Embedded above and below are two videos from Read Schuchardt’s chapel message at Wheaton College where he makes a few observations about media and technology. Although many may have issue with his perspective I personally think that it’s good to simply know what those other perspectives are!
Schuchardt is apparently know fairly well in the Media Ecology Society circles and, among other things, does not own a TV (despite having 5 kids), if that gives any context.
If you’ve got a few minutes, listen to both of the videos (2nd one after the jump) and I’d love your thoughts in the comments!
Well?
[HT: John Dyer]
@ksummerall says
Well, I made it through 3/4 of the videos and had to stop. My brain was hurting. Here are a few observations.
1. Funny that this was posted on YouTube. According to Read, this means that it is not from God. Hmmmm.
2. The Michael Crichton (this is the guy that gave us ER and the Jurassic Park franchise) quote: It seems strange to use a mass media author to try to bolster your point against Mass media. Strange.
3. The frequent pauses to play to the audience. He is attempting to be entertaining while he preaches against entertainment.
4. I hate the argument that Jesus didn't use a computer, or TV, or "insert some technology that didn't exist when Jesus walked the earth here" so we shouldn't use that either. But I bet that this guy drove to work that morning in his car, probably had breakfast cooked on a stove or other electric appliance and reads a Bible, not a scroll. This argument is stupid and just makes Christians look like idiots.
OK, I'm starting to get a little hot about this so I shall go before I say something mean.
K
human3rror says
go use your iphone. that always helps.
π
just kidding. good points and observations. there are some inherit weaknesses but also some good stuff for thought. … and perhaps that's his point.
@ksummerall says
considering his audience I think that you are correct. We do live in the tension between using media and being controlled by it.
@MattLynn says
That's great for Christians to hear every once in a while, but how are we supposed to reach a culture that is attached to all these inputs? You can't disassociate yourself with the world and still expect to reach it. Very much agree with @ksummerall.
And many people have been spoken to by God through youtube/twitter/facebook/etc. Just as he said, "God speaks through the people around us." Well, last time I checked, people speak on Youtube quite often. I'm sure many people who were searching for Him found Him on Youtube.
human3rror says
good points matt. good points.
human3rror says
hmm. he pulls hard right and then left, doesn't he?
JennHudson says
yes he does. in the end, i really needed the tug-o-war today. it left me feeling a little more aligned, like a great visit to the chiropractor. π
human3rror says
hah!
ggamer says
this makes sense because God doesn't DIRECTLY act through youtube… but God's people do. duh. godpwnd
human3rror says
godpwned? haha. never heard that…
ggamer says
i think people who call themselves christians should do more than just sit at their computers and blog about it all day. some people see them as righteous movers for the christian movement… but they just blog about it all day and actually do nothing in the real.
Cliff says
I think that there is a difference between using media as an enhancement and using media as a replacement. The use of media can be very powerful if we use it to enhance the delivery of the word of God. Some people are more visual learners. The use of video and images can be a long benefit to them.
Media also helps us carry the gospel across the world. Through media, we can introduce people to the gospel. However, media should not be a replacement to going to a church and having people physically walk with you on your Christian journey.
paulsheneman says
I agree, Cliff. The distinction between enhancement and replacement is a good way to discern the positive and negative affects of technology on us.
@tylerjz says
I'm tired of the arguments of mutual exclusivity. Church, Christianity, etc. can be both sacrificial and entertaining. Lets remember that something entertaining is simply holding our attention and/or is enjoyable. He said that Bible is only powerful, and not addictive or entertaining. Really? Aren't we to be "slaves" to righteousness? Has he ever given attention to and/or enjoyed God's Word? If he has, he's contradicting himself.
Also, technology is not to blame for anything. I don't have a shortened attention span because of technology. He's taking away personal responsibility.
One last thing: Eye glasses were a "technological development" in their day that does nothing to enhance one's ability to HEAR God's Word, it only opens our eyes more clearly to more distractions. Should we (including the speaker!) stop wearing glasses? Where do you draw the line. Remember "Guns don't kill people; people do."? Technology is not bad. People are. That's why we need redeeming. And, technology has enhanced the church's ability reach so many more people.
Tread a little more lightly, Dr. Schuchardt. We don't have to swing the pendulum so far to one side by being so reactionary…
Steven Rossi says
Heh. I attend Wheaton, and people LOVE Schuchardt at Wheaton. I'm pretty sure there's people that hate him, too, but there are definitely a lot more people that think he is a genius. Me? Eh, I think he's a great guy, but sometimes he definitely says things just to make you squirm. I think I tossed the notes of a talk he gave a while back; I wish I could share them with you guys. Anyway, he makes some really odd comparisons (for instance, the motion of fingers using an iPhone being like moving the piece on a Ouija board). To be honest, I kinda enjoy them, but not necessarily for the reasons that he'd like me to. π
I do think he's a smart guy and has a lot of good things to say, but I just don't see myself following the same extreme thought processes about this stuff. I think it's good for me to hear this kind of thing because I tend to be pretty far to one side of the issue and this sort of stuff moves me more toward the center.
Oh, and I didn't watch this video nor see it when he spoke it in chapel, but I figure it was probably pretty similar to what he normally says. Therefore if something I said sounds stupid in light of what he actually says in these videos, cut me some slack. π
JennHudson says
i nearly stopped listening @ the 3:48 min. mark – I too, like @ksummrall almost could not stand it, feeling the pain of his strong, maybe close-minded message. And it's funny that in the second video – he starting talking about short-attention spans, guessing that's me! While I HIGHLY believe in utilizing media to reach our generation, once I got over the "this video is stupid" feeling, I started listening to the heart of this message, the truth from word of God can not be avoided here. He pulled me in when he discussed the empathetic difference in sending an email or (actually saying it in person), and being actually distracted by media (or not fully present). Because I've been on both sides, of being too distracted by my cell phone, and having people not being fully there for me, because they were too busy twittering or iphone-ing, even though they they were there, they really weren't. I mean his message is certainly "razor sharp" for today's generation, in the long run, I thought his presentation or message overall brilliant, eloquent and wise – and something worth listening to.
Cancel our 'evangelistic' Media Ministry? No. Be more thoughtful to "comfort the widows and orphans"? Yes.
his very last statement sums it up best: all media are permissible, but not all are beneficial. (wow & ow.)
NickShoe says
This was good.
I just returned from a vacation with my wife and son- to The Frigid North (Wisconsin)- where I was pretty much without service for the iPhone (OK- so I had service, but literally involved standing on the corner of the bed in my wife's former room with a hand on the wall to get to the corner of the house. I'm serious.)
I was on staff at a church for the past year and one of the things that was mandated were "White Days". As in- you weren't to be contacted for a 24 hour period sometime in the week regarding church business. The value in this was seen beyond a weekly occurrence, in that once a month the staff was allowed to schedule a half day off on a Sunday (we run four services, so you're pretty much there all day). To top all that off we were strongly encouraged, and the pastors were mandated, to take one full 24 hour period with as little media as possible.
Ok- so how does this relate to this dewde at Wheaton?
Time away- purposeful time away to connect with our Creator is great, and one could argue almost necessary in today's "micro-attention-span-culture".
~NickShoe
NickShoe says
BTW- for those that "couldn't sit through the entire thing because…"
REALLY!?
@tegregory says
Yes, really.
Inanities coupled with the twisting of Scripture to fit one's pre-conceived viewpoint on a particular subject matter is better reserved for the 700 Club instead of a college or university, and, likewise, doesn't deserve my time…
…especially when I'm at work π
@cog2803 says
I''ve come to enjoy being old enough to hear the same arguments trotted out every few years or so . . .
<yawn>
@tegregory says
I get pretty frustrated with comments looking for good qualities in other Christians when they spout off inanities. This man, while not an idiot, has little to offer to a world tearing apart new technologies to create even newer ones (seriously, 3D TV now after CES 2010 and he's talking about YouTube?). This amounts to little more than proclaiming that rock music is "from the devil".
As a stickler for good exegesis, I could not get past Schuchardt's comment (or his quotation of Neil Postman, who was no theologian or biblical scholar – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Postman) regarding "images" in the Ten Commandments. The idea that in this statement about not making "graven images" God "assumed a connection between forms of human communication and the quality of a culture" is absolutely ridiculous. "Graven images" refers to man-made creations meant to replace God in the minds of the Israelites, and doesn't relate to "forms of communication" any more than my shoes says about my own form of human communication and quality of my culture. Shoes don't communicate a message, and neither do "graven images" – at least not the sort of communication that Schuchardt is referring to.
I applaud him for not having a television – my wife and I didn't have cable at least until almost after our first full year of marriage for the same reasons (and I think we'd do well to revert back to that time, though Comcast's $65/yr. for internet and $50/yr. for internet + cable is partly to thank for the idiot box's return to our lives). Why not spend time cautioning students about their online presence and discussing the ethics of being able to see everything that everyone does (especially in relation to Eric Schmidt's comments – CEO of Google – about privacy: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."). There's healthy conversation to be had around this issue.
While I don't mind calling into question one's own personal use of technology and what that means for oneself (or even critiquing highly technological culture in relation to the the life of the Church – there were Desert Fathers for a reason, you know), I DO mind poor exegesis and attempting to make Scripture fit a theory it was never intended to support. I feel the same about using Scripture to refute evolution, but that's an entirely different matter (if you so desire, read "The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate" for more on the nature of Creation in the Genesis account: http://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Genesis-One-Cosm…
human3rror says
wow, you dropped the bomb bro!
btw, my wife is an english lit major. she'd like you. and… dude… go for the PH.D.
π
@tegregory says
Thanks for the encouragement towards a doctorate – I'd love to, but I'm not sure it'll happen any time soon.
@ksummerall says
Yeah, that's pretty much what I wanted to say ;)! You said it much better.
andydarnell says
Wow. This guy looks like me. However, I guess he and I differ a lot in this area. To me, as long as the technology can remain transparent and not get in the way or be the focal point, it can be effectively used to amplify the message of Christ. I have run into many who differ with me on this, as they immediately close their minds to anything related to technology. (Youtube being a GREAT example!)
Daniel_Berman says
I haven't watched the videos and I'm exactly sure if I want to for reasons that many have listed above. That said it does occur to me, its one thing to say something in order to knock others off balance and encourage them to think. Its entirely different to actually personally believe what your saying and encourage others to follow you. Its entirely different still to act as though one believes something and only do it to encourage people to think. Which is it here?
I am all for intellectual exercises and good old fashioned theological debate over exegesis, but the question that keeps coming back is authenticity on the part of the speaker in these videos. If people are purposely having to reinterpret his statements for constructive use in their own lives, which do not include whole-sale application of the statements hasn't the instructor lost control of the guidance process in the learning situation? Who's actually teaching and who is doing the learning? Can it be called learning if its not guided by someone else with superior intellect or life experience?
Philip Lim says
this might sound stupid and sarcastic but…
he said that God's Word is something that "needs to be heard" referring that that's the "only" way…well, we have deaf mute friends and some blind…they use some type of "media" foreign to me…brail for one – something that you feel with your fingers…and to the deaf – sign language – something that you use your eyes with.
i am a busy person but thanks to MEDIA
– i can "hear" God's Word in my car…at least now i can't even notice TRAFFIC – or at least divert my mind to listening hahahaha
– i can "see" God's Word at work in peoples lives
– etc.
anyway, i believe in balance – media has made our attention span run really really short but we can't just tell people "HEY, LISTEN HERE!" if we are no longer relevant to them…
π
human3rror says
good points here philip. i know a number of deaf and mute people too.
Chris Chowdhury says
Honestly… what Read said about "going in person" to serve people really spoke to me. I serve in Detroit to plenty of destitute people and I fear living a "YouTube-worthy" life here and still never making a real impact. Don't misunderstand me – I own a TV, MacBook, iPod, am courting an iPhone, I blog and use Facebook/Twitter – BUT, in the end, none of these things matter to the people I'm called to reach.
We're called to GO – physically – and reach people with the love of Christ. I believe it's sinful how easily satisfied we can be with more followers, views, and comments when so many are without Christ.
That is what matters most. And if anything (media or not) knocks our attention from the Great Commission – we are wasting it.
And by the way… to those who "couldn't sit through this" – you may need to check what upsetting you so much and take it to God in prayer. As for me, this was a bit jarring – my life doesn't belong to me and I want to do my best to listen and obey the Lord Jesus and to make Him known.
Thanks for posting this John.
human3rror says
Sure thing bro. I just want to bring the conversation into the light.
π