News

‘Blue Like Jazz’ Teaser Trailer Released

Catch some glimpses from the Steve Taylor film, based on the Donald Miller book

Christianity Today June 20, 2011

Pastors

Let God Do It

Leadership Journal June 20, 2011

To be honest this isn’t something we consciously think about. Our aim is not first of all to produce an effect in the congregation. Our first aim is to worship God in a way that is biblical and pleasing to him. Of course, we do think through the flow of the service. We want the music and the technical aspects to be conducted with undistracting excellence. But those are things we can control.

The real work is the work we can’t control, the work only God can do. For real heart change, conversion, sanctification, and everything else that matters for eternity, we rely explicitly and wholly on the Word of God and prayer. This is what God promises to bless and promises to use to build up his people: the Word spoken in preaching and seen in the sacraments, and the prayers of his people to unleash the Spirit’s power.

Like the farmer who went to sleep and woke up to find a crop, we trust the Word of God to do the work of God.

—Kevin DeYoung University Reformed Church East Lansing, Michigan

Copyright © 2011 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

The Point: Spiritual Assessment

Leadership Journal June 20, 2011

As the pastor of a small church, I am responsible to plan worship and preach the sermon, as well as actually leading the music. In planning I work to make it flow with the same theme. Although not every song will follow the theme, when possible I utilize words and phrases that the message will focus on during the opening choruses and in the final hymn. Hopefully this helps those listening to hear the Holy Spirit throughout the service, not just in the sermon.

After worship, we offer a fellowship meal where we sit at tables in small groups. I write table questions that follow up on the sermon. Beginning with an icebreaker, the questions grow deeper and challenge people to consider how they will live out the sermon that week.

They close their discussion with prayer, so any issues raised by the worship, sermon, or questions can immediately receive prayer. This whole process helps avoid the consumer mentality because those who fully participate are actually using the elements to evaluate their current spiritual state.

—Katherine Callahan-Howell Winton Community Free Methodist Church, Cincinnati, Ohio

Copyright © 2011 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

Tell the Story (Again)

Leadership Journal June 20, 2011

Transformation would never happen by merely making programmatic changes because the issue runs far deeper. It begins by training our congregation in a theology of spiritual formation. We believe the Spirit typically brings transformation through our sustained effort over a period of time. So we don't think of or talk about our weekly worship experiences as a walk down the Damascus Road where light constantly flashes and people are instantaneously changed.

We want wonderful "moments" in our services, and we often have them. But we have spent many years trying to train our congregation to understand the difference between an exhilarating experience and authentic transformation. Our success as leaders is not in designing compelling experiences but in helping people live more fully under God. In essence, we try to plan services that constantly point at God and how daily life can be different when it is lived out under him.

So we plan our worship experience to be a retelling of the story of God. In our teaching, we give people a bigger vision of who God is and what life can be like under his reign. This is not about "steps" to a deeper life with God, but about developing keener eyesight and sharper hearing so we can discern his presence in our daily lives.

—Mike Lueken, Oak Hills Church, Folsom, California

Copyright © 2011 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

Focus on the Content

Leadership Journal June 20, 2011

We fight the consumer mindset all the time. Not surprisingly, everyone wants to hear “their music” in church. But we can’t be focused on “what I want to hear” and on the Lord at the same time. If I focus on what I want, I’ll be dissatisfied, angry, or at best mollified—but not changed. Genuine change happens only when God is the central focus.

So each week the challenge is to get the focus off self and onto God. Not easy!

One “trick” that has helped our folks the most has been reading Scripture in the context of singing. A few weeks ago, we began a series in Genesis, so we read the Creation story. But rather than stop the music to have the Scripture reading as a separate element, we read it in three parts, between the verses of “This Is My Father’s World.” The band played quietly under the reading, and the congregation sang in response. Transitions were seamless, and the congregation’s response was noticeably better. This helped our people forget about musical preferences and focus on meaning and content instead.

—Mark Warnock, First Baptist Church, Columbia, Illinois

Copyright © 2011 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Theology

Tiger Dads vs. Sexualized Daughters

Why one of our parental duties is to protect our children physically and spirituality by teaching them to be modest.

Christianity Today June 20, 2011
Halfpoint / Envato

Should you get Botox for your ten-year-old daughter? What would you think of breast augmentation for your eleven-year-old girl? These and similarly startling issues cropped up in a recent CNN column by LZ Granderson. Writing in an outraged style, Granderson tackled how parents allow the culture to sexualize their daughters. The piece, entitled rather prosaically "Parents, don't dress your daughters like tramps," began with a word of personal experience:

I saw someone at the airport the other day who really caught my eye.

Her beautiful, long blond hair was braided back a la Bo Derek in the movie "10" (or for the younger set, Christina Aguilera during her "Xtina" phase). Her lips were pink and shiny from the gloss, and her earrings dangled playfully from her lobes.

Granderson went on to note that the girl was eight years old and to denounce the corporate executives who planned such a product: "[H]ow do people initiate a conversation in the office about the undeveloped chest of elementary school girls without someone nearby thinking they're pedophiles?" he wondered. The concerned writer and parent reserved his sharpest words for parents, however. "It's easy to blast companies for introducing the sexy wear, but our ire really should be directed at the parents who think low rise jeans for a second grader is cute." Parents, after all, "are the ones who are suppose to decide what's appropriate for their young children to wear, not executives looking to brew up controversy or turn a profit." In the most memorable line of the article, Granderson concluded his denunciation by referencing Amy Chua's recent book: "Maybe I'm a Tiger Dad," he said.

If he is, then America welcomes him. Roughly one week after posting, the piece had received over 440,000 recommendations or "likes" on Facebook, the meta-metric that measures all others, to say nothing of thousands of Tweets and e-mail forwards. The response to Granderson's column showed widespread approval of his basic argument, that little girls should not adopt an aggressively sexual identity at a young age (as did feedback from readers of a recent Wall Street Journal article). While many would agree with Granderson, the curious Christian can't help but think of a simple but important follow-up: why? Why shouldn't we sexualize our daughters?

The question sounds a bit cheeky, rather too obvious for public discussion. Were one to raise such a question in polite society, polling passersby at the local gym or the produce aisle in Whole Foods, he would meet shocked looks. The answer is obvious. Little girls aren't ready for sex. They can't handle it emotionally. Statistics correlate young sexual involvement with multiple psychological problems, including eating disorders and depression. It's just not right for girls to take on an explicitly sexual identity.

Evangelicals can give thanks that the culture, in God's common grace, does not generally conclude otherwise. Philosopher James Q. Wilson noted some years ago that people possess what he called a "moral sense," an instinct for right and wrong. Wilson grounded this view in Darwinian evolution, not Christian theology, but his contention rings true in light of Scripture. In our native state, we "suppress the truth," according to the apostle Paul (Rom. 1:18). Though the fall of Adam and Eve has scrambled our moral radar, we retain an instinctual awareness of right and wrong. Our conscience lives. As much as sin attempts to kill it, it regularly takes its revenge, leading a fallen humanity to act and think better than it knows.

Every parent possesses an inherent drive to care for their child. They know that it is right to protect their offspring, whether from the wind and rain or the pedophile and pornographer. Yet because of sin, we naturally fail. The failure of fathers to care for their daughters pops up throughout Scripture. When threatened by the men of Sodom, Lot offered his two daughters to a bloodthirsty mob and is stopped only by the intervention of angels (Gen. 19:1-11). In a stunning repeat of the Sodom incident, the man hosting an unnamed Levite offers drunken "worthless fellows" his virgin daughter along with the Levite's concubine (Judges 19). In one of the most horrifying scenes in Scripture, the Levite finds the concubine dead and cuts her body up, then sends the pieces to all corners of Israel. His abdication of fatherly responsibility, realized in a flash of grief, signifies that darkness has descended upon the nation.

Wearing tight pink sweatpants and push-up bras is not the same as sacrifice, but the two proceed from the same devilish idea. The contextual outworking of the problem causes the same reaction. As we watch the culture train tiny girls to be princesses, princesses to be hot girls, and hot girls to be sexual aggressors, we gasp at such a trajectory. This is not indulging in prudery. That exhalation of breath? It's a profoundly theological response to the effects of sin. The first and most basic of parental duties is to protect one's children in a physical and especially a spiritual sense (Eph. 6:4). This involves training little girls to be modest and chaste, and to exude Christocentric virtue, not to be forward and promiscuous. If these ideals sound Victorian, antiquated to modern ears, they are actually much more historical (see 1 Tim. 2:9-10).

There is another type of father in Scripture besides the wicked men mentioned above. This father finds a little girl dying in the wilderness, crying with no one to hear. He gathers her in his arms and nurses her to health. He clothes her in beauty as she grows, celebrating her womanhood. Because of his protection and care, she flourishes. This father is the Lord God, and his daughter is Jerusalem (Ezek. 16). The text details the faithlessness of God's people and bears first on that biblical-theological matter, but it also gives us a window into how we are to raise our daughters. Our heavenly Father's strength, tenderness, and compassion direct our care for our own little girls, and we desire their flourishing for the glory of Christ as he desires the health of his people.

Are we "Tiger Dads"? Perhaps. But more than that, we are called to care for those God entrusts to us, to say to our children through both our words and our actions, "Live!" (Ezek. 16:6).

Copyright © 2011 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Previous articles on parenting or modesty include:

Modesty: A Female-Only Virtue? | Scripture suggests that modesty means more than keeping the right parts covered. (May 18, 2010)

The Myth of the Perfect Parent | Why the best parenting techniques don't produce Christian children. (January 8, 2010)

Conversations: Author Wendy Shalit Is Proud to Be Modest | Author Wendy Shalit rattles the female establishment with a hip appeal to tradition. (January 10, 2000)

Books
Excerpt

God Wins

The really important question raised from Rob Bell’s ‘Love Wins.’

Christianity Today June 20, 2011

Editor’s Note: Mark Galli’s God Wins (Tyndale) will become available in print and ePub  format July 10. The Kindle version released on Friday.

God Wins: Heaven, Hell, and Why the Good News Is Better than Love Wins

God Wins: Heaven, Hell, and Why the Good News Is Better than Love Wins

Tyndale

203 pages

$17.95

There are questions, and then there are questions.

In Love Wins, there are lots of questions—eighty-six in the first chapter alone. The book you are currently reading will address a number of them, because they are good questions. But before that, the first thing we need to do is think about the very nature of questions. Because there are questions, and then there are questions.

There are questions like the one Mary, the mother of Jesus, asked the angel when he told her some astounding news. Mary was a young woman engaged to marry Joseph when the angel Gabriel appeared to her. “Greetings, favored woman!” he bursts out. “The Lord is with you!”

Suddenly finding herself in the presence of a messenger of God, Mary is naturally “confused and disturbed.”

“Don’t be afraid, Mary,” Gabriel reassures her, “for you have found favor with God!”

And then he drops the bombshell: “You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus.” This Jesus, he says, will be very great, will be called the Son of the Most High, will be given the throne of his ancestor David, and will reign over Israel forever in a Kingdom that will never end.

That’s a lot to take in. Most mothers just want to know they’ll have a baby with all ten fingers and ten toes. But what exactly all this means—Son of the Most High? ruler like King David? reign forever?—seems not as perplexing to Mary as one other detail. “But how can this happen?” she asks. “I am a virgin.”

That’s her question, and it’s a good one. A virgin getting pregnant without the help of a man—well, this sort of thing doesn’t happen every day. It’s an honest question, prompted by natural curiosity and driven, not by fear and doubt, but by wonder: how is God going to pull this off?

Mary asks one type of question; the other type was posed by Zechariah a few months earlier. He was a priest married to Mary’s cousin Elizabeth, an old man at the other end of life and the reproduction cycle, when the angel Gabriel appeared to him.

It happened in the Temple, as Zechariah burned incense in the sanctuary. Suddenly an angel of the Lord appeared before him. “Zechariah was shaken and overwhelmed with fear,” Luke’s Gospel says.

“Don’t be afraid, Zechariah!” Gabriel reassures. “God has heard your prayer.”

What prayer? For a son? For Elijah to come to herald the Messiah? For the Messiah to come? We’re not told what Zechariah’s prayer had been, only that it has been heard. This is what Gabriel told him: Zechariah and Elizabeth would have a son whom they were to name John, and this John would be an extraordinary man.

Again, Gabriel piles on the attributes. John will be great in the eyes of the Lord, will be filled with the Holy Spirit—even before his birth—will turn many Israelites to the Lord, will be a man with the spirit and power of Elijah, will prepare people for the coming of the Lord, will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and will cause the rebellious to accept godly wisdom.

 Again, that’s a lot to take in. And the thing that bothers Zechariah is the thing that bothers Mary: biology. “How can I be sure this will happen?” he asks the angel. “I am an old man now, and my wife is also well along in years.”

His question seems like a logical one. But it is not a good question. Gabriel chastises Zechariah, telling him in no uncertain terms that he, Gabriel, stands in the very presence of God. Of course he can deliver on this promise of good news!

“Since you didn’t believe what I said,” Gabriel continues, “you will be silent and unable to speak until the child is born.” The consequence for asking a bad question: Zechariah is made mute. No more questions. Only silence.

So what’s the difference here? The questions are so similar. Why is Mary’s treated with respect while Zechariah’s is an occasion for spiritual discipline? Why does the angel seem indifferent to Mary’s natural curiosity and angry about Zechariah’s?

 The difference appears in one little additional clause Zechariah adds to his question. Mary simply asks, “How can this happen?” Zechariah asks, “How can I be sure this will happen?”

Mary’s question is about God. Zechariah’s question is about himself.

Mary’s question assumes God will do something good and great, and seeks to know how it will unfold. Zechariah is not at all sure that God is good and great, and seeks proof.

Mary wants to learn more about the goodness of God. Zechariah mostly wants to be self-assured.

As I said, there are questions, and then there are questions.

As these two stories show, questions driven by faith and questions driven by self-justification can sound very similar. Sometimes they can be identical in their wording, but they are not identical in their motives. A question can be grounded in trust in God’s goodness—or it can be a demand for a sign. God is pleased with the former, but not so pleased with the latter.

As Jesus put it, “Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign” (Matthew 16:4). The demand for signs is a demand for proof. It’s a clue that the heart is not right. It’s putting God on trial. We don the judge’s robes and climb into the judicial bench, looking down at the accused.

The problem with requests for signs is that they mask unbelief—and ultimately they become an attempt to justify a lack of faith. Such is the case with the theologian described in Luke 10, whose questions prompt Jesus to tell the parable of the Good Samaritan. Asked how one gains eternal life, Jesus answers clearly, but the theologian only asks another question because, as Luke notes, “the man wanted to justify his actions” (verse 29).

Questions driven by a demand for signs never cease—and they never satisfy. The unfortunate conclusion in the Gospel of John is, “Despite all the miraculous signs Jesus had done, most of the people still did not believe in him” (John 12:37).

The point is that questions are not just questions. There is no such thing as a neutral inquiry when it comes to questions about God.

Love Wins is a book running over with questions. In chapter 1, we are presented with questions like

Does God punish people for thousands of years with infinite, eternal torment for things they did in their few finite years of life?

Is there really no hope for someone who dies an atheist?

Is the salvation of others dependent on what we do—that is, our ability to send missionaries to them?

And that’s just the beginning. No question asked in Love Wins is actually new. Many questions raised in the book were asked in the Bible. But we certainly feel the force of the questions in a new way today.

But no matter the questions, here’s the point: for some, these questions arise out of a trusting faith. For others, they arise out of a desire to have God prove himself on human terms.

 We can’t tell which is which simply by listening to the question. What drives the question resides in the human heart. We cannot judge anyone else because we cannot see into their hearts. But when we start asking questions of God, we can look into our own hearts. And we can ask ourselves a couple of hard questions. First, why am I asking these questions? Second, are they grounded in God’s goodness or a desire to justify myself?

Sometimes the answer to these self-directed questions is obvious. Sometimes it is not. Most of the time it’s a mix. But given human nature—the heart is desperately wicked, according to Jeremiah 17:9—we can safely assume that the questions are largely driven by a desire to justify ourselves, to put God in the dock, and to don those judicial robes.

This does not mean we don’t have any legitimate questions. It does not mean that we are forbidden from asking God anything. God is not threatened by our questions. But when we start asking questions, we are called to begin with a prayer grounded in repentance and humility.

As in, “Lord, help me overcome my unbelief.”

Or, even more crucial, “O God, be merciful to me … a sinner.”

As James says, “You don’t have what you want because you don’t ask God for it. And even when you ask, you don’t get it because your motives are all wrong” (4:2-3).

So before we ask our questions, we are wise to pray for both help and mercy that we will learn to ask with the right spirit.

You Call That an Answer?

People have been asking hard questions since biblical days. But some of those questions have also been answered. Let’s note two of them, and how God answered. It will help us see what we’re up against when we start asking tough questions of the Creator of heaven and earth.

One example comes from the little-read book of Habakkuk. It was written during the brutal conquest of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. This spawned a plethora of violence and injustice, leading to various forms of human misery. When Habakkuk had seen enough, he started to interrogate God:

How long, O Lord, must I call for help?
But you do not listen!
“Violence is everywhere!” I cry,
but you do not come to save.
Must I forever see these evil deeds?
Why must I watch all this misery?
Wherever I look,
I see destruction and violence.
I am surrounded by people
who love to argue and fight.
The law has become paralyzed,
and there is no justice in the courts.
The wicked far outnumber the righteous,
so that justice has become perverted.
(Habakkuk 1:2-4)

After God tells him that, because of the sins of his people, things may actually get worse, Habakkuk questions whether the punishment fits the crime:

O Lord my God, my Holy One, you who are eternal—
surely you do not plan to wipe us out?
O Lord, our Rock, you have sent these Babylonians to correct us,
to punish us for our many sins.
But you are pure and cannot stand the sight of evil.
Will you wink at their treachery?
Should you be silent while the wicked
swallow up people more righteous than they?
(Habakkuk 1:12-13)

Or to put it as we might today, in light of all the suffering around us, how can God be just? God’s answer to Habakkuk is this:

Write my answer plainly on tablets,
so that a runner can carry the correct message to others.
This vision is for a future time.
It describes the end, and it will be fulfilled.
If it seems slow in coming, wait patiently,
for it will surely take place.
(Habakkuk 2:2-3)

In other words, “I’ll take care of the Babylonians in my time. It will all work out in the end. Be patient.”

The answer to Habakkuk’s cry is to be patient? Is that the type of thing a compassionate God tells his anguished people? Apparently. And it’s an answer that Habakkuk accepts at face value: “I have heard all about you, Lord,” he says, “I am filled with awe by your amazing works. … I will wait quietly for the coming day when disaster will strike the people who invade us” (Habakkuk 3:2, 16).

None of Job’s Business

As another example, take the champion questioner of God in the Old Testament, Job. He certainly seems to have the right to complain. He has lost his home, his children, his livestock, and his health—everything that was a blessing is gone, and now his life is nothing but a curse. And why? Job can’t spot a single thing he did to deserve his fate. So he cries out to God:

Why wasn’t I born dead?
Why didn’t I die as I came from the womb? …
Why wasn’t I buried like a stillborn child,
like a baby who never lives to see the light?
(Job 3:11, 16)

Oh, why give light to those in misery,
and life to those who are bitter?
They long for death, and it won’t come.
They search for death more eagerly than for hidden treasure.
They’re filled with joy when they finally die,
and rejoice when they find the grave.
Why is life given to those with no future,
those God has surrounded with difficulties?
(Job 3:20-23)

Job pummels God with question after question after question—until God shows up and queries his accuser:

Who is this that questions my wisdom
with such ignorant words?
Brace yourself like a man,
because I have some questions for you,
and you must answer them.
(Job 38:2-3)

That’s the beginning of an onslaught of divine questions for Job:

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell me, if you know so much.
(Job 38:4)

Who kept the sea inside its boundaries
as it burst from the womb,
and as I clothed it with clouds
and wrapped it in thick darkness?
(Job 38:8-9)

Have you given the horse its strength
or clothed its neck with a flowing mane?
Did you give it the ability to leap like a locust?
Its majestic snorting is terrifying!
(Job 39:19-20)

And then the clincher question, which leaves Job dumbfounded:

Will you discredit my justice
and condemn me just to prove you are right?
(Job 40:8)

This is not a very empathetic response. Looks as though God could take a few lessons in grief counseling. But this is the God whom Job is finally able to trust:

You asked, “Who is this that questions my wisdom with such ignorance?”
It is I—and I was talking about things I knew nothing about,
things far too wonderful for me. …
I take back everything I said,
and I sit in dust and ashes to show my repentance.
(Job 42:3, 6)

What we see in these two incidents is that God seems relatively unconcerned with giving specific answers to the anguished questions of Habakkuk and Job. He answers them, but not point for point. That suggests that all our questions about God’s wisdom and justice and love may not be all that important to God in the end—or at least not as important as other things.

This doesn’t mean we can’t ask them. In Christ, we have the freedom to speak what’s on our hearts and minds. God isn’t going to cast us from his presence because we ask him some tough questions. It just means that we shouldn’t take our questions too seriously because apparently God doesn’t take them too seriously.

It may shock us to hear it put that way. We think pretty highly of ourselves and our questions. We think it’s our right to ask such questions and to demand such answers, even from God. But God does not seem to share this view. In the Bible, whenever God is asked a question that throws into doubt his kindness or justice, he more or less refuses to answer. In some instances he says, “You have no idea what you are talking about.” Or he says, “You’ll get an answer in my good time.”

Jesus’ Big Question

Indeed, there is a deep mystery when it comes to our questions—and yet a deep mercy.

All our uncertainties about God’s justice and love are summed up in a single question, the one Jesus asks on our behalf as he hangs from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” In this question, all our anguished questions about God’s goodness come together.

Does God forsake us? Is he indifferent to our suffering? Can he be trusted?

Jesus, representing us on the cross, as true man, is asking all that and more on our behalf. And God’s response?

Silence.

When God hears this question, a question that examines his very goodness, he does not strike back or walk away in disgust. He simply absorbs the question in loving silence—the silence of forgiveness. The same forgiveness that’s available to cover every question we’ve ever asked or will ever ask, especially those questions that are nothing but a demand for a sign or an attempt to justify ourselves.

While Jesus as true man is asking the question behind all our questions—Can God be trusted to be good and just?—Jesus as true God is answering that question with another: “Can you trust and love the God who will die for you?”

As the Cross demonstrates, God takes us seriously. He takes our sin seriously. But he continues to show relative indifference to our questions. He does not answer them to our intellectual satisfaction; he refuses to submit himself to our interrogations.

That’s because the really important question in the Bible is not any question we ask of God but the question he asks of us. And though it is appropriate to ponder any number of questions—for this is part of what it means to love God with all our minds—our questions must always take a backseat.

They take a backseat to the prayer for faith and mercy, not to mention the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

And they take a backseat to the only question that really matters: “Who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:15). The answer to that question is revealed on the cross. And until we embrace this answer, none of our questions even make sense, none of the questions raised in Love Wins can be properly addressed, and none of the answers the Bible supplies will satisfy. Until we comprehend who God is, all our questions are like chasing after the wind.

So let’s see how the Bible talks about this God.

Mark Galli is senior managing editor of Christianity Today.

Excerpt used by permission of the publisher. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2011 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Mark Galli’s God Wins, which also contains a small group discussion guide, is available on the Kindle. The print version will become available from ChristianBook.com and other retailers in July.

Previous Christianity Today coverage of Rob Bell and the emergent church includes:

Rob Bell is Not a Litmus Test | What one thinks about Love Wins is no test of faith. (May 5, 2011)

Rob Bell’s Bridge Too Far | The controversial pastor raises crucial questions, but offers answers that may sabotage his goals. (March 14, 2011)

Heaven, Hell, and Rob Bell: Putting the Pastor in Context | He’s not the first to try to resolve old biblical tensions in new ways. (March 2, 2011)

The Emergent Mystique | The ’emerging church’ movement has generated a lot of excitement but only a handful of congregations. Is it the wave of the future or a passing fancy? (November 1, 2004)

Other articles on spiritual questioning include:

Asking the Right Question | Why neither worm theology nor worth theology will do. (April 1, 2010)

A Questioning Faith | Derek Webb calls us to conversation, not conversion. (June 11, 2007)

Digital Disciple

Real Christianity in a virtual world.

Books & Culture June 20, 2011

Real Christianity in a virtual world.

Pastors

Taming the Image

People engage electronic media an average of 8 hours a day. Do they really need more at church?

The band is rockin’, arms are swayin’, and you’re about to come on screen in high definition with such stunning visual clarity that even people in the nosebleed seats can see your perfect smile.

Is this a rock concert? A beer commercial? Or just a typical Sunday morning?

These days, it could be any of the above.

Whether you’re a questioning congregant, a concerned pastor, or a perplexed professor studying the effects of media on religious practice (like me), the use of technology in the worship setting is worth considering.

Media are not neutral. Like ideas, they have consequences, especially in the church. And some of these consequences should give us pause. In Technopoly media theorist Neil Postman writes, “A preacher who confines himself to considering how a medium can increase his audience will miss the significant question: In what sense do new media alter what is meant by religion, by church, even by God?”

Given the impact of new media, we should carefully consider the medium of Christ’s message.

We don’t want to reduce our religion to an ideology that is but one of many in a marketplace of ideologies. Nor do we want to make the mistake of having the medium we deploy compromise the authority of the message we proclaim.

Image is King

Two years ago the Chicago Tribune redesigned their paper to be more image and web-friendly. They simultaneously eliminated half of their staff—mostly the word people.

This illustrates an undeniable reality: In our society, the written word is no longer the dominant mode of communication. Instead it is visual media comprised of pictures, film, video, symbols, logos, and certain art forms. And our culture worships the images they convey to us. It is no coincidence that film is the most expensive art form we practice and that actors are revered as royalty. We typically place the TV in the place of honor in our homes, a place in other cultures reserved for the family shrine. We pay the most money for those whose image we most want to see, which is why the visually mediated—athletes and movie stars—are the highest paid individuals in our society. These images now consume eight hours (in media consumption) of the average American’s day. And their ubiquity makes them invisible to us, leading us to overlook their impact. If you’re tagging yourself on your friend’s Facebook page right now, or reading this article while watching American Idol, or saving for a wider and flatter TV, then I’ve got news for you. God may be your co-pilot, but the Image is in the driver’s seat.

If the church wishes to emulate our image-obsessed culture, it must also invest in the visual and reduce the emphasis on words. Here’s a formula for how a church could do it:

Get a celebrity pastor (young, good-looking, charismatic with a powerful stage presence—all perfect qualities for the image culture)

Multiply his impact by super-sizing his image in the churches via giant LCD projector.

Create network affiliate stations and channels to broadcast images of this celebrity.

Lather, rinse, and repeat.

Why have we seen this model be so effective in drawing a crowd? It’s no mystery. It fits the chief characteristics of our digital age perfectly:

Disincarnation: As Marshall McLuhan puts it, “on the air and on the phone” you have no body. This might be alright until you get to church, at which point a fundamental problem arises: “Discarnate man is not compatible with an incarnate church.” The entire message and point of the gospel is that God put on flesh in order be with us, and to die for us. Any church use of a medium that disincarnates an incarnate God is going to be at odds with its own mission.

Distraction: As T.S. Eliot put it, we are distracted from distraction by distraction—and he said that almost 70 years ago! Since then, things have only worsened. With fast paced, jump-cut, multi-channel, multi-sensory stimulus overload, paying attention has become a full-time job.

Instant gratification: With electronic media, information travels at light speed and, along the way, it accelerates our expectations of just about everything. We are no longer willing to wait for anything.

Narcissism: Not just the shallow look-at-me narcissism so prevalent on social media sites, but the real-deal narcissism as in building a grandiose alternative persona in order to compensate for and or shield your true self from exposure. In self-help books, there is no cure for this; there are only books for coping with people who are narcissists.

Passivity: Despite the development of two-way media resources, most people use media for passive consumption. This results in a passivity that allows people to live vicariously through watching other people’s lives. If you do post to the web, it’s most often a re-post of someone else’s activity, confirming your passivity even as you attempt to be active.

Mental lethargy: The net result of these characteristics is the dumbing of the population. Apart from the “Jay Walking” segment on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, we see this displayed in declining literacy and student test scores.

While our culture is dominated by Image, historically the church has always been dominated by Word. Image has an undeniable immediacy, but it tends to reveal only the surface of things. The Word is better able to cultivate deep reflection and precise, critical thought. Trading the Word for the Image is no incidental move. It changes what we say, as well as how we say it. Yet given the culture’s wholehearted adoption of the Image, does the church have any choice but to follow suit? Must we accommodate the culture by imageizing our churches? Or do we defy the spirit of this age and do something truly countercultural—reinvest in the Word at a time when it is becoming less and less popular?

Embracing the Word

When new movements of faith arise, they are usually linked to significant changes in media forms and practices. Consider these key movements of our faith. Each seems to have involved a rejection of dominant image-based means of communication, and a corresponding embrace of word-based media.

When Abraham announced “Never again shall I worship gods made by human hands,” he was directly countering the spirit of his age by exchanging the worship of visible gods for the worship of the invisible God.

When Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, they not only left Pharoah’s idols, they also left his pictographic system of writing for an alphabet. And it was God who encouraged this countercultural move with his second commandment: “Thou shalt make no graven images.” As Neil Postman put it, this is “a strange injunction to include as part of an ethical system unless its author assumed a connection between the forms of communication and the quality of a culture.”

When Martin Luther and the Reformers used Gutenberg’s printing press to disseminate their ideas, it directly undercut papal authority. Even though Luther wished to simply “reform” the corruptions he found in the church, with the agency of the printing press, his writings soon stirred up such dissent that the genie was out of the bottle. Thanks to the printing press, anti-Catholic fervor spread simultaneously as literacy rose, which is why the Enlightenment happened after, not before, the printing press.

How do we follow the example of our ancient counterparts in today’s world? How can we create a church that actively counters an image-based and entertainment-driven culture? Rather than accommodating and gratifying the gods of this age, how can we form people who are not passive, narcissistic consumers with short attention spans?

Embodied Authority

One option is to emulate the Amish. No, really. You may be thinking about the funny hats and peanut butter fluff sandwiches, but don’t forget that they have the smallest carbon footprint in the neighborhood, their men have no struggle with pornography because they have no electricity to bring them the Internet, and their women have fewer body image issues for the same reason. The Amish embody the biblical values of working with our hands, leading a quiet life, and walking humbly with God. They show us that good things can come from being unplugged. Confronting the spirit of the digital age is hard, but by completely disconnecting the Amish demonstrate a good deal of wisdom.

But short of joining an Amish community—which, let’s face it, just isn’t an option for most of us—is there another way to fight the insidious influence of new media? I believe we must begin by abandoning the belief that the methods of communication we use in the church don’t matter, this idea that the methods change but the message stays the same. For example, if I were to reduce this article to a 140 character post on Twitter, it would drastically alter the message. Medium matters.

“A Videostreamed sermon on the incarnation would be ironic at best.”

In a discarnate age, the only option Christians have for presenting a credible, authoritative, and transformative gospel is to embody Christ. We need to be wary of trying to transmit a message of embodiment through a medium of disembodiment. Stephen Downey writes, “A video-streamed sermon on the Incarnation would be ironic at best and offensive at worst.” And when most people are consuming electronic media ad nauseum, then the primary medium for a countercultural church must be an unplugged one.

Adopting and baptizing the new visual technologies is a losing strategy as well. The church will never do it as well as the culture. If James Cameron can spend $500 million, invent a new camera and new 3D techniques in order to produce the most visually stunning film ever recorded, and you can’t remember a single character’s name, do you really think your church budget is going to somehow do a better job of telling the Jesus story with PowerPoint, YouTube clips, or an internally-generated video? Even if you have the budget and artistic talent within your church to make quality films, because it is an image-based medium, it cannot penetrate the surface the way word-based communication can.

The new media techniques being employed in our churches may distract us from being bored in church for a little while, but beyond that they have no staying power because they have little authority. And they have little authority because they reflect the seen reality rather than the spoken truth. Take a great sermon from a hundred or a thousand years ago. When we read it, the message is still authoritative, and often still applicable. But watch a video of your favorite preacher from five or ten years ago and I guarantee it will be somewhat embarrassing. The visuals will take away from the message. Wow, just look at those clothes! The sincerity and theology is obliterated by the dated look of the fashion of the time. The authority of the word is eroded by the overwhelming power of the visual.

Window or Mirror?

So should we avoid visual media, movies, and art altogether? Of course not. Christians should engage all of these, but very carefully and fully aware of the implications each medium has on our message. We need to choose media that function as windows rather than mirrors. In a window we can see through the medium and discover God, “in whom we live and breathe and have our being.”

In a mirror we can only look into the medium and find ourselves. This window/mirror distinction parallels the word/image distinction made earlier. It is a question of looking through versus looking at; staying on the surface or plunging deeper within.

The opiate of our age is image-based entertainment that leads to passivity and narcissim.

It isn’t that video is incapable of looking through, it’s simply that in its most common use, it is a medium of looking at. When viewing a video at church, we are looking at the preacher, at the scene, at the trees or waves that accompany the song lyrics or announcements, at the production quality and budget, and at the favorite images of the technical team.

But consider what video screens cannot do. They cannot make an altar call of significance, because they cannot perform the laying on of hands and praying for the penitent. They cannot baptize. They cannot make the congregation dance. They cannot place ashes or holy oil on your forehead. They cannot serve communion. They cannot say they are glad to see you and have it be personally meaningful. They cannot take you aside and say, “Let me pray for you after the service.” They cannot perform a funeral service. They cannot forgive your sins.

I have only been in two services where I felt video projection did not distort or become the message. In the first case, the image of an icon was projected onto the ceiling of the rented auditorium the church was using. Throughout the service, as worshipers looked up, they encountered an ancient icon and could use it as a focus for their meditations on the sermon. But if they did not look up, they would never know it was there.

In the second case, two projectors showed the hands of a church artist as she painted an abstract river and a tree of life image. This was set to music and placed in the service during a regular part of the liturgy. It was a living thing, lasted only three minutes, and was profoundly original in its use of layers and image to place the viewer’s mind into the day’s Scripture readings. In both cases the viewer was not aware of the technology, and in both cases the technology, the nature of the projection, and the use of film technique was not apparent. And each of these was done only once, and never repeated. If they were done weekly, they would have gotten really old, really fast. As singular instances of spiritual creativity, they were subtle, thoughtful, and profound in their effect.

Marx famously called mass religion the “opiate of the people.” This kind of religion accommodates itself to the culture. By doing so it gains power and grows membership by baptizing the assumptions of the culture in the name of Christ. I believe that the opiate of our age is image-based entertainment that leads to passivity and narcissism.

But if our goal is to foster authentic transformation through deep immersion in the Christian story, then we are going to have to employ forms of communication that do not conform to the spirit of our digital age. It will mean having the courage to take the hard way and invite people to unplug, to rediscover the penetrating authority of words, and recognize that our faith must be embodied by people and not simply projected with pixels.

Read Mercer Schuchardt is associate professor of media ecology at Wheaton College.

Copyright © 2011 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Pastors

Be Biblio-Centric

Scripture is at the center of our teaching at Granger

Leadership Journal June 20, 2011

Scripture is at the center of our teaching at Granger, and it also inspires our creative work. We employ a diverse, creative palette in our gatherings because we see Jesus doing the same. He uses familiar images as the context for unexpected stories with provocative turns in order to challenge the status quo, and we’ve seen fruit come from imitating his approach. Video, music, and drama catalyze change when used to echo the prophetic voice that Jesus employed.

A leader’s example doesn’t always inspire change; people often emulate other followers instead (which may explain Paul’s logic in 1 Corinthians 11:1, or Jesus’ strategy when he portrays himself as a follower of the Father in John 5:19). So we frequently use videos highlighting the transformation occurring in the lives of ordinary people.

But the most important thing we do is to remember it takes more than those gatherings to help us grow. Scripture describes a transformation that is holistic; our gatherings are only one part of that equation. Clear biblical teaching is incomplete without experiences that allow us to put it into practice. We promote accessible next steps in our gatherings to connect people to those experiences, believing it’s the best way for us to shepherd believers toward maturity.

—Jason Miller, Granger Community Church, Granger, Indiana

Copyright © 2011 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube