Chapter 15 covered by Phillip Gibb 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.
Shane aptly calls this Chapter; A Mirror Dimly. Is it coincidental that he used the mirror that Neo looked at [The Matrix}, and now refers to the fact that we look into the mirror dimly? That we don’t know everything, that we may be wrong, that even he may be wrong? I think not ….
I found this chapter if hard one to digest (I am sure that many of us have been challenged at almost every chapter so far). Halfway through reader the chapter I was hoping that it was not me that would be blogging on it. I was obviously wrong.
Why? Well the thing is that there are a few things that defy a few of my foundational beliefs, but more of that in a moment. In any case, who only reads and watches unchallenging content.
Shane is a Heretic, just like Seth spoke about in Tribes, he really pushes a few boundaries; stands up against the status quo. I keep having to remind myself that these are just his thoughts and they serve as a warning as well, besides which he admits that he does not know everything. And warns well he does, for if we let ourselves be taken for a ride then we will have the chair pulled out from under us.
The idea is to be aware what media is about and to adapt in order to use it effectively. Do you remember backward masking? Or even the that images of popcorn and coke being flashed up in cinemas before the interval break. The strategy of advertising agencies to aim at children in an effort to get into their parents’ wallets. These are all examples of having the chair pulled out from under you. Maybe knowing does not stop it but it certainly helps. It is clear that media nowadays affects us subconsciously, subliminally if you will. Without us know it we become victims of clever advertising campaigns that use all manner of media to convince us of a need we never had originally – a kind of flanking attack.
So how you counter this? Shane basically says that we need to adapt and to renew our methods and our media. Using the parallel that Jesus gave of old and new wine skins. Imagine displaying video content to people from the Middle Ages or having a Priest from that time speak to your congregation. The effect would be interesting but most likely a serious culture shock. Maybe in 10 years time our current methods and media will be lost on the generation of that time.
As I see it media and methods in churches are being adapted to be more relevant and engaging to the people that they are aiming at. We do that at our church, you probably do it at yours.
What I have trouble with is the concept that the message changes with the change of media. Granted; it might, but in the case of the Word of God – should it? I mean nothing should be added or removed. Yet, we have become more sophisticated, more aware and more dependent on technology, so yes; much has changed. We find ourselves in a different context than 1000 or 100 years ago. So what is relevant to us now is different, but surely the redemptive plan of God has remained the same.
Shane finishes off with the idea and possibility that he could be wrong, that we do not have all the information. Well, we will always see into the mirror dimly as the Apostle Paul says – until Jesus returns. And quite possibly we see even more dimly as we skim over information quicker and quicker as it become too much to dig deep into – a reversal of sorts.
I think the strong message here is to always be careful; don’t assume that as a church – even a strong tech-savy and relevant church – that you know it all or even that you need to try every new thing to reach your target group.
Are you considering the possible consequences or are you standing on the chair that will be pulled out from under you?
[Image from Camil_T]
dewde says
Good article, Phillip. I think one of the benefits of having read this book is exactly what you mentioned, "Who only reads and watches unchallenging content?" This book has been challenging and even though I have often disagreed with Hipps, it has been beneficial and enlightening to read.
peace|dewde
human3rror says
this was a really great write up.
Phillip Gibb says
shot man, that means a lot
Phillip Gibb says
for sure, otherwise we would be sheep to every other Tom, Dick and Harry.
Paul Steinbrueck says
Hey Phillip, nice post.
>>What I have trouble with is the concept that the message changes with the change of media. Granted; it might, but in the case of the Word of God – should it? I mean nothing should be added or removed.
Before reading this chapter I would have questioned this claim as well, but I think Hipps makes a compelling argument. It's not that God changes or God's Word changes, but that different aspects of the gospel stand out in different cultures and settings.
God is reconciling the entire world to himself. What that reconciliation looks like depends on our brokenness. He is Savior to the sinner, Father to the fatherless, Healer to the sick, Provider to the hungry, Refuge to the oppressed and much more.
Seems like we are never at a loss for new ways to hurt ourselves and others. Fortunately God continues to reveal himself in new ways as the solution to our new forms of brokenness.
Phillip Gibb says
thanks man,
I definitely agree that different aspects stand out in different cultures and settings. Although there are still many who try very hard to hold on some things that are no longer relevant or necessary – is there a church where the ladies wear hats and all stand at the back?
Also every now and then I find myself reading a verse that meant nothing to me the last time I read but now means everything – it is crazy, but you can't really *know* the Bible or God for that matter – not like we will when we will be in His physical presence.
Mirror Dimly indeed, but sometimes there are moments of clarity that hits us big time.
Paul Steinbrueck says
>>I find myself reading a verse that meant nothing to me the last time I read but now means everything – it is crazy
Exactly! That's a great example of another way the message changes even though God and His Word don't.
Adam_S says
I still keep going back to the fact that it is the emphasis, not the message that really changes. But I think that it is a good thing. Part of the reason that the emphasis changes is because there are real and distinct cultures. If we were all the same, then the same message would reach us all. If you go to a traditional African American church you will hear a very different emphasis, especially around the story of the exodus than you will in most predominately White mega churches. The concept of slavery speaks in a different way to the African American church than it does to most White churches. Now I am not saying that we should not learn from one another. I am not saying that all cultures are complete. What I am saying is that the points of the gospel that the culture embraces is culturally determined. It is then the role of the Holy Spirit and discerning and mature believers to encourage people in the areas that are really hard for a culture to accept.
All that to say that I am not sure that is what Hipps is talking about. Or if it is, then I disagree with him.
@phillipgibb says
I would love to see him talking about this, maybe even in a question and answers session. It could possible clear up a few things – cos there is a limiting effect when communicating through the printed medium.