Does technology undermine the Gospel?
I am really having a hard time with this ends/means debate. Two of the three examples I gave last week were, in my opinion, no-brainers:
No, we should not rejoice that Joel Osteen is reaching millions of people with his message. I have no doubt God can use Osteen's message to bring people to a real understanding of the Truth but, the fact is, Osteen preaches the anti-gospel: God exists to serve man.
And no, Halo is not a good idea even if it brings teens into the church. Since when was the beauty of Creation and the redemption of the soul so boring we needed a video game to attract a certain demographic?
The third -- the one about investing in water-saving technology a community desperately needed so a company could do business there -- is a bit tougher for me, but I'll save that one until next week because I thought Broun asked an interesting question about Halo that I think carries a lot of cultural significance: Why have we not thought or discussed critically "the embrace of technology as THE medium through which to communicate the solid truths of Scripture?"
The example shared last week described churches' use of Halo as a means to attract teens to fellowship where they can hear God's word. But the examples of technology being employed for ministry are pervasive and the utility of many is difficult to discern:
No, we should not rejoice that Joel Osteen is reaching millions of people with his message. I have no doubt God can use Osteen's message to bring people to a real understanding of the Truth but, the fact is, Osteen preaches the anti-gospel: God exists to serve man.
And no, Halo is not a good idea even if it brings teens into the church. Since when was the beauty of Creation and the redemption of the soul so boring we needed a video game to attract a certain demographic?
The third -- the one about investing in water-saving technology a community desperately needed so a company could do business there -- is a bit tougher for me, but I'll save that one until next week because I thought Broun asked an interesting question about Halo that I think carries a lot of cultural significance: Why have we not thought or discussed critically "the embrace of technology as THE medium through which to communicate the solid truths of Scripture?"
The example shared last week described churches' use of Halo as a means to attract teens to fellowship where they can hear God's word. But the examples of technology being employed for ministry are pervasive and the utility of many is difficult to discern:
- GodTube.com is the fastest growing website in America. The site is based heavily on concepts popularized by YouTube and Facebook but presented from a Christian point of view. The site has many videos of sermons, music, and other content screened by students at Dallas Theological Seminary and Chris Wyatt, GodTube's founder, highlights the fact that "GodTube users on Sunday mornings outnumber the congregation of the megachurch pastor Joel Osteen in Houston."
- Kiva.org is a virtual interface to connect would-be lenders to entrepreneurs across the world looking to work their way out of poverty. The site was created by a Christian at Stanford Graduate School of Business and currently features, among many others, a Samoan woman seeking a loan of $475 to repair her canoe and buy new fishing gear. Sixteen people from Hawaii to British Columbia have loaned the funds with repayment terms set for 18 months.
- Many churches -- including Mars Hill led by Mark Driscoll in Seattle, Bethlehem Baptist led by John Piper in Minneapolis, and The Village Church led by Matt Chandler in Dallas -- have begun videotaping their sermons and playing them during additional services to extend the church's ministry beyond what time, distance, or the church building's size would otherwise enable. On the Mars Hill website, Mark Driscoll explains that video services are a means to "humbly find ways use the opportunities that our culture would give us so that the person and work of Jesus could be known by as many people as possible" (interpreting 1 Corinthians 9:19-23).
Driscoll equates the use of technology today to Paul's means of engaging culture in 1 Corinthians 9 suggesting both have the same end: "that by all means, [we] might save some" (verse 22). He runs through a list of technological adaptations that have been adopted by churches throughout history -- including the pipe organ, air conditioning and heat, electricity and amplification -- that were often scandalous in their introduction but are now widely accepted.
So is technology a wise means to engage culture or are there aspects of some/all technology that fundamentally undermine the message of the Gospel?
posted by Matthew at 10:55 PM
7 Comments:
I would have to argue that there should be a distinction in how the technology is used. If Halo is used as an effort to draw kids in on a Friday night that wouldn't otherwise have anything to do with him personally, so that he or one of the Christian kids in the youth group can build trust so as to share the gospel, I think we call that evangelism. On the other hand, as Christians we shouldn't need a dangling carrot to pull us into Church for discipleship once we understand that the Creator of the world has offered us a relationship with Himself. That's where church from a laptop defeats half of the purpose of church. You may be getting your teaching, but you're missing out on your fellowship and accountability and maybe even communal worship. But when it comes to fishing for lost souls, I think we are to go about it like Paul in I Cor. 9:19-23 and "become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some."
I am not sure that "technology" itself is the undermining factor. It seems to me that the fundamental question in the past few blogs is the extent the church should be involved in secular culture. It is the classic divide between the sacred and profane. Should the church only be in the business of the sacred, worship, prayer, discipleship, good works etc...? Or should the church integrate itself into the ever evolving culture and if so to what extent? The Halo topic is a good example. Halo, in itself, has little to no redeeming value for its users. However, it seems as of late Christian leaders like Keller and Driscoll are pushing a central message that Christians should be engaging the profane areas of our culture and redeeming them for Christ. In the case of Halo, I think the church can engage this subculture without losing its authenticity. Halo should not be the selling point for churches but the medium by which the Church can communicate its message. As long as these activities are not replacing discipleship, bible studies, and accountability, I don’t see a problem with a Halo outreach. Other types of secular outreaches include Theology on Tap or Film and Theology discussions. Whether it is discussing the Gospel or theology over a pale ale or discussing cultural themes in secular movies and relating them to the Gospel or even killing aliens from another planet to build relationships, each uses a profane activity in hopes of redeeming that time for Christ. This begs the question of where the church should draw the line… I am not sure but I don’t think these cross that line.
I've been thinking about this a lot this week, and I think that when I finally translated the issue into something I'm more familiar with, I took a side. Let me know if the parallel is skewed.
Anyway, I compare this issue (using technology to get kids into church) to using a luxury to make friends. Everybody knew the nerdy kid who got the sweet new video game system from his parents for his birthday in hopes that he'd be able to gain some friends, albeit that they'd really just be interested in his sweet new toy! But there is the hope that eventually they'll see the nerdy kid for his good qualities, forget about using him for the video game, and make good friends.
Then I started thinking about what our parents would've said. They would've said (and rightly, I believe) for us to be ourselves and if others can't see that then that's their fault. But it's most important to stay true to who you are.
That said, I do believe outreach and such is very important for a church, but I can't help thinking that using Halo to lure kids in is causing the church to "lose it's true self" (i.e. sell-out). That's something that I don't think is right. While I'm sure there are dozens of kids that are getting saved after being brought in to church via Halo, God also saves many people despite the faults of those who God used to lead them to Christ.
All this to say, I don't agree with any kind of 'lure', if that's what it is, which includes hip-hop or punk praise music or whatever (unless hip-hop or punk music is the church's passion, not a lure or bit). I don't think God deals in bits, so I think the best thing we can do is keep things simple and stay true to who we are as believers...which of course most of the time is complete dorks :) So I'd base whatever technology is in question on that criteria. Are we losing our true self in doing this?
interesting article that I think somewhat applies: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11558438/
James Montgomery Boice was brilliant said that "what you woo them with, is what you win them to." I believe that's true most of the time. And that could be applied to technological stuff.
I think a better way to phrase the technology question is "do the means nullify the ends?" I don't think we can make a categorical determination about video sermons, internet lending, or online videos, but they do seem to have one thing in common: they justify the absence of the material for the spiritual.
This is not about sacred vs. profane if each is defined spiritually. This is about the physical and spiritual connections technology enables or impedes. It certainly enables a reach that goes beyond what would be physically possible, but does the absence of personal presence undermine the Gospel?
Halo is a different discussion so consider the others first: video sermons, internet lending, and online videos. Is there any difference between going to church and watching the sermon on a screen vs. seeing a physical pastor? Does it perpetuate the priority of the spiritual over the physical and, if so, is that fundamentally inconsistent with the Gospel? Does this blog do the same?
Is there a difference between sending a Samoan woman money for new fishing gear and giving it to her in person?
Is there a difference in proclaiming the Gospel in an online video and proclaiming it in person?
Matt,
I think you have identified the core issue here: 'spirituality' vs. 'physicality'. I believe this is a false dichotomy that is more influential to most conservative evangelical Christians than almost anything else (maybe consumerism, individualism, etc?). The popular Christian books call this Gnosticism, and it goes by plenty of other names in the seminaries and universities which we won't get into. But at its core, one of Gnosticism's main beliefs is a priority (and superiority) of all things 'spiritual' over all things physical. Physicality is bad, what we need is to gain some sort of 'special knowledge' (gnosis) that can free our trapped souls from the prison of the physical world. That is salvation.
The problem with video sermons, blogs, and much other 'technology' that is common in the church is that i think it promotes this view, albeit very subtly. Christianity is an embodied religion. Christianity is not concerned with the spiritual over the physical, it is concerned with the spiritual and the physical. Three doctrines are important here: Creation, Incarnation, and Resurrection. If you think about the implications of these three (and there are more) on the Gnostic world view, you will see that they are completely incompatible. Unfortunately, most of us do not have any idea how the doctrines of Creation, Incarnation, and Resurrection have anything to do with a validation of the physical world by God as 'good', indeed, 'very good'.
So what about video sermons and blogs? Can they be 'used for good'? Probably. But that's not the point. God can and does use anything for good. The question is, what is the most consistent with the Gospel? How would God have us work in the world?
I would like the dude to elucidate more on how maybe specific technologies contribute to a subtle gnosticism but i think i agree pretty handedly with him. Maybe part of our misconception is thinking everything can be transferrable across all forms/contexts of media without losing any of the signifigance.
I have particular bone to pick with Television mostly because all the evangelical leaders have uncritically embraced television as the greatest way to reach the greatest number of people. Just as you can't communicate high philosophy using smoke signals i think fundamentally with TV's biases to entertainment, the momentary, and sole imagery cannot in any responsible way communicate the depths of the gospel.
I don't want to sound alarmist but i feel more like accepting all forms of technology falls more in line with the spirit of modernism than the gospel.
Post a Comment
<< Home