Message over method?
I’ve lived most of my professional career operating under the following guideline:
‘Our methods may change, but our message never will.’
It really sounds good doesn’t it? Being able to say with conviction that we’ll use exciting new methods while keeping our theological heritage intact. It’s a great way to say something we all think.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t make it true.
How’s this for a response to the guideline from McLuhan (widely regarded as the most influential media theorist):
“Our conventional response to all media, namely that it is how they are used that counts, is the numb stance of the technological idiot.”
Wow, that kinda stings. Or how about this one:
“The content or message of any particular medium has about as much importance as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb.”
Kinda shoots the whole message over method thing in the foot doesn’t it?
So if we are to believe McLuhan, what does this mean for our use of media in the church? What does this mean for video preaching and multiple venues?
Have we even considered the possibilities?
More on McLuhan and this method/message tension to come, but I thought this was a good place to start the discussion.
Dr James Victor Webb Says:
The key phrase that can open up a debate here is: “widely regarded as the most influential media theorist”. How is this determined? Regarded by exactly whom? I don’t know who this guy is at all but I don’t agree at all with his statements.
I have no facts to back up what I would question but – IF he is highly regarded as the most influential BY the majority of religious factions that are also the majority of who fail to reach the un-churched, the lost, the youth of today, the ones who don’t have a personal relationship with Christ, then include me in on the few that are not impressed with his resume. Not much love in his statements either is there.
If he is a highly regarded media guru or spin doctor of media presentation, making this statement is absolutely absurd. If that were true lets see him go to any church/elementary school even and get everyone fired up on the subject of “probabilities and statistics”. He is suggesting any story is a blockbuster movie if the media is used well. His suggestion renders raw human emotion and spirituality as real as bigfoot. Does he really suggest that technology reigns supreme and artistry is the styrofoam peanuts of the package??
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 2:44 PM
Burris Says:
I personally think stripped down anything is where it counts. If the message sucks…whats the point in polishing that turd. If the message is wonderful, why fancy it up. I believe this for clothing, music especially, religion, and hair cuts.
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 5:21 PM
Tracy Says:
Sometimes it appears that you are trying to defend what you do (using exciting new methods to spread the message).
Why?
As long as your message is successful in leading people to Christ,what does it matter what people think?
Some churches still use the King James translation of the Bible. It works for them, fine. Others use a newer translation. As long as the translation does not change the message, that’s also fine.
Younger people respond to different teaching methods. As long as the message doesn’t get lost in the spectacle (and that is not critism),this is a very good thing.
Tracy
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 6:44 PM
Brian Says:
Vic, I think you’re missing part of the theory here, artistry is part of the method. It’s not simply the mechanism, but also how you use the mechanism that becomes the method.
McLuhan isn’t religious by any stretch. Every advertiser in the world has read his books, they are pretty much the foundation for the modern media. He may be wrong, but it’s hard to argue when so much of what he’s said proves true in practice.
Here’s the link for him in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLuhan
Thanks for the response though, I need other to help me think through whether or not I agree with this stuff. It’s always helpful to figure it out together!
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 8:33 PM
Brian Says:
Tracy, I’m not trying to defend what I am doing, rather I’m wrestling with whether or not what I am doing is appropriate.
I don’t agree with your premise here, which more or less states that the ends (a person coming to Christ) justifies the means (whatever we do to make that happen). I can hold a gun to someone’s head and they might profess Christ, but that likely isn’t a genuine conversion. How do I know for sure that what I’m doing is leading people to a genuine experience of God rather than just an emotion experience of something they think is God? These are the questions with which I try to wrestle.
Unfortunately, every translation changes the message as well…maybe not a lot, or significantly, but the words are definitely not the same.
I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, but I do like it when others can help me refine my thoughts and positions.
I agree that younger people respond to different methods, and what McLuhan is saying is that your message changes whether you like it or not whenever you change the method.
I appreciate your heart here though. It truly is all about reaching people.
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 8:40 PM
Denny Says:
Great thoughts to wrestle with Brian! I did the same thing when I read Mclaren’s book on media and he used a lot of McLuhan’s theories on media and Christianity. I really want to get hold of his book and read it as well, not just someones interpretation of what he said.
I did wrestle with the media and method changing simultaneously, and it does. The early modern church changed with the onset of the printed bible. The message change went from God being an impersonal being to a personal God. The media revolution with tv and radio brought God into the homes of the masses and the message became portable and God became not only personable but the message was accessible at home. With the media revolution God has become personal but relational and communal.
Did we all of the sudden accept multiple ways to God or loose other key concepts of scripture? no. We just changed the way that we understand God. Jesus changed the way that scripture was understood to the people of Israel by relating stories to people. His message all of the sudden became translatable to everyone not just the jews. So the message changed at that point. It became less about the exclusive Jewish religion of God and the chosen people, and more about the inclusive message of redemption for all nations.
The emotional experience vs genuine worship is something I think we’ll wrestle with as a church body forever. Some churches are all about the emotive or the ‘experience’ and some churches are all about the numbers, some are all about creating relationships and others still about conversions. Are any of them biblically wrong? not necessarily, most are aimed at people on a journey and each persons wiring and experience of God.
Ok this makes me want to hash back into a blog ive been forming for a few months
Posted on February 9th, 2010 at 9:21 PM
Dr James Victor Webb Says:
Maybe I am missing part of the theory here. It certainly sounds like he’s saying content means nothing and that from nothing you can make something with the right media technology. While you can’t argue that completely, the fact is, the technology and the media is nothing but a paint brush that when used to express good content, a masterpiece is created. If this guy were a master painter, he would be Jackson Pollack. Myself, I would prefer a Rembrandt. I wouldn’t struggle with what this guy says much if I were you. What is God saying to you on the matter?
Posted on February 10th, 2010 at 12:17 PM
Dr James Victor Webb Says:
I think I see something else to consider here.
I have seen this book from 1915 which is a book of modern science marvels. One chapter of this book featured a huge sea monster that washed ashore in Mexico. There were pictures with the author posing as he stood next to the beast. No one had ever seen anything like it and they just knew it was some monster that swam up from the uncharted depths of the sea. The book left it at that.
It was a whale shark. My point is, this guy died in 1980. He didn’t even know what media is. He may have been the expert in 1979. He should have known good content however. My point is, either can stand on it’s own in mediocrity. A true masterpiece happens with a marriage of the two. This guy is about as valid as an expert today today as “The Who” is at delivering a solid live performance. That Superbowl stage and light show was bad ass!. The show overall was sad and very underwhelming. Maybe I’m still missing the point.
Posted on February 10th, 2010 at 12:42 PM
kevin Says:
I typed up a nice long comment for you, but then Firefox deleted it when I went to submit. So I’ll just summarize with a commendation for studying McLuhan and for taking seriously the influential theorists of our age.
Posted on February 15th, 2010 at 4:51 PM
Tracy Says:
Brian, I read what Denny wrote an think he’s bringing up valid points.
The problem *I* have with churches that are big on theatrics is that I wonder whether or not the response generated is emotional or intellectual.
And that begs the question: are emotional responses to the message of salvation as genuine as responses based on the intellectual realization that one needs Christ for salvation?
This is just a thought starter: I welcome your response.
Posted on February 15th, 2010 at 11:02 PM
Dan Says:
Brian,
Great questions to consider. I appreciate the input of all of the others as well, though I’m joining this thread late. But I have to jump in with a few quick thoughts.
In my understanding of McLuhan’s theories, the medium is more than technology. It’s the storyteller around the fire, the priest in pre-reformation church, the pastor in the pulpit, the website and technology of this blog. His over-quoted mantra was that “The Medium is the Message”. But more to the point, the medium influences the message. This is what I take from McLuhan.
Hypothetically, my message might be “My resignation.” But in fact the perceived message is different if I use the medium of Twitter instead of a face to face meeting with my boss. I don’t replace his word “medium” with media but with the word, “how”.
I also believe that McLuhan distinguishes messages received from messages sent. So, I may say, “I’ll do that first thing, tomorrow, Honey.” because that is my earliest opportunity. My wife hears “Other things are more important and he’ll do it later.”
Lastly, McLuhan goes too far at times, I think. His second quote from Brian is an example:
“The content or message of any particular medium has about as much importance as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb.”
The core message does matter. Story is important. And ultimately, God’s love and salvation for us – demonstrated in Christ is the core powerful message that matters. I disagree with McLuhan’s apparent implication that the medium trumps this message.
So, the message from McLuhan for me is that the medium really matters and it can affect the message – at least the way the message is received.
Peace.
Posted on March 1st, 2010 at 12:58 PM