Technology has one goal—efficiency. Whatever else humans use technology for—and those uses are many—efficiency comes first. That's what technology wants.
Shovels are more efficient than your bare hands. Bullets, more efficient than your fists. The telegraph is more efficient than the Pony Express. Email is more efficient than either one. GPS is more efficient than an atlas. Dyson claims to have the most efficient hand dryers for wicking away wetness—ever. Efficiency is the goal of technology, and most of us want it that way.
Efficiency alone justifies technology in most people's minds. We adopt it for efficiency's sake. Technology makes promises, using words like faster, more, easier, better, less time. Start looking, and you'll see efficiency being lauded everywhere.
The ease of efficiency distances us from the curse of the Fall—toil. God said to Adam, “The ground is cursed because of you. All your life you will struggle to scratch a living from it. It will grow thorns and thistles for you, though you will eat of its grains. By the sweat of your brow will you have food to eat. . . .”
Okay God, but have you seen what John Deere is manufacturing these days? Air-conditioned cabs. Forty-row harvesters. Cup holders. There ain’t much moisture our brows.
Whatever our reasons for using technology, we must make a deal. We must sign a contract with technology. Technology wants efficiency, and if we agree to its terms, we can use it for whatever goals we have. But technology’s methods alter our own practices and in the process often transform our goals. Sometimes efficiency simply distracts us, and we forget. We enjoy the luxury. We don’t have to work as hard. How can that not be good?
Churches often sign technology’s contract as much as anyone else. For all its in-the-world, not-of-the-world rhetoric, the church has overlooked technology.
Here’s how it often happens.
The lead pastor of a zealous, Bible-believing church casts his vision: “We want to reach more people for Christ.” Parishioners in the pews nod their heads. It sounds good. We can get behind that. We certainly can't oppose it. Of course we want to reach more people for Christ! That’s the Great Commission!
Did you notice that word "more"? More is a technology promise word. More is quantity, and in today’s technological society, quantity is feasible. How? "We're going to reach more people by using more technology, more amplifiers, and more video screens."
No, the lead pastor won’t say that, though it is a big part of the answer. He is not being deceptive though. He is just as susceptible to technology's sleight of hand. We can't blame him.
So what will he say? How will we reach more people?
One way is to empower pew-sitters to go into their workplaces and neighborhoods and share the gospel. Certainly many church leaders are passionate about this approach (they call it discipleship). But in a technological society, this method isn't the first option. Technology is.
More often, you’ll hear pastors exhorting their congregations to invite outsiders to come hear him speak. Why? Because technology makes larger audiences possible. Amplification and video venues—and parking lots—enable hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands to hear one man speak on stage or on screen.
Why is this method our first choice? Because technology shapes our methodology.
Audio and video technology convinces churches that they can let a single man do most of the work. It’s more efficient that way. Technology makes it possible, so church leaders reformat their methods to harness the technology.
It’s more efficient than doing the harder, longer, slower work of empowering insiders and sending them out, even though that too sounds like the Great Commission. Discipleship seems quite toilsome at times. We can mitigate this toil though by amplifying—or projecting, or broadcasting—an evangelistic message. Who needs grace? Whatever a pastor says about Jesus, his technology is saying something as well. Instead of building relationships, churches use sound systems and video projectors. Instead of sending its people into the community, churches build bigger auditoriums or multiple sites.
For churches in the technological society, strategically neglecting technology can arrest an imagination in ways that noise and light no longer can. For people bombarded with signs and wonders, it is the mundane that becomes holy.
Is not method simply another term for technology? I actually agree with your diagnosis, but I think that the issue is a bit trickier to think about than you let on. The problem, to my estimation, is how much technology and to what extent the technology controls our movements and motivations. Technology is an inevitable part of our reality, but it has gained more moral persuasion than any moral code or religion in the West, and Christianity lacks guidelines for taming the force and making it subservient to human values. In other words, technology is always a continuum of human action--how do we determine where and why to draw the boundaries on that continuum? gy? I actually agree with your diagnosis, but I think that the issue is a bit trickier to think about than you let on. The problem, to my estimation, is how much technology and to what extent the technology controls our movements and motivations. Technology is an inevitable part of our reality, but it has gained more moral persuasion than any moral code or religion in the West, and Christianity lacks guidelines for taming the force and making it subservient to human values. In other words, technology is always a continuum of human action--how do we determine where and why to draw the boundaries on that continuum?
ReplyDeleteGreat article! It really makes you think. My Pastor gets alot of flack from people (even me) for not using more technology. He has adopted the "send laborers" model- the harder thing to do. And I have to agree that this is primarily the way God has designed people to be saved; through individuals not just sharing the good news, but living it out.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would like to ask another question: Could this be a false dichotemy? Are they necessarily opposed to one another (technology and "hard toil")?
Can't we encourage one another to go out and make disciples and at the same time use technology to do it? I guess I'm saying that these methods do not necessarily equate to the pony express and email. I really don't think that we have reached a point in our technology where it is "better" or "faster" than the old method of discipleship. Rather I think that we can use technology in our discipleship. They are not inherently opposed to one another. For example, I might share the gospel with someone who I've known for a long time and then use facebook or email to invite them to church. Or I might meet them at a coffee shop and use skype as a conference call. I think as long as our mission is clear (to make disciples of Christ), we will always be looking for new ways (and old ways) to accomplish this. Thoughts?
Technology is one of our tools to prepare Christians to deliver the gospel. Relationships are the key. People need to know that the gospel actually works in someone's life. That relationship is key.
ReplyDeleteTechnology can help to start that relationship. If we allow technology alone to deliver the gospel, it can become another gimmick. People give the gospel life through the work of the Holy Spirit in us.
Robby - You're on the right track. Technology functions as a solution to a problem, a solution with an implicit methodology. That methodology contains certain requirements, values, and options. But the technology obscures the methodology, so it's hard to identify those values. Until we can identify the method and its values, we can't understand how they will change our habits and subvert our personal values.
ReplyDeleteJustinian - You're right. It's not an either-or. The danger is that technology's method may be working against discipleship's method (if relationships have a method). We need to understand technology's biases before we can evaluate it.
Terry - Technology is more than a tool. It will affect what you do. And I'm not sure it can prepare believers to embody the gospel.
Is it bad for us to work to overcome the effects of the fall? I would say no. The gospel writer Luke was a physician (healing disease) and the Apostle Paul was a tentmaker (keeping out the elements). Surely these are examples to us that technology to overcome the effects of the fall is not bad.
ReplyDeleteYou're right that the farmer using huge modern machinery to do the work, A/C and cupholders included doesn't look like sweat. However, the frustrations of equipment cost, maintenance, gas prices, contracts, etc. are still there (your idea of the contract of technology). We won't ever get away from the effects of the fall, but lessening them (and counting the cost of doing so) is still a good.
Lee -
ReplyDeleteThanks for the push back. I think the degree to which we rely on technology instead of grace to overcome the effects of the Fall is a bad thing. Our hope is first in grace. I think technology jockeys for grace's position.