Technology and the Emerging Church<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
A discussion between Tony Jones and Sean McDowell
 
(An installment of the column "Sparks: Iron Sharpens Iron" appearing in
The Journal of Student Ministries)
www.thejournalofstudentministries.com
 
Sean:
There's been a lot of talk recently about the dangers of MySpace, the hazards of Internet pornography, and concern about how technology can isolate people. As important as these issues are, I want to address a more foundational issue that often gets overlooked: Is the use of technology appropriate for building God's Kingdom?
Few people realize that technology is not neutral. Technology often shapes our values and behavior. Philosopher Doug Groothius put it this way: "Every technological medium affects the message it contains. No medium is an empty shelf for content…. The medium always shapes the message decisively."
One way technology has shaped ministry is the focus on entertainment. To keep young people's attention we have cutting-edge videos and flashy PowerPoint presentations. I often wonder if in our desire not to bore a teenager with the Gospel we fail to communicate it effectively. Does our use of technology influence the message (or at least the perception of it)?
Christianity has always been a movement of the written and spoken word. Jesus is the incarnate Word and Scripture is the written word. This is why the church has historically put such a high emphasis on teaching people to be good readers and thinkers. In contrast, we often use technology in our youth ministries that emphasizes image and emotion at the expense of rational thought. In our image-oriented culture, it's more important than ever to train young people in the skills of critical thinking so they aren't "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men" (Ephesians 4:14).
Tony, I'm not in favor of moving our kids to the woods to avoid the perils of technology. However, I am concerned how we so often uncritically embrace the most recent technological invention without theological reflection. We can do better.
 
Tony:
We're in accord here. I've written elsewhere about my frustration with the church's uncritical acceptance of every new technology that comes along. But, we might differ a bit, too. Let me explain.
Words are a "technology." So are pens, paper, printing presses, etc. Most of us Protestants would cheer for the printing press and say it made the Reformation possible: it took the Bible out of the hands of the clergy and put it-for the first time ever-into the hands of the everyday Christian.
But the publication of the Bible has led to some abuses, too. For one thing, since it's a book in the public domain, every publisher in the world can take a crack at making a buck on it (Announcing the All-New "Midwest Teenagers with Blonde Highlights Study Bible!").
It's also led to "reader-response" criticism. That's what happens in your small group when you haven't prepared adequately, so you just go around the room and have everyone say "what the passage means to me." When tied to a political agenda, this waters down the potency of the Scripture and has led theologian Stanley Hauerwas to declare that American Christians should have their Bibles taken away. Only those who've undergone discipleship, Hauerwas says, should be allowed to read the Bible.
Technology is not neutral, Sean. You're right. Printing presses change the message, as do microphones. So does HTML, so does a magazine (like this one!). As church leaders, we should be very careful about adopting innovations, for each one carries with it a host of inherent values.
In fact, that's why we don't use microphones at Solomon's Porch: because mics imply that one person's voice deserves to be amplified above all the rest.
 
Sean:
Here's an interesting question to ask, Tony: "Would Jesus use a microphone if he were physically on earth today?" It seems to me that he would. He used technology to amplify his voice above others (speaking on a boat in water, or on an incline).
The intent of a microphone is to allow people to hear better, not to baptize them with improper authority or control. Certainly some people have misused it this way, but that is not its purpose or necessary outcome.
The Bible makes it clear that some people do deserve to have their voices heard more loudly than others. This doesn't mean they are more important, but that they've been recognized by the Christian community for their gifting and training. It's their humble contribution to the body of Christ.
Paul says, "He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:11-12). Such leaders need an amplified voice, according to Paul, to keep us from falling into deception.
Tony, don't you use a microphone when you speak to larger groups? Writing books and being a national spokesperson for <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Emergent Village gives you a prominent voice. Why should your voice be amplified above the rest?
 
Tony:
Yes, of course I use a mic. But again, I'm not saying that we should avoid technology. I'm saying that we shouldn't be naïve about it. You say, "the intent of a microphone is to allow people to hear better," but I think that borders on the naïve, Sean. No technology, including a microphone, is neutral, as you said above. It has all sorts of hidden power-power that we do best to acknowledge and not ignore.
Like it or not, when someone walks into a church and sees the dude up front with a headset mic, covered in spotlights, and projected onto a jumbotron, it sends a significant message about whose voice is most valued in that building.
While Paul does indeed indicate that different persons have different gifts, he says nothing about amplification, about whose books should get published, about who should be invited onto Larry King Live. And there's no doubt that you and I would like to take the microphone away from some Christian "leaders" today.
The good news, as far as I'm concerned, is that the advent of the "new media" is flattening the lines of communication. I think it's great that anyone can blog, post a video on YouTube, or upload a podcast on iTunes. I'm confident that we'll find all sorts of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers who wouldn't have otherwise been given the mic.
 
Sean:
I think you've contradicted yourself, Tony. In your first response you quote Hauerwas in saying that Americans should have their Bibles taken away until they have undergone discipleship (for fear of abuse). But in your later response you say it's a good thing that everyone can podcast, blog, etc. Which is it?
Here is my ultimate concern: Are you implying that all voices are equal? While the Bible may not say anything overtly about amplification, it has a lot to say about authority. Hebrews 13:7 says, "Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you." We are clearly encouraged to listen to those in authority. Didn't the early church devote themselves to the apostles' teaching?
Ultimately, I agree that it is a good thing for the lines of communication to be flattened. The concern, of course, is that people without the training and gifting have an equal voice to those who do.
 
Tony:
Sean, red flags go up for me when I hear words like "gifting" and "training" and "authority" bandied around in church circles. For too long, it's meant that people like you and me (white, affluent, male, educated) have gotten the mic, to the exclusion of others. Yes, I think it's a great thing that those voices that have been marginalized for thousands of years are now getting amplified.
And I wasn't agreeing with Hauerwas's conclusion, but with his condemnation of biblical literacy in America. We all need to work against that, and to encourage people to really immerse themselves in the Bible. That will happen, I believe, if we (as Christian "leaders") affirm their voices. If we continue to claim the exclusive right to interpret the Scripture, that will have a chilling effect on people actually reading the Bible.
Speaking of the Bible, we're going to get biblical next issue when we discuss the relationship between Law and Gospel.