the tindog coffeehouse

This is Part 8 of my chapter-by-chapter blog of From the Garden to the City: The Redeeming and Corrupting Power of Technology by John Dyer.

We’ve talked at length about both the “redeeming” and “corrupting” potential of technology and concluded that it’s not neutral; as it changes, we’re changed as well. How we view technology, then, becomes a critical question. Do we view it through the filter of instrumentalism, the idea that the tools themselves are neutral and it’s only the usage that’s not? Or do we approach it from the side of determinism, the belief that the progress of technology is an “unstoppable power” that “operates independently of human choices”?

For the Church, that’s not an easy question. Yet, if technology is defined as “the human activity of using tools to transform God’s creation for practical purposes”, then it would seem as though the choice of which tools the Church uses is absolutely critical.

Mediums.

We started out this discussion with a central question: How does the Church respond to technological changes in society, particularly as it relates to the Internet and social media? Does it embrace this technology, seeing it as a way to relate to the world around us, or does it reject it because of its corruptive powers? Or perhaps it’s somewhere in between.

Clearly with any communication technology, the message is of upmost importance. And I think it’s fair to say that for the Church that message still is and should always be that of the Gospel. But it’s not just the words we say but how we say them that makes a difference. Therefore, we have to consider the medium.

The Internet and social media have created whole new mediums through which we can communicate, and although many churches have begun using social media to some degree or another, it hasn’t been without a struggle. Why is that?

Formality. Churches are traditionally traditional. They are often formal, rigid institutions that practice a formal, rigid ideology. And that formality doesn’t always work in a dynamic, always-connected, über-social culture like ours. As Dyer explains:

In general, more advanced communication technology requires fewer steps and, therefore, there are fewer social conventions required for its use. When there are more built-in social conventions around using a medium, we tend to treat it more formally and what we communicate tends to be more significant (as in writing a letter). Conversely, when a newer technology removes the need for these social conventions, it also removes the sense of formality (as in a text message).

Further complicating matters, different social platforms have different usage conventions. Twitter, for example, limits tweets to 140 characters, including hyperlinks. Then there are the “@” replies, retweets, and hashtags. And up until recently you had to host any photos on a separate service like Flickr or Instragram and use your own URL-shortener such as bit.ly. None of those conventions exist in Facebook, which explains why so many people who are extremely comfortable with Facebook still don’t “get” Twitter. In order to use it effectively, you have to speak its language.

And of course, that language is constantly changing. Twitter today looks nothing like it did three years ago, and three years from now it’ll be completely different than it is today. The same with Facebook, Google+, and every other platform out there. So it’s not just enough to learn the various social “languages” of the Internet, you have to be adapt as those languages evolve. My very first real Bible, for example, was a King James Version, a translation that’s been around for 400 years. It’s extremely formal, and frankly I’m not sure how anyone alive today can make heads or tails of it. Why? Because the English language has changed since then. A lot. Thankfully, today more modern translations like the NIV and NLT are available, but if those weren’t an option, I think a lot of Christians would have a really hard time understanding the Bible.

The Church, therefore, has to be able to adapt to the ever-changing, informal nature of the Internet, including the ever-changing social conventions of its different platforms, but it has to do so while still maintaining its core identity and ideology. It has to be current and relevant and modern without giving up 2,000 years of tradition. Simple, right?

Difficulty. The more labor-intensive and costly it is to communicate, the more weight those words will carry. I read somewhere that if you want to get a politician’s attention about an issue, there’s a certain hierarchy to contacting them. An in-person visit is the equivalent of so many written letters. A written letter is worth so many phone calls. A phone call is worth so many emails. And an email is worth so many Facebook posts/tweets/etc. The more time and effort something takes to communicate, the more costly it is and therefore the more valuable. If talk is cheap, then tweets are practically worthless.

The Church is used to dealing in slow, labor-intensive communication methods, and it often still has the mindset that that’s the only way to communicate. After all, this is God’s Word we’re talking about here. But we live in a society with a very short attention span and an expectation of immediacy and convenience. Those slower forms of communication are still more way more valuable, but the Church has to be able to communicate through the faster forms as well. All without sacrificing the value of the message.

Speed. But it’s not just enough to use faster and easier forms of communication such as email, text messaging, and Facebook, the words have to be timely. This is a particular problem with something like Twitter, which oftens moves at a far greater (often real-time) pace. This is what makes Twitter so effective at communicating breaking news such as an election, earthquake, or major sporting event. But that can be a major challenge for churches, who may not be used to moving at that kind of breakneck speed.

Dyer discusses the cultural divide being created by technology, the “conflict” or “dissonance” created when a new technology is introduced and early adopters begin shifting to it. Those who encounter a given technology later in life, he says, will tend to use it with a “thick accent”, just as a non-native speaker would speak a new language with a thick accent; they can speak it, but it’s obvious that it isn’t natural to them. Often in churches, it’s not the “technology natives” that are in charge of technology, it’s the older, wiser “non-natives”, the ones who either don’t speak the language at all or do so through an extremely heavy accent.

The result of all of this is that from the outside, the Church often appears like an older, “trying-too-hard-to-be-cool” dad who awkwardly throws around jargon he doesn’t understand to show you how hip he still is. And then we sit around and wonder why we’re losing an entire generation of young people. That’s not to say we should throw out 2,000 years of history and tradition just to be “relevant”, but if we’re supposed to adequately transform God’s creation for a greater practical purpose, at some point we have to acknowledge the value of the tools we’ve been given.

Previously:
From the Garden to the City, Ch. 1: Perspective
From the Garden to the City, Ch. 2: Imagination
From the Garden to the City, Ch. 3: Reflection
From the Garden to the City, Ch. 4: Definition
From the Garden to the City, Ch. 5: Rebellion
From the Garden to the City, Ch. 6: Approach
From the Garden to the City, Ch. 7: Redemption
From the Garden to the City, Ch. 7: Redemption (cont’d)