Note: Click here to follow the rest of the blog tour on this chapter.
John opens up chapter 1 by dealing with a truth that most of us fail to realize – we are all heavy technology users. HE illustrates his own discovery of this truth through a story of his time as a youth pastor. He was at a Bible Church, and so needed to (rightly) make sure the students were fluent in the Bible. What he discovered, however, was that his students weren’t bringing Bibles with them to the group. In response, he switched to projecting the Scripture on a screen – with highlights and such to make the text more accessible. To John’s chagrin, he found that once the Scripture was projected on the screen even the students who brought their Bibles with them to group stopped opening them. Instead, they would listen, and read, along with the rest of the group. John felt like a failure, almost like he had reduced the importance of the Bible for his students. I have to confess, as I read his account I was cheering that his students had been enabled to read the Bible in a way that more closely approximated the way the Scripture was originally meant to be experienced – audibly and communally. He himself discovered this as it began to dawn on him that the possibility of a owning personal Bible has only been real for a few decades, and the possibility of a family Bible only came into existence in the wake of the Gutenberg press several centuries ago. The truth is, for over a thousand years the way Christians experienced the Bible was in community, and with their ears as it was read among the faithful. As much as we might want to bemoan how projecting the word of God on a screen led students to open their personal Bibles less, we need to accept that technology (cheap printing and binding) had changed the way we experienced the Bible long before digital projection came about. In fact, it would be my contention the shift towards the communal experience afforded by a projector have some benefits in the way we read Scripture together. John puts it well, “By transitioning from print to projector, we had moved forward technologically and yet backward culturally.” This summation fits my ancient-future bent well – my goal in utilizing technology in Christian ministry is always to tie us back into the centuries old story of the Body of Christ.
Why, however, had John failed to see the technologies used in our “ordinary” experience of God’s word? To explain this he leans on Neil Postman, Arthur C. Clarke, and Douglas Adams – essentially, he had a different “myth” surrounding technological innovation. The “myth” is what each successive generation of people sees as “normal.” As I see it, the “myth” of technology are the blind spots we inherit simply by being born in a given time. John picks up a technological interpretation from Douglas Adams which claims that any technology already in existence when we are born is automatically accepted as “normal.” For John, in his youth pastor example, the technology that was so “normal” that it had ceased to be perceived as technology at all was the printed page. Adams further continues his technological interpretation by claiming that any technology that is developed in the period from birth to the time we are thirty (never trust anyone over thirty) is viewed as exciting. Again, in John’s example, the “exciting” technology was the digital projector. Finally Adam’s claimed that anything invented after we turned thirty is perceived as begin against the natural order of things. John’s earlier example can’t speak to this, but as I read this I couldn’t help but reflect on my own annoyance at the push towards 3D everything in popular culture!
John points out, correctly I believe, that the shift in the ways we perceive technology is something we need to be aware of – especially given how rapidly technology development is progressing in our current age. Christians cannot afford to either blindly embrace or obtusely reject new technological developments. Rather, technology is always a “yellow light.” It requires us to use caution, while embracing the possibility that a way will open to move forward into the change. I appreciate his perspective – technology is always transformative, and the technologies we fail to actually see are usually the ones which are transforming our perspectives the most.
Painfully Hopeful 
Nice job. I don’t mind the “yellow light” idea: but my question would be, what would the resulting action of caution be?
One idea would be “stop using the projector.” But the kids will get the projector in 12 other places: school, camps, other churches. The effect of the projector is likely to happen anyway. From this view, it seems like it’s not entirely possible to slow down or stop things.
So then what? 🙂
Chris, I’m not sure I quite understand the premise of the question. Why does the yellow light have to have a binary response of on/off? A yellow light means, “Proceed…with caution.” I take it this way, we are communicators in this culture – and so we will have to find a way to “proceed” with it changes in the forms of communication – while keeping an eye on what the consequences of taking up those tools will have (both intended/unintended and positive/negative). This is going to look different from community to community, from denomination to denomination, and even from Tradition to Tradition. Matt, who posted below, brought up an excellent example of how his Communion has handled the reality of technological communications. In the Orthodox tradition, technological enhancements are seen as invasive to the unity of the liturgy – and so are kept at arm’s length (and, I have to smile, “personal Bibles” are included in that). The Orthodox communion, however, is perhaps the most saavy Communion that I know of when it comes to utilizing “new media.” Their priest do some excellent blogs and podcasts (which Matt shares with me frequently – though he’s been a bit lax lately!) – which utilize something familiar, often to explain something realize is perceived as alien by the surrounding culture. They are, in actuality, a benchmark that I keep an eye on. In fact, I’ve had Roman Catholic priests tell me they need to start doing what I’m doing with the projector in worship and I all but beg them not too!
In my context, however, I end up in a slightly different reality. We have no tradition of liturgy, or even of connectedness to the wider story of Body of Christ. So, in order to help people become exposed to some wider elements of the Christian tradition I actually project things on a screen. I realize this changes the nature of our worship, and so I’m very careful that it not be “just another gimmick,” but is deliberately used to tie us more tightly into the wider Church.
“John’s earlier example can’t speak to this, but as I read this I couldn’t help but reflect on my own annoyance at the push towards 3D everything in popular culture!”
That’s not because you’re past 30…that’s because the push toward 3D everything is stupid and will, in all likelihood, burn itself out in less than 5 years.
Chris: I don’t think the concern is that the technology *itself* is bad, as if we should shy away from “dangerous” technologies. It’s rather that, like I’ve been told the Amish do, we should incorporate technology into our lives *carefully*. Before just blindly lapping up the newest thing to wash up, we should consider how the use of this technology will effect us and the ways in which we encounter God, each other, and the world as a whole and what trade-offs we will encounter.
As to “what do we do”, I’d look at my own Church. If you walk into an Orthodox church building, the most conspicuous technology you’re likely to see is electric lights. Our choir director brought in a keyboard to hook up to earphones to use to help keep the choir on pitch; the keyboard wouldn’t be heard by the rest of the church. It still required a bit of give-and-take with the priest to get permission to use it. We still do not announce the readings in any more detail than “The Letter of St. Paul to the Romans” (i.e., no, “We’ll begin reading at Romans 12:3”), and I’ve not seen anybody carrying a personal Bible. Much *less* would you see a projector anywhere. (Our priest did recently add a sound system to make it easier to hear the service, and we have a camera piping the service down to the nursery for those of us who have to step out from time to time with kids.)
But, then, the Orthodox have a pretty decent presence online. There’s a whole site dedicated to producing podcasts done by Orthodox clergy and laity. Some priests run blogs. Even monasteries maintain websites. Orthodox clergy and laity are encourage to read the Bible on their own. While hand-painted icons are obviously preferred, we still also accept printed copies of icons as legitimate icons.
I use that example because it is one which I have personally experienced. Of course, there are smaller examples: the various “slow [whatever]” movements essentially eschew certain technologies and conveniences with the idea that the things lost are more important than the convenience the technology offers on.
And, of course, even the Amish admit they need phones. Of course, they put them outside of their barns.. but they do have them…
I dug the yellow light perspective, too.