Chapter 1 covered by Adam Shields as part of our Group Blogging Project discussing the book Flickering Pixels by Shane Hipps. If you need a quick overview to what Flickering Pixels is about, please go here.
I need to start by saying I am highly skeptical of this book.
I have seen a couple of videos and interviews with Shane Hipps that put me off on his message. At the same time I don’t want to be so negative that I miss what I can learn from him. To keep with Shane’s metaphor I don’t want to be a one-eyed prophet either.
So most of my comments are based on agreeing a little bit with Shane and then thinking he has taken it too far (or not far enough).
The central thought of this chapter seems to be summarized in his discussion of Marshall McLuhan,
If the first truth is that our methods (that we use to communicate the gospel) necessarily change, the second truth is that whenever our methods change, the message automatically changes along with them. You can’t change methods without changing your message—they’re inseparable.
My corrective, one that I think should be made throughout the book is that it is not the message that changes, but it is the emphasis that changes.
The message is the gospel of Jesus Christ. That message should always be retained and I think because it is the word of God, it has a means of helping us self correct.
I do agree that there are methodologies that can change the emphasis so strongly that the underlying message is obscured. I would say that if you decided to film a porn movie, where the main character is presented with a clear presentation of the gospel, and you show this porn as a means of evangelism, then your method has probably obscured the message. But with 95 percent of the method changes, there is simply an emphasis change.
An example of this would be the difference between using the Four Spiritual Laws (an evangelism tract) and Facebook (a Social Network) for evangelism. When the four spiritual laws was conceived, the world was seeking meaning after WWII with a strong memory of the loss of life and the horrors of war and concentration camps. There was also an underlying concept of truth as fixed, and all you need to do was present a strong argument and people would have no choice except to see the argument and accept Jesus. The emphasis change is focused on truth, blood of Jesus and heaven.
In a social network like Facebook, there is often a emphasis on community, communication, short (often superficial sharing) and public openness. The gospel being shared is oriented around God restoring the community and the world back to the way he intended it to be before the fall.
In both there are blind spots. People reading the Four Spiritual Laws were often not convinced just by reading. With Facebook, there is often such an emphasis on community and friendship that the gospel may not be shared, or the emphasis on community is such that Christians spend all of their time talking to other Christians and don’t actually share with anyone outside their small network. Both have their positives and negatives.
Where I think Shane is right is that we should be analyzing our methods to understand where the weaknesses are introduced. I agree that there are differences in emphasis among different methods and some of those differences in emphasis can obscure the message of the gospel.
Currently, our emphasis on individual relationship with Christ (and focus on individualism) can obscure issues of justice, reconciliation and community because the over-riding principle is individualism.
I could keep going, but will stop and let the discussion move to the comments. What do you think, does Hipps have it right? Is it the message that is actually changed? It is just a shift in emphasis? Am I reading too much into the second chapter?
Meiko says
Though I am not reading the book, i found this to be pretty insightful. It actually has me sitting here drinking Chamomile Tea and pondering your thoughts..
I have often thought about the method to the madness. I think its best to sometimes slow down, slow way down, or even come to a pause to figure out the best practices and what works and what doesnt you know?
Adam_S says
I agree there is rarely much evaluation that goes into our methods. Evaluation can be seen as too crass for the workings of the Holy Spirit. And while I agree that if the Holy Spirit is clearly leading our own perceptions of the results may be to small, the reality is that most of the time we make our own plans and then ask the Lord to bless them. So evaluation really is important.
phil cunningham says
I read heard this quote from Bono where he said "let's quit asking God to bless what we are about to do and start getting involved in what God is doing as it is blessed already. In this I have also seen myself and other make their own plans and ask God to bless it.
stephenbateman says
Scripture has a LOT of numbers…so someone must've counted…Evaluation certainly matters to God.
Phillip Gibb says
I agree with the fact the the emphasis changes with the change of medium.
Nowadays, with so much communication and accessibility of information, we have the ability to research trends and relevant topics. Churches tend to use a smaller subset of relevant topics because of this, presenting them in different ways every time – but each time using the Word to teach and guide. As apposed to finding a verse/portion/topic in the bible and trying to make it relevant like teaching a whole chapter. This I think is what has changed in terms of the message – a kind of less is more concept where finances, relationship and involvement being general topics that lead the charge.
I am not an expert in this, it is just what I have observed.
Does it restrict the work of the Holy Spirit? I doubt it.
Also as our mediums become more sophisticated there is more emphasis on the quality of the presentation – a trap? where more prep can be done months before a message is delivered. Are we boxing the message to suit our medium?
dewde says
Messages don't move, they're copied.
The position that the actual, original message changes is not accurate. The source is still the source. However, when one person evangelizes to another, the entirety of Jesus' body of work (message) is not moved from Person A to Person B. A fragmented, portion of His message is copied.
The medium influences the fragmentation process.
peace|dewde
dewde says
Messages don't move, they're copied.
The position that the actual, original message changes is not accurate. The source is still the source. However, when one person evangelizes to another, the entirety of Jesus' body of work (message) is not moved from Person A to Person B, but a fragmented portion of His message is copied.
The medium influences the fragmentation process.
peace|dewde
Ron_Tuffin says
great insight!
Josh Wagner says
Wow, that was good. Deep thoughts.
Adam_S says
I think you summarized my basic problem. The source of the message is still the source of the message. People get saved through all sorts of crappy mediums. We have uneducated pastors, bad tracts, children sharing what they understand, imperfect translations of scripture, etc. And still people are getting saved and lives are being changed. I met a guy who told me that he and his wife were saved on a street with a person sharing tracts. He said he didn't like to share his story because he was afraid that someone would use it as a justification for putting more people on street corners with tracts. He said God used that encounter with him and his wife and they were miraculously saved, but he doesn't have to support what he believes to be a less than perfect method of sharing the gospel.
dewde says
Oh yeah, good job dude 🙂
peace|dewde
Adam_S says
Thanks
johndyer says
It might be good to note that McLuhan isn't just saying that using a new medium changes a message.
He's saying that when a new medium comes into a culture, the culture shifts and changes around that medium, and then that modified culture affects the people in that culture. For example, saying "Jesus loves you" on the radio didn't really change when then Internet was invented and then the same words are said there. However, the presence of the Internet has reshaped our society quite significantly and that in turn has reshaped how our culture operates.
So the medium (the internet) itself has a strong effect (or 'message') regardless of the messages I transmit through the medium.
Adam_S says
That is not what Hipps seems to be saying by my reading so far. Is he misinterpreting McLuhan? Your version of McLuhan would seem to suggest that because culture is changed, we have even more responsibility to participate in alternative mediums because those mediums result in a change of culture that requires a new translation of the gospel to appropriately reach that new culture.
I think that US Christians have a hard time understanding that there are different cultures in the US therefore different methods and people are required to reach out to those different groups. We seem to understand that when we talk about international missions. I know I have talked to people that assume that everyone should respond to the exact same message (we just bottle up Billy Graham and get his message on every channel all the time.)
This is part of my frustration at complaining about other Christian ministries, because usually the ministries we are complaining about are reaching someone we are not.
johndyer says
Adam, McLuhan like Hipps does say that mediums communicate along with messages (try breaking up with someone via text message instead of in person and see if the effect is different).
However, one of the bigger issues is that media use shapes not only the message, but the speaker. After using Twitter for a year or so, I now find myself thinking in 140 character sound bytes. No matter what message I tweet, the medium of twitter has shaped me.
Recognizing and acknowledging that we make tools and tools remake us is McLuhan/Hipps' point.
Susan_Stewart says
Maybe because I was a McLuhan reader back in his day, I've agree for years his premise, "the medium is the message." Hipps points out, more importantly, that the medium is not neutral. Neither is the medium all-good or all-evil.
Television has long been the blame for the ills and evils of our society. It alone is not the problem. What is transmitted and consumed is the problem. As Adam points out, trying to spread trying the Gospel through pornography obscures the message. I would argue that porn is not the medium; it is the subject being transmitted through the medium of film.
Jumping on Twitter to become the Billy Graham of Twitterverse may be a lofty goal. However, if you tweet nothing but the Four Spiritual Laws, the message is lost in the din of other messages. Relating the Gospel is not about the medium used; it's about the relationship with the people you are giving the message to.
The problem lies in becoming enamored with the medium. I believe that to be McLuhan's and HIpps' point. I enjoy using new technologies — I'm the family geek. I enjoy more the relationships that I can develop through the technologies.
Adam_S says
So your distinction is that most methods are fine, but when the method becomes the subject then we have crossed the line? That seems to be a position I could agree with. I am just not sure that is my reading of Hipps to this point. Maybe that is where he is going.
Josh Wagner says
Here's a thought. I'm going to assume for a moment that the premise (messages change with the medium) is true. Is that fact bad? And why is it bad?
I don't really agree with the premise. Or at least I don't want to. I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive, but I really want to read this book after reading these few posts. But as a musician, when you write a song, the message is influenced by how you write the song. But music is subjective art.
Another thought, can you ever separate a message from the medium? Without a medium there is no message. So can there be a neutral message ever? Thinking out loud now.
Great post.
Adam_S says
Theoretically, if the message changes then we are not transmitting the original message. It is the telephone game problem. The original message is John went to the park and (if we buy the premise that the message changes) then after we change the medium the message says that John is at school. If that is the result of changing the medium then that is a serious problem.
johndyer says
Josh, I think Hipps point is that most people don't give any consideration to how mediums work. For example, youth group boys don't ever consider that breaking up with a girl via text message will send a different message than doing it in person. So Hipps wants to wake us up to start thinking about how and when to use media appropriately.
Josh Wagner says
Yeah. I certainly have looked at how the medium has influenced the message recently, but mostly in music. (Post on my blog about it, here: http://tr.im/kwSo ) Didn't really think about that in terms of technology as a medium. Will be aware now, though.
Dave Sandell says
Adam – I hear where you're coming from, but I think you're using the term message to mean something different than Shane is. I think Hipps' point is that the medium and the message are intimately connected. The message is what I hear. The medium is how I hear it. One affects the other, inseperably. And since the message is what I hear, it potentially has little to do with the original meaning of the words spoken.
But I also don't think it's so cut and dry that there's one message and only one message. Jesus didn't walk around and shout "GOSPEL!" at people. He nuanced lots of messages that when taken as a whole, lead to a rich and life-changing worldview. Taken individually, they all have something slightly different to bring to the table (that seem to be cut from the same cloth, but are still different). Jesus announces that the Kingdom of Heaven is near. He talks of our need to repent. But he also says the most important thing we can do is love God and love our neighbor. So which of these is the "original message"? Love God or repent? Are they the same thing? Would the average "unchurched" person arrive at that same conclusion?
The idea that the message can't change tells me that there's one message (that's never been translated and is always in its original language with people who completely understand the original context). Either way, I think the medium greatly changes the message. What I heard growing up from my priests in a church they clearly had no passion for was completely different than what I heard in my religion classes, which was completely different than what my Navigators mentor told me, which was itself a little different than what the person who brought me into a relationship with God (@JustinWise – boo-yah!). And all of the preachers I listen to lean on slightly different points of Jesus' message. And all of these things communicate different things to me about my creator. None of them are necessarily good or bad, but they're all messages, and the medium (podcast, stage, coffee shop, fraternity house with rain pouring down, person i'm intimately connected to, person i barely know, person I've never met, person who seems to care about me, person who seems to care about Jesus) all shape and mold what I hear. Not to mention thoughts like "What does this church do when we're not in a Sunday gathering?" "How does this person live their life outside of this conversation?" and, "Is this chair comfortable?"
Adam_S says
You may be right Dave, but that is not what I have understood. I am trying to read with an open mind, but I am being influenced by some of what I have heard him say in other contexts as well. And if your definition of message is the one he is trying to use, then he really needs to be much clearer. Because he is mixing the use of that word in a variety of contexts.
SCBubba says
I think Dave's got the right idea about what "the message" is. The message that was "broadcast" from God is not necessarily "the message" that many people receive. What was sent (and the truth of it) does not, and has not, changed. What is received is affected by the medium as well as other factors (context, prior knowledge, translation, etc).
Shane's book as a whole, I think, is dealing with the message as it is received by people not so much as it is at the source. So, we need to really take a look at the methods we are using when we relay God's message. The methods we used to receive it may have changed what we received vs the original. And how we send it back out will affect how it is received by others.
All that being said, Hipps could have been a little clearer on what he was specifically meaning when he wrote that the message changes…
Sorry for the potentially odd way of saying all that. I'm an engineer and we tend to look at things a little differently… 🙂
Adam_S says
I understand what you are saying. And I agree he could be much clearer.