Efficiency and "Tachnology" in Preaching
I was listening intently, taking notes, and energetically critiquing the Christian leader who would later, sadly, have a moral failure, when his words hit me deeply: "Efficiency is the value of the day." He believed that churches must exhibit a high degree of efficiency in their activities because today people value efficiency. Whether or not people do value efficiency, I wondered what implications this had.
Skip ahead two years. I am reading Jean-Francois Lyotard's "The Postmodern Condition." Lyotard notes that a technological society is concerned with decreasing input and increasing output. This means that a technological society values, you guessed it, efficiency.
Which brings me to yesterday. I was reviewing my notes in a book on preaching, when I came across this quote: "The very presence of such media [as TV clips] serves to associate the sermon with the glamour, power, and authority of the same technology that rules the world. The medium really is the message. Technology is the new symbol of power" (Richard Lischer, The End of Words, p. 27). Media allows us to engage several senses at once--we see and hear at once. In part, it increases efficiency.
I think, in part, the church aims to be efficient. Efficiency is not a bad thing; in fact, being more efficient en route to our goal is a good thing. However, efficiency is not a value. There are many things the church does that are not efficient. Preaching is one of them. Pretending to make something efficient that really isn't, like preaching, by using contemporary tools, like technology, is dangerous because the church cannot do culture as well as culture can and so the church's use of technology comes off being tacky. It's tachnology.
Of course, there are some who really can use, say, technology to real communication and I envy them. But for those of us who can't...well, I'm not sweating it anymore.
Skip ahead two years. I am reading Jean-Francois Lyotard's "The Postmodern Condition." Lyotard notes that a technological society is concerned with decreasing input and increasing output. This means that a technological society values, you guessed it, efficiency.
Which brings me to yesterday. I was reviewing my notes in a book on preaching, when I came across this quote: "The very presence of such media [as TV clips] serves to associate the sermon with the glamour, power, and authority of the same technology that rules the world. The medium really is the message. Technology is the new symbol of power" (Richard Lischer, The End of Words, p. 27). Media allows us to engage several senses at once--we see and hear at once. In part, it increases efficiency.
I think, in part, the church aims to be efficient. Efficiency is not a bad thing; in fact, being more efficient en route to our goal is a good thing. However, efficiency is not a value. There are many things the church does that are not efficient. Preaching is one of them. Pretending to make something efficient that really isn't, like preaching, by using contemporary tools, like technology, is dangerous because the church cannot do culture as well as culture can and so the church's use of technology comes off being tacky. It's tachnology.
Of course, there are some who really can use, say, technology to real communication and I envy them. But for those of us who can't...well, I'm not sweating it anymore.
Labels: Preaching, Technology
posted by Aaron Perry at
12:55 PM
22 Comments:
I very rarely use technology (PP or whatnot when preaching). I find it distracts me (even if the people compliment its use afterwards). I am using more and more participation and move around more and more though.
We frequently use media at Deep Water. We never use power point or notes or anything but we usually have a graphically themed main screen, and the text for the day. We also use a fair amount of video clips but we usually use them as introductions not illustrations. I find using video clips for illustration often means taking as much time to explain it as it would without. However I find you can use media to draw peoples focus toward a certain subject or concept in a way that's a bit more artful than "think about suffering". Plus it's just fun.
I would definitely argue that it is NOT EFFICIENT. It takes us more work to find relevant clips than in would for me to just talk and it takes significant time to edit them and set them up. I also don;t find they shorten my message any more. Efficiency is a poor reason to use media. Media is a poor reason to use media. Effectiveness is a good reason to use media. If it's makes it more effective, clear, memorable, than go for it. If not, who cares?
AJ, I expect that you are one of the people who I envy in their ability to use the stuff!
In the end, I think we agree: if the message is served by the media, then there's no problem. Too many times it's the other way: The message serves the media, because too many of us aren't skilled enough to get it right. (I know I am not.)
The reason I care is because churches emulate one another and those who have the skill to do things well are the ones us less skilled try to emulate. And there is sometimes (internal and external) pressure to do so.
One of the best ideas I have ever stolen about media and the use of creativity in general when it comes to preaching is to put together a creative team. Although I am creatively oriented the team I work with to come up with creative elements for my messages (media, object lessons, skits, etc) allows us to do way more than if it was me alone. It takes a bunch more forethought and planning on my part but I think it usually pays off. You don;t have to be a creative person to use creative elements in preaching you just have to find people who are and put them to work. Maybe part of this making preaching more communal is not just doing Q & A or letting everyone and anyone preach but could include involving other people in the sermon preparation.
PS I would definitely agree that no matter who you are, wether you are uncreative and doing it awkwardly or super creative and just doing it to prove you can, if the media doesn't serve the message your doing a dumb thing.
I am the lay reader and associate preacher at a church that does everything wrong.
Worship leaders wear robes; our idea of a "modern" song is one written after the Reformation; we spend a good 10-20 minutes of every service reading and/or singing set scriptures; we have 30 minutes exegetical sermons; our services run 1&1/2-2hrs; we have multiple choirs; we use an organ.
There are no Hillsongs, Powerpoint presentations; guitars; hawaiian print shirts in the pulpit; purpose driven anythings; Jabez prayers; Willowcreek fads; or anything else the church growth gurus tell us we need to grow.
We are the largest church in our diocese. Largest demographic: thoroughly secular university students desperately seeking the Gospel becuase they have been so badly burned by modernity.
Hmmmm.
Crusty.
Sounds like you are speaking the language of those in your vicinity. Of course, there are other languages being spoken that bear a familial resemblance to your own. :)
Amen, Crusty.
The beauty of the liturgy is not subjective (i.e. a viable option for people who like it), but constituitive of the gospel we proclaim.
May I ask what parish you attend and where?
Tim F.
FYI, I'm currently pursuing the diaconate in the ELCA, so I ask as someone who is interested in how other churches disciple their parishoners.
Dear Tim F.
I'm an Anglican. I attend St. Margaret's Anglican Church (Winnipeg). I blog at texas-flood.blogspot.com.
Crusty (aka Tim)
Although the blog started off talking about efficiency it seems to have turned to technology in the church and preaching. I personally struggle with this issue because on one hand I confess I am like you Aaron that I struggle with it but on the other hand I see the value of it and think that it can add.
I think that if you look at it from a learning style perspective I tend to be an auditory learner and so it is easy for me to focus on that type of communication but other people tend to be more visual or hands on, so whether it is media or some other type of visual or experiential teaching I think it is good to incorporate them into our teaching.
Along these lines I would be curious to see what you think of Tim Stevens book “Pop Goes the Church”. Stevens pastors at Granger Community Church and promotes the idea of using culture to present the gospel to people.
I find that visual media seems to cheapen a church service, replacing rhetoric with images. As a student I am constantly bombarded by visual media. When I go to church I want to hear a sermon not watch powerpoint slides.
Further, I find that visual media often is used to incite an emotional response rather than teach the congregants. The worst offenders are those who use clips from the Passion of the Christ.
On a not entirely unrelated note Willow Creek's seeker sensitive model seems to have been slightly less successful than they would have liked. I wonder what their failure can comment on churches and their attempts on being culturally relevant.
Iain, thanks for commenting. I would like to find some middle room between "slightly less successful" and "failure" for Willow Creek. They have exhibited much faithfulness to the Gospel and there are thousands of people worldwide who have been helped by their efforts, as well as many in the Chicago area.
Also, I think it is to their huge credit that they have revamped their small groups to being more geographically oriented and are now emphasizing simple Christian disciplines in their discipleship.
I apologize, by failure I meant in the specific areas they have mentioned, not total failure. I do think that they have and continue to do good things.
In case you were wondering who this iain chap is... my name is Iain Stewart. I am the only Lutheran (ELCIC) student at Providence College and one of the few students who is majoring in biblical and theological studies.
Also, you seem to have an enjoyable blog. I hope you do not mind if I continue commenting on it.
Thanks for introducing yourself, Iain. I welcome your comments. Thanks for jumping in.
I like this conversation; I love using media and creativity during church. Like AJ, we use a creative team of people who help plan sermon series and the creative elements that will help drive home the point, and it's been working quite well.
However, we're very intentional about any media/video/creative elements that we use. Every Sunday morning has a single point. One theme and one theme only, and everything we do has to drive home that point. If the media doesn't fit with the service, it doesn't happen.
Robmcd, I've heard good things about Stevens' book; I watch Granger's services regularly and enjoy their use of creativity. Have you read the book yet?
I think to a certain degree in this conversation the issue is not a right or wrong answer but more preference. I hope that there are always churches along the spectrum. Some that are highly structured, with an organ and no media, to charasmatic with no media or structure to highly structured with media.
brewer I have not read it yet I have just been following his blog at Leading Smart.
Rob, I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing. I certainly agree that there is no right or wrong and that there are churches across the spectrum, but I think the issue is deeper than just preference.
While I think preference is playing a role, I also think that it reflects deeply held values...otherwise there wouldn't have been a conversation. (The possible exception could be AJ's "Who cares?", but I think that's a value statement, as well.)
What do you think?
I am not sure I am completely understanding your question about it being a deeply held value?
Are you asking do you value "The Show" over biblical truth?
If so, I think it is an important conversation to have because I think when we are talking about media and technology that highly skilled people could emphasis "The Show" or make being creative a higher priority then presenting the truth of the Bible.
When I said preference I did not mean to suggest compromising the truth of God's word in any way. I just mean that some people are never going to be helped by media and some it will have a profound influence on.
Like with myself, I never get anything out of Choirs, I can appreciate there skill and talent but I dread having to sit through Choirs. Now I hope there are churches out there that have them for people who that helps but I am not one of them. I would watch Joel Osteen on TV before going to a church that had them regularly (maybe?).
No, I didn't mean it about a show or a compromise of biblical truth. I think that Crusty Guy, and I am open to being wrong, believes that there is an element to preaching that is revealed in a stock still preacher with no media. Not only does he prefer it, there is something theologically significant to it.
On the other hand, I think AJ believes that an element of worship is bound up in preaching the message in several unifying and complementary ways. I think his method is theological, as well.
That's what I mean about it being more than preference. Of course, this is probably obvious for others besides me: Most here lead different denominations with different, though related, theological heritages. So, I think it best to acknowledge our theological commitments without grounding them in the Gospel to the detraction of others. This is what I mean by being deeper than preference.
What do you think?
It is sounds like we are wrestling with the whole idea of "The medium is the message", (I don't know if I quoted that right or not).
For me personally whether you use media or not is not a theological issue. But I probably don't read and think theologically as much as you do either. So there could be some theological issues that exist that I am ignorant of.
For me the question is, do you represent the scriptures accuratly and from a meta view of your preaching are you sharing the "whole councel" of God in your preaching or do you have your pet topics and speak only on those.
I am curious though as to your reasons for your perspective, what drives your questioning the theolocial reason behind it?
Hey Rob,
I don't think it's a matter of reading or thinking about specific theological issues. I believe that a lot of practices reflect theological beliefs, whether or not we admit it, whether or not we are aware of it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home