The Role of Technology in the Church
Over the past week I've been exchanging emails with one of the pastors at our church. He delivered a sermon last week that prompted a variety of thoughts. Since things have been slow here lately, I thought I would post our conversation. I'm posting my two replies to his emails (you'll be able to tell from my replies the basic concerns in his reply).
While many topics are explored, the main focus of the conversation addresses the role of technology within a Christian context.
Brent
- - - -
Pastor D-,
Great sermon on Sunday.
Anytime that it prompts me to sit down and type out a few reactions it has cleary had an impact on my thinking. Two thoughts... First, I was pondering your statement (my paraphrase) that consumerism is an enemy of the church. I agree. But I sometimes wonder if we (as the Church) are taking aim at the right target. From my experience and research, a consumer culture is a by-product of a technologically-driven culture. The invention of the standardized clock, the industrial revolution, the assembly line, etc. are all contributing factors to consumerism. Jumping to 21st century inventions, the cell phone, internet, iPod, etc., are products of this technologically driven culture. So...we take aim at consumerism (the effect) but we never call out the use of technological innovation (the cause). Sometimes it strikes me as a bait and switch technique. We (the Church, not just our church) say "don't be driven by consumption" but never hit the heart of the issue - the over-reliance on technological innovation. I've followed the trail of technology in the name of "cultural relevance" - and many things that I've probably done in the past I now would find suspect. Yes, this could mean that our Blackberries and Twitter accounts are the real culprits. To use strong language, the enemy may be technology not consumerism.
Second, and related, you said about speed being the enemy of empathy. Again, we promote all our ministries on the latest technology without apology, BUT doesn't this promote the very speed you are attacking? Doesn't the fact that my students expect instantaneous replies to their emails contribute to their inability to recognize that I may have other priorities beyond them? Email and cell phones invite immediacy. Unless I directly address these items the users never recognize that they are being driven by the technology rather than the other way around. If this makes any sense, we can talk further. If this just sounds like crazy-talk, so be it. Oh yes, I recognize the irony that I am emailing you this as opposed to talking face to face.Enjoy your week.
Brent
- - - - -
Pastor D-,
I also enjoy a good, thoughtful conversation.
I agree with much of your assessment of Paul. Acts 17:16-34 illustrates how engaged he was with the contemporary culture. And he definitely used a primary communication tool of his day – letter writing – to convey his message. Paul may have been willing to use email and video, but I can’t believe he would have done it unreflectively. I read his notion of taking every thought captive for Christ as an indication that we must thoughtfully engage culture and not just accept something because it exists.
I also agree that while the printing press was demonized when it was first invented, it has created many new opportunities for spreading the message of Jesus.
To echo you, “That being said – I disagree with many of your conclusions.”
Although it may appear as though I am anti-technology, that is not the case at all. I’ll focus my primary concerns into two major categories.
First, I am deeply concerned about the unreflective use of technology. Too often I hear the question “How can I use this new technology?” before hearing that same person ask “Should I use this new technology?” Too often I have seen the Church embrace a new technology in the name of cultural relevance. Just to focus upon the emerging internet technologies, I am thinking of Facebook/MySpace, Twitter, Blackberries, etc. Yes, does that provide an opportunity to reach a potentially unreached audience, absolutely. But where are the voices asking should we be using these resources? What about the trade-off? Back to your sermon on Sunday – to suggest that we should slow down in the name of empathy but not call out the specific technologies that cause us to speed up stops short of addressing the whole issue.
My second, and probably great, concern explores the question who/what controls who/what? Just because something is created by a technology guru doesn’t mean that it should be used. Just because Twitter is available doesn’t mean that it should be utilized. While I believe that all truth is God’s truth and creation can be redeemed by the Creator, just because a new technology emerges doesn’t mean that it should be embraced. I can say more on this, but I’ll stop there.
But, perhaps the part of your email that I find most troubling is the notion that technology is morally neutral. On that point, I could not disagree more emphatically. You use the example of Columbine. Perhaps the students would have found a way to commit their evil deeds using another form of attack. But, how many other forms of attack are idolized through TV, movies, and video games? Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel talks about how the invention of the gun changed the form, speed, and entire nature of cultures. It wasn’t just the former cultures plus guns – entirely new cultures emerged. The same can be said for computers, TV, radio, etc. Our culture today is not just 1980 plus the internet. We are living in an entirely new culture. Technology is not just about how we use it – once it enters the culture it changes the nature of that culture. Another example – so many men struggle with pornography. I do not believe that every man who views porn on his computer would have also gone to the bookstore and took a sneak peek at those same types of magazines. The invention of the internet has completely changed the nature of the discussion. To suggest that technologies are morally neutral is as dangerous of a proposition as a pastor could make (within the context of our discussion – I am not suggesting this is the most looming evil in all creation). I’m not trying to overstate this issue – but I firmly believe what I just wrote.
A few questions that I think about often:
What does it mean to be human? How does technology help or hinder our ability to be human? What are the trade-offs involved in using a new technology? Are convenience and efficiency alone enough to justify embracing a new technology?
One final thought (and you may have done this before) – ask your staff to take a 24 – 48 hour technology fast and watch the reactions you receive. If there are any lingering doubts about who controls who, I think that exercise may confirm my earlier comments.
Thanks for the reply – I’ve been thinking about your email over the past few days. I take your comments and insights seriously and appreciate your willingness to engage in the conversation.
Have a good weekend.
Brent
posted by Brent C Sleasman at 1:46 PM
9 Comments:
I think you make some valid points of consideration as to what technologies one should use and why, but I do not think I could disagree with you more on the issue of the amoral implications of technology. It is nothing more than a tool that people can use effectively or sinfully based on what is already in their hearts. The internet does not change the interests of my heart, it merely makes said interests more readily available. If I desire information and education, it is there. If I desire communication, it is there. If I desire pornography and access to a sexual partner, it is there. With a few clicks of the mouse I can read a peer reviewed article about post modernism and enrich my understanding of the folkways and mores of the emerging culture. However, with a few clicks of the mouse, I can also go to craig's list and have a prostitute come pleasure me while the wife is out of town. So what is in my heart? A desire for information or a desire for fornication? The choice is mine and the tool has no moral implication on my choice. With a hammer I can help build a room or I can kill a man...the hammer is still a hammer. I can use a car for transportation or a getaway vehicle in a bank robbery. With a gun I can feed my family or I can kill everyo9ne at the local 7-11. Do these tools and devices and inventions have an effect on culture? You bet they do. The car, the telephone, the radio, the television changed so much about us, but those changes...both for the better and the worse were our changes to make. The generation that is rising has the internet as an integral part of their lives. Texting, social networking, and so forth. Today's phones can do it all...calls, texts, social networking, web browsing, picture taking, etc. Include the fact that cloud computing is starting to take hold, yet another step is in play.
The technological world is a fact and it is a part of our society. The church, which I will go into more cynical detail on later has a choice to make. Will it do as we have historically done and insist the earth is flat and man was never meant to read the Bible on his own? Will we continue to be socially awkward and prove ourselves to be retarded (literal definition, not the insult) or will we find the right balance.
I can honestly see the concerns of one who is older and I can definitely relate to the issues of churches and pastors who use technology poorly and inappropriately as being a concern and I will touch on that momentarily.
When I was teaching computers at Christian Life College I had an interesting problem. The first semester I just taught an intro to computers class. That was a walk in the park. The second semester was a "Computer Use in Ministry" class. I ended up writing my own textbook for the class because what I found in the ministerial world was either fear based or at least a decade out of touch in it's perspectives (scary part was, the book was not a decade old, merely the perspectives). In crafting my textbook I took a real close look at what pastors and ministries do in their use of technologies and it misses the mark on many levels.
The class turned into my last semester teaching there because I did not deliver what the administration wanted, but I delivered what I felt I had to. As opposed to a how to class, I went into a philosophical why use and how to use methodology because some of the really scary stuff I saw churches doing that make, in my humble opinion, pornography seem the lessor of evils.
The first thing I will touch on is the poor use of websites. Typical church website will have one of the following on the homepage. Happy smiling people who are well dressed and multi ethnic with at least one of them having a cute kid on his or her shoulders. You may also see a picture of the snazzy exterior shot of the church or interior shot of the sanctuary. Then comes the height of egoism...the Re Max like picture of the pastor and his wife. None of this is harmful until we get to the words used. Suddenly I am barraged with marketing and image projection and more power adjectives in play than I can shake a stick at. The church becomes an image driven destination with great music, kids programs, and a wonderful opportunity to be liked and find fulfillment so that I too can be in the happy multi racial picture in the great sanctuary while befriending the dynamic minister and his lovely wife. An image has been projected as opposed to an identity reflected in, at times, the most nauseating of methods.
Now comes the "PT Barnum" pastor on Facebook and Twitter. I get a lot of status updates and tweets from church leaders all over the world. Sometimes I get a note that I really partner with where God has done something really great or the Spirit moved in a fresh way and that church was touched by a moment. It is so exciting to hear of how God is moving and it naturally beings a humbleness and passion with it.
However, there is Pastor PT Barnum. There are those who put out this level of communication out almost every day with big claims inviting others to their church that week. Stuff like:
“God rocked the house last Sunday. Come this Sunday or you’ll miss out!”
“What are you doing tomorrow morning? Come to the xyz church or get left behind!”
“What’s taking you so long to get here? It’s so extreme and everyone is so cool! So not like the churches you have been before!”
I no longer see sincerity and see an effort to generate buzz that is insincere at best and downright dishonest in it's presentation at worst.
With the internet, one has an opportunity to present their church in an honest fashion and manner and to communicate in humility, grace, and substance...but as opposed to using this tool to communicate and edify and share....we have used it to market and elevate our egos.
Note to self...I need to change my website as soon as possible. Frankly, I and many other pastors are in sin in how we have presented ourselves and our communities. I blame not the technology, I blame us. If imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, the church is proving itself to be enamored with corporate America and marketing. Our online and virtual reflections are of those things and not of Christ.
So how do we use these tools in an appropriate manner?
The first thing to do is to stop the arrogance and the self promotion. God and the church are not whiter teeth and better sex lives so it is time for our websites to stop resembling viagra's and gleem's websites. Our social networking skills-IF we chose to utilize a social network-should be honest. In working with the kids under 25 I have seen and learned a lot about how they interact on the web. While they tend to divulge WAAAAYYYY too much information, there is something else that happens. They take pictures of everything and "tag" each other on the pictures and use these tools to create opportunities to interact and meet in the physical realm and then use the technology to share the memories of those times together. Yeah, I know addicts who never leave the house and are more disconnected from reality, but that is a minority. Anyway, when they are online, they are looking to share, to interact, and to be a part of something. They are not looking to be marketed to and lied to.
We have an opportunity to be a salt and a light online, an opportunity to be honest and invite people on a journey and enter into discussion and share moments and create time together as a community. This is far more precious a thing than increasing numbers and getting more hits on a blog or followers on tweet. When a pastor or a church is ready to have honest interaction and humility with the intent of being a salt and a light, only then should they engage the internet...not to sell $#&@. Okay, I am done. I mean no disrespect in my views.
Patrick,
I appreciate the experience and perspective you bring to the conversation. I'll hold off on making more comments about the moral aspect of technology, since I don't think either one of us is going to budge on our opinions at the moment.
I hope that others aren't staying away from the conversation due to my boring title and lengthy initial post - if so, they will miss some great insights in your reply regarding church websites.
One of my emerging frustrations is directed at those who use pre-packaged pictures for a website. Many of the times if I visited those churches I would never see anyone who looked like the people on the website. If I ever create a code of ethics for church website developers, that would be one of the key principles that I would include. This touches on your sincerity point - if I view your website and visit your church I should not see a major disconnect.
Honestly, I've been guilty of violating this principle in the past. I now regret the last website I developed - it utilized a prepackaged template that was completely unfaithful to the congregation it represented.
You make the comment that the "church becomes an image driven destination." [Your use of image is not to be confused with liturgical images that have over a 2000 year history.] I agree that this is a problem.
But...now I'll return to the reason I initially posted these ideas. Image, as I understand your use of the term, is an effect of living within a technologically driven-culture (as is consumerism and speed that inhibits empathy). Attacking the effect (image) without addressing the cause (technology) strikes me as a losing battle.
We may never agree on this issue, but I feel comfortable in my views and love the conversation.
I can agree to disagree on the issue of moral/immoral/amoral technology. :)It sounds like there is some interesting common ground we can work with.
I agree with you on the use of stock photography. Now, in the case of my website I did use stock photography (legally licensed-many a church does not seem to care about copyright law-sad: we would never steal a pew or a bible, but intellectual property is free game???). However, it was meant as a temporary measure as we did not have a church yet. That said, I was very careful to use images that do not have faces shown (with the exception of one). Now that we are approaching our one year anniversary, we are in the process of planning the revamp of our website and it will be an honest reflection of who we are and the people in our community. Imagery will be one change. The other change is going to be the wording. As rebellious as I am to the "system" of attractional models I was immersed by well meaning advisers to use a few power adjectives and I will remedy that soon.
Now to your wonderfully stated original point. You said,"Image, as I understand your use of the term, is an effect of living within a technologically driven-culture (as is consumerism and speed that inhibits empathy). Attacking the effect (image) without addressing the cause (technology) strikes me as a losing battle."
First, we are on the same page on my definition of image. I am not sure we can address technology the way I think I am interpreting you. The genie is out of the bottle and pandora's box is open. Like the advent of the mass produced automobile and the telephone, the very infrastructure of our world has changed. As we try to minister to the emerging culture we are realizing that we have to change the way we "do church" and that is fine. I mean, hey, we do not do Gregorian chants anymore and once we let the hippies come in with their guitars a few years ago, the church has not been made worse with contemporary music and we also survived the gift of the alter call given to us by the frontier revivalists.
Anyway, the very infrastructure of our world is changing. Landlines are swiftly becoming a thing of the past and cable television is on the tipping point of starting to lose relevance. The CD is on the verge of being replaced by digital downloads of music only. We cannot reverse the infrastructural changes occurring and that leaves us with the choice of using the technology or not using it. If one chooses not to embrace and utilize the technology available, that is a fine choice. No one says we have to. It may even be a wise choice, for it is when the church embraces technologies that we tend to screw the pooch and I will cover that in a part two to this post that has some deep concerns that I think you may share.
Okay Brent, welcome to part 2. As I have thought about your emails and my replies, a struggle I have had that I have not been able to express well has finally found words for me.
As I said about consumerism, the church seems to be imitative of culture as opposed to being a light on the hill and a salt to the earth that enhances and defines a culture. Not only do we imitate, but our quality is usually poor and even worse...our message sucks.
The technological advent of the printing press gave us the Bible right out of the gates. We done good there.
I am not sure what the history of Christian radio was in it's early days, but Christian Radio is at best, a 50/50 proposition right now. There is some good quality teaching out there on the radio, but there are also some very poor representations of Jesus out there that make me gag a little when I hear them talk and then pitch for cash.
Now let's get into television. This is where we are at our worst. I really do not think I need to elaborate on the obvious as to how bad Christian tv is for the mast majority.
Auto ministry...the Bus ministry was a fun little phase...mostly harmless and bad paint jobs on run down buses...but mostly harmless.
Movies. I once read a blog where Christian movies were compared to porn. Poor production values, bad dialog, made for a select crowd, and each has a money shot...one is conversion and the other is well...yeah.
So we tend to have a poor track record in how we present Jesus, and ourselves, using many of the technology tools already present and have not shown a propensity to learn lessons from our mistakes as shown through our embracing of consumerism and corporate values in the church.
I fear that our corner of the web has been less than glorious. Church websites look more like we are selling pepsi, viagra, and a social club than inviting people to a journey to discipleship. Our blogs mostly puff up ourselves as individuals with perspectives as opposed to lifting up Jesus and we plug our sermons and books and cd's more than we become salt and light. Now, there has been some good. I think that xxx church has been a trailblazer in doing something right. They not only provided a real ministry for a real need, but they offered solutions through quality accountability software and other things. There are also very informative sites and websites like biblegateway.com and free software programs like e-sword make quality bible translations and study tools available to all who have a computer at no cost.
There are other positive examples of technology being embraced and used in a positive manner, but the vast majority of churches and ministries are doing a very poor job and reflecting the wrong message. That needs to be repented of if we are going to use these tools.
I am glad you are embarrassed about your website. I am as well about mine. I hope other pastors repent of this and reconsider IF they should use these tools and how to better use them to reflect the right things and tell the right story.
Patrick,
I'm not ignoring your latest posts - I just haven't had time to write the reply they deserve.
Much of my thinking over the past few days (as it relates to this conversation) has to do with a theology of cultural relevance. I think how one defines and defends cultural relevance as a ministry philosophy will help determine how he/she responds to many of the questions we're raising here.
Hopefully I'll be posting more over the next day or so.
Take your time, my friend. I reflected and expounded on some of these thoughts at my blog at http://piratetopastor.blogsome.com . The specific post is at http://piratetopastor.blogsome.com/2009/11/10/humility-on-the-web-where-is-it-and-shall-i-repent/ . i dunno, it may add to the dynamic of the convo. :
ps feel free to poke around my blog if you are ever REALLY REALLY bored.
Patrick,
I've started another thread - perhaps that title better reflects our conversation and will entice a few others to join. Let's continue our conversation under the new heading.
Post a Comment
<< Home