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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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