When the Medium Shapes the Message

Whatever technological medium is used to convey a message inevitably becomes part of that message, sends a message, and shapes that message.

I want to believe (and still try to insist) that technology is morally neutral, and that it's what we do with it that allows it to be used for good or evil.  But at the same time, I realize that embedded within that is a subtle reality that the moment we encode any form of communication into a specific medium, that medium inevitably shapes the message.  For example, how many of us have met plenty of people who are absolutely convinced that the Bible is - and has always been - in printed form, in 1600's Shakespearean English, and who can't conceive of the possibility that there was a time when the Word of God was a voice, etched in stone, then a living Person, later encapsulated into a set of scrolls, and now today in bound print form.  Many parishioners today also struggle to understand how the Word might be online or in a smartphone app with hypertext and multiple translations.  The words are familiar, but the form has changed, and so it makes many churchgoers uneasy.  In my line of work with educational hypermedia and digital church contexts, I enjoy seeing the Word of God transmediated into video form or immersive media, but I have seen plenty of pushback from ardent followers who can’t stand the possibility that online and digital forms could be every bit the Word of God as a bound, printed Bible in 400-year-old English.   

 

Don't believe me?  Try removing the Word from the context of a Bible in print form in the typical Midwestern Protestant church in the U.S. and see what happens!  Check out how differently a live discourse by Jesus might come across to a first-century audience on a hillside than it does to us today as written text in a printed, bound book.  Try suggesting (or reading from) a newer translation of those words into the colloquial expressions of today's English and watch the sparks fly!  Or try re-rendering the Bible in its original form (letter, scroll, etc.)... 

 

One time awhile back a church I was pastoring was doing a terrible job at living out the teachings of the New Testament (it wasn't for lack of biblical knowledge, though, as they had one of the highest participation rates I've ever seen for adult Sunday School and evening Bible studies; they just weren't "getting" it and living it; they were good at telling others how to live, but didn't do well at aligning their own lives to it).  So I took a couple of chapters from one of the N.T. letters (James 2 & 3) about favoritism, quarrels & disputes, prejudice, and the need to put others' needs above our own (the stuff we were having a problem with) from a modern colloquial translation, printed them off onto regular paper in a handwriting font, crumpled it up and re-smoothed it a few times to make it look well-read, and folded it up into an airmail envelope...and then I introduced it by saying, "Friends, we've received a letter from one of our missionaries who's been serving faithfully overseas but has heard of some of our challenges, and he took the time to write us and share some advice about how to live out the teachings of Christ amidst the struggles we're facing."  And then I pulled out the crumpled "letter" and read it. 

You could have heard a pin drop.  It was poignant, personal, and convicting...one of the hardest-hitting messages I've "preached."  The missionary obviously knew our situations and people and saw through our pretenses and went straight to the heart of the matter.  A couple of our dearest and most mature saints smiled when they realized what I was doing, but most were in deep thought, perplexed, sullen, or even angry.  Some were furious afterwards, and a couple of them challenged me on it and said, "How dare you read anything from the pulpit other than the Word of God," and one even threatened to call my District Superintendent and report me for this "heresy"!   

So that night I explained that what I had read WAS the Word of God, the missionary was none other than the biblical James, and you've got that "letter" in your Bible (and I had them turn there to see it for themselves and pulled out my crumpled letter and read parts of it to compare).  The problem, I explained, is that we've gotten so comfortable with the printed text form of our Bible that we're not hearing it like it was originally written...to a church just like ours, from a missionary (just like those we support), about real issues and challenges we're facing in the life of the church and in living out Christ's teachings.  The way I read that was exactly how James sent it; it wasn’t until many centuries later that his encyclical was gathered and bound with other Scripture into a printed volume.  Hearing it that way, it became very real to you, didn't it? 

I remember my Greek professor, Gordon Dutile, telling stories about reactions he had received from church folks when he read Scripture.  He was fluent enough in the original languages of the New Testament that he didn't preach from a modern translation but would instead read directly from his Greek New Testament, translating as he read.  He shared stories, though, of many times when parishioners asked him what translation he was reading from or challenged him, claiming that what he read couldn't have been the Word of God because it wasn't in the familiar translation they grew up with.  Once someone even questioned its validity because it had a burgundy hard leatherette binding instead of black leather.

It reminds me of this parody video I enjoy which re-creates what it might have been like to introduce bound print volumes to Medieval-era monks who were used to papyrus scrolls:

As hilarious and implausible as that might seem, having spent two decades implementing new technologies in educational and ministry contexts, I can relate quite well; I have had many conversations with people that went much like that!

And a big part of the problem is that we presume that new forms of media must follow the same norms and conventions as the familiar ones we have grown accustomed to, which inevitably limits our ability to embrace the features that make the new media format an improvement.  And in so doing, often we struggle to make the conceptual leap behind how it's an "improvement" because we have only seen and appreciated the former medium.

Maybe we need to stop dissecting the Bible as set of propositional truths for teaching (and for telling other people how to live) and instead read it the way it was originally delivered, as the Word of God to us on how we're supposed to live as a body of Christ...in the form and language that best communicates with our heart?!! 

Bored Naysayers

The arrival of 2015 brought with it a deluge of articles from a variety of  news outlets, all acknowledging that Back to the Future II was set in 2015 and then critiquing all of the things which didn’t come to pass as imagined.  Unfortunately, most of these articles are are misguided in their facts - about both the movie and technology - and are overly critical.  So as a die-hard Back to the Future fan who graduated that magical year (1989), allow me to counter their shortsightedness.

First, it’s not Oct. 21st (the date in the “future” when Marty McFly arrived), so these articles' criticisms are 9 months premature.  With technology innovation, that timeframe is like eons.

Second, we DO already have many of these technologies:

• Video calling (through Skype, FaceTime, and a variety of cloud-based webconferencing systems) are fairly common now, as well as card-based financial access like Marty used in his call from Needles.
• No, we don’t have flying cars in common usage…yet, and no, our cars don’t all have angled designs modeled after a Lamborghini on steroids.  That looked cool and “futuristic” in 1989 but it turns out it’s not that aerodynamic.  However, flying cars do exist: Check out the AeroMobile and the Terrafugia Transition.  It may be a few years before they’re practical and their usage is widespread, but B2TF wasn’t too far off.
• No, we can’t hydrate a pizza in 30 seconds…yet, and such machines aren’t in common circulation.  But all of the technology involved already exists; we can dehydrate and rehydrate food efficiently both on planet Earth and with lightweight space food for astronauts. It just isn’t that practical or lucrative of an idea. 

There are also many more of B2TF’s technologies which currently exist or are in beta stages, just not in widespread usage yet:

• A prototype of self-tying power shoes has been developed and its inventor is actively trying to get them to market: http://youtu.be/k_Efr2TaEPo
• Hoverboards do exist…sort of.  Two models have been proposed and working prototypes of them are in circulation (one is even trying to release them by the Oct. 21st date).  I’m not impressed with either; their inventors struggled with some very obvious practicality issues and I don’t think either of the current solutions reflect B2TF’s design intent at all, but I am certain my kids will get to enjoy something very similar to Marty’s hoverboard within my lifetime.
• Robots filling your car up at a fuel station may be non-existent, but we have robots in active use now for nearly all repetitive tasks, from vaccuming your floor to milking a cow to machining a car or laptop.  And let’s not forget the electric cars with inductive charging stations like the Tesla which make B2TF’s depiction seem archaic compared to what we have now.  It’s not that we can’t, it’s that in general the public is simply not ready for trusting their car fueling to a machine…yet (but we’re getting closer to it since we have no problem paying at the pump with automated systems).
• We also don’t quite have an indoor garden center fruit dispenser.  But with all of the advances in hydroponics as well as the 4x4 gardening movement, it’s only a matter of time before something along these lines becomes a practical reality.

The two things they didn’t get “right” were Jaws 19 and the Cubs winning the World Series.  But keep in mind, these supposed “predictions” were satire anyway: Nobody wants to see 16 more editions of that movie; we’ve long since moved on to piranhas, anacondas, and vampires.  And the Cubs winning a World Series?  Well, as this article suggests, don’t give up just yet; what seemed impossible in 1989 isn’t out of the realm of possibility.

So what on earth does this have to do with church communication?  Church folk are notorious for being bored naysayers, criticizing every new idea, approach, and innovation.  And most of the time, we don’t have our facts straight nor even take the time to understand what’s really being proposed before we shoot it down.  In so doing, we make a cynical media seem lame in its debunking of ideas.

An irrelevant but well-timed question or a critical and skeptical groan from a respected board member can kill a Spirit-inspired idea before it even has a chance at consideration.  Much of the science fiction I read as a kid has become today’s technology, and I continually admire those thinkers of the past whose revolutionary ideas seemed preposterous back then and now are commonplace.  As my mentor pastor Jess Gibson often said, “He that says it can’t be done should not interrupt the one who’s actually doing it.”

Creativity and innovation are gifts from God which reflect His character and He delights in it.  Negativity and criticism are foreign to God’s personality and anathema to His character.  Therefore, use your words carefully (Matthew 12:36-37); take care to ensure that you're encouraging your pastor and church leaders as they explore innovative ideas to solve tomorrow's challenges.