character and consciousness of the farmer--at the same time that the economic pressure to cast off restraint and good practice has been greatly increased."

I see this as a "both and" where Kurt Bruner in his "Divine Drama" eloquently calls for the gospel in proposition AND in story.

Also, while media may change how we relate, it does not change our hearts and human condition. People are people, whether in huts or SUVs.

This is thoughtful and well-written. When everything is said and done we still need to hear the sweet of Jesus say, "Come unto me. I am the way..."

If our objective remains to communicate the message of Christ, using whatever medium is available to us, then people will be given the opportunity to decide to follow Jesus.

Perhaps we would learn a great deal if we really knew what Paul meant when he reminded the Galatians that "Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified" before their eyes. Did he have an iconic presentation painted on the side of one of his tents? Did he make some sort of "flip charts" that he leafed through as he preached the gospel? There are so many possibilities.

I believe he would have been thrilled about all the technology available today. IMO, he would have been eager to use it all, or not...as long as he could tell the story. That seems to be all that really mattered to him. Perhaps this is the most important thing to keep in mind.

By all means use whatever technology is available to teach and evangelize. However I doubt technology can ever enhance worship. Our church board voted to go to a multimedia worship service some years ago. I deeply regret the decision. For a better explanation than I can give, read Marilyn Chandler McEntyre's piece in CT (Jan. '01) "Commodity, Not Community". Very prophetic.

If your church is currently relying on multimedia technology for worship, there's a simple test that will help you determine if you are worshipping God or worship itself; remove the technology and see if your congregation can worship with the same level of enthusiasm. It's becoming a crutch my friends. Would you date your wife by cell phone? By video conference?

I read Shane's book and found it to be a thorough handling of the subject. For those who haven't studied Marshall Macluhan and others on this subject Shane's book is a great look at some of their work and how newer technologies have changed these ideas and illustrated them even further. Thanks Shane for your work and the challenging thoughts you offer about technologies effects on us all.

My daughter talks to her friends for hours mainly on the computer...friends who are right down the hall in the same dormitory. How well does she really know them? Technology makes everything convenient, but Christianity requires just the opposite. This discussion reminds me of the concern thirty years ago over whether TV ministries were threatening to the church. It turned out to be irrelevant. Similarly, your local pastor may not preach like the guy in the podcast, but what does that have to do with living as a disciple? Real Christianity happens among people living in community. We should take advantage of all forms of technology to advance the gospel, but should be reminded that it is like indiscriminately casting seed over the ground...most of it won't take root. So we use technology without neglecting or substituting real gospel ministry, that is, dealing directly and sacrificially with the messes people make of their lives. Something tells me Nicodemus would not have been convinced if his discussion with Jesus had come via an online chat...

This is a very interesting article. I'm an observer of "emergent" and how the church "does" church. Marva J. Dawn has some interesting things to say on technology in her book Unfettered Hope. If the medium truly is the message and our message can be corrupted by the medium we use - that's scary. Thinking about Jesus being the Word made flesh - God sending His message through a man - that is - God is understood through humanity - perhaps that's really how the message is to be communicated. The message is best understood through each one of us and our relationship to Him - as Peter says we are God's letters to humanity. The best way to communicate the gospel is to live it. Technology is consumerist in it's intent, our stories are not.

Some very interesting thoughts - and feedback here! Thanks.

I have to declare an interest - I'm committed to persuading people that the web is a valid tool to share the gospel, through InternetEvangelismDay.com and in other ways.

Every new medium, from print onwards, through radio, tv, video, has inevitably added its own gloss, strengths, and weaknesses, to the portrayal of the unchanging gospel it was used to present. And of course, society itself was undergoing parallel changes as it was influenced by each of those mediums.

One of the strengths of the web, for the gospel, is its interactive nature. Tracts are one way. Radio is one way. The web allows the user to choose where to go, what to read, and the opportunity to interact with real people if they wish. In the context of countries were there are few Christians, and possibly lack of freedom to share the gospel, this is proving strategic and quite unique.

Blessings to you

Tony

To the author: for those of us who are ready to take the red pill, how deep does the rabbit hole go?

While I agree that the Internet can create certain emtional tie with people and twist our perception, even to the point of deforming us, it doesn't mean we can't use it to declare the message of the Kingdom?