Stop Using Media (Part Three)

Posted by Scott McClellan on October 15th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

This is the third installment in an ongoing and open-ended series devoted to convincing you, the church leader, not to use media.

Stop using media if you’re just trying to impress people.

This ties in with a couple of my previous posts, including Stop Using Media (Part One) and The Problem with an Industry of Cool, but I think this is a slightly different message. Stop using media if you’re just trying to impress people. Trying to impress people is an incredibly difficult proposition in the long run. And besides, it’s not our calling anyway.

Let’s think about how difficult it is for you, the church leader to impress the people that darken your doorways on Sunday mornings or some night during the week. First of all, unless you’re a megachurch with a serious budget, there’s probably a church in your area that is more visually dazzling and better acoustically-engineered than your church. They probably have more staff and better equipment than your church, so their media will typically be more “impressive” (at least on the surface). To compete with them (red flag!) and impress the people who are drawn to that church instead of yours (another red flag!), you’ll need to increase the resources you dedicate to “impressive” stuff such as glossy print pieces, Hollywood-esque sermon teaser videos, and those flat screens in the bathrooms that we all love so much.

If you do manage to acquire the funds for all of that and create something genuinely impressive, the church across town will just raise their game accordingly and out-impress you the next Sunday. D’oh.

Now, let’s imagine that your church is the most “impressive” church in your metro area and you can maintain your king-of-the-mountain status. Guess what? The secular world has the means and motivation to make your operation look rinky-dink. The people you’ve been impressing will go see Hannah Montana or U2 in 3D and wonder why your services are so flat and bland. They’ll go see The Dark Knight in an IMAX theater and wonder why your videos are so ordinary and why their bones don’t chatter when your band is onstage. They’ll go to a Nine Inch Nails concert and wonder why your live experience is sooooo 2005.

See, U2 and Hannah and Trent Reznor want all the entertainment dollars your metro area has to offer, and they’re willing to pull out all the stops to get them. They’re willing to play the “impress” game, one-upping each other month after month, year after year as the crowds (and dollars) flock to whatever is the most impressive at the moment. And that’s all well and good for them. That’s the capitalist system we live in. But that’s not all well and good for the local church.

We don’t exist to compete for ADD-addled eyeballs and entertainment dollars. We don’t exist to win the “impress” race (hint: it’s a race with no end, which means it can’t be won). We exist to connect people with God and each other, to facilitate that connection. The last time I checked, the most impressive laser light show on earth couldn’t accomplish that purpose.

If you feel yourself caught up in a never-ending quest to impress people, consider putting all of your media toys back in the toy box and then only pull out the ones that honest-to-goodness help you connect people with God and others. The result might not be very impressive, but it might be effective.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

19 Responses to “Stop Using Media (Part Three)”

Excellent post Scott reminding us all of the real reason for media to better connect people with God.

posted at 10:27 pm on October 15th, 2008 by jonathan

Stop Using Media if……

And to go along with the great deals from Ignitor below…From Collide online…”Stop using media if you’re just trying to impress people.This ties in with a couple of my previous posts, including Stop Using Media (Part One)and The Problem with an Ind…

posted at 7:58 am on October 16th, 2008 by PastorHacks

It reminds me of a quote: “What you attract people with is what you attract people to.” I hope that my ministry attracts people with (and to) the love of Christ, not our fancy light shows. Our media is only used to amplify the message… not be the message.

posted at 10:49 am on October 17th, 2008 by Daniel Murphy

Admitting that rock concerts attract more people than sermons is quite a correct statement, however the reason is not that rock concerts have fancier equipment than churches. The reason is that people connect much better and more closely with art than they do with literature written by bronze age men. And at least no one is going to Hell if they prefer jazz music or no music at all. People are coming to the realization that morality does not originate from the pages of a document which justifies punishment of homosexuals, the keeping of slaves, the mutilation of the genitals of children, the murdering of children for disobedience and the countless other horrifying and ridiculous commandments of the Bible.

Moral precepts such as “treat others as you’d like to be treated” existed long before the Bible was written and was universal to isolated cultures. Knowing such facts presents conflicts with peoples’ rationality and good nature. It is for this reason that churches stoop to tactics of flat-panel screens, computer controlled can lights, hifi stereo systems and a growing secularization of church messages.

posted at 6:15 pm on December 3rd, 2008 by larhule

Larhule,

Thanks for your perspective. As a self-described anti-theist, obviously your thoughts on what the Bible and the Church are differ from our beliefs and those of our audience. If you’d like to pursue a dialogue about Christianity, morality, and church tactics, I’d welcome an email from you. You can reach me at scott[[at]]collidemagazine[[dotcom]].

posted at 8:54 am on December 4th, 2008 by Scott McClellan

Perhaps if you weren’t trying simply to impress your audience you would be more willing to engage my difference-of-opinion in public. I would welcome such a dialogue if it were available to everyone.

posted at 9:48 am on December 4th, 2008 by larhule

A couple of things: First, I don’t think the comments section of a blog post is the best place for an in-depth dialogue. Second, I don’t think antagonistic and insulting comments made toward me on this blog are a good way to begin the dialogue. My invitation for an email dialogue still stands, provided that you dispense with the antagonism and insults. If you want a conversation, let’s have one. If you want us to fire volleys back and forth one another via blog comments, let’s not.

posted at 11:20 am on December 4th, 2008 by Scott McClellan

I have made no insult and my antagonism only goes as far as that I have a difference of opinion. My level of antagonism may vary depending on the degree with which I disagree with you. For instance, if you were to write a blog criticizing the church for attempting to be like a rock concert in order to be more entertaining I might simply reply that I agree but think rock concerts are still more entertaining. If you were to write a blog analogizing Hitler with a gay man my reply might be a bit more antagonizing, bordering on insulting, but never more insulting than your original message! My replies to your other blog entries will prove the truth and sincerity in that promise.

I’m glad to see that you didn’t list keeping a difference of opinion out of public view to be one of your reasons for not wanting a public conversation in this replies to this thread. I think we can both agree that such a reason would be shameful and silly.

So unless you have some other reason why you don’t want a public conversation on the issues I’ve presented I expect I’ll be replying to a post with some substance next time.

posted at 1:42 pm on December 4th, 2008 by larhule

“Perhaps if you weren’t simply trying to impress your audience …” is antagonistic.

“… if you were to write a blog criticizing the church for attempting to be like a rock concert in order to be more entertaining I might simply reply that I agree but think rock concerts are still more entertaining.” Funny, ’cause that’s not what you did.

And what about a private conversation with Scott intimidates you, larhule? Why do you only welcome the dialogue in a forum where others can “listen in?” Do you really want to have a discussion, or do you want to broadcast your opinions?

posted at 3:47 pm on December 4th, 2008 by Lex

larhule – you were correct in stating that people are coming to the conclusion that morality does not originate from the pages of a the Bible. Which has left us all wondering, “where does morality come from?” Is it a Darwinian mechanism, a social consensus, or is each person free to determine his/her own moral standards? Any suggestions?

posted at 3:57 pm on December 4th, 2008 by Paul Stewart

thank you Scott for not feeling the need to engage larhule in the a negative debate via this blog space. It has been my experience that those seeking to provoke such antagonistic conversations are only looking to “impress” the earshot audiences anyway.

posted at 4:17 pm on December 4th, 2008 by micahmathis

I’m a believer, willing to accept that a certain collection of “literature written by bronze age men” also contains the essential moral circuitry and code for the world without needing to understand or rationalize every sentence or even every book within it. I also have a problem with the tendency of the church to perform a chameleon act with popular culture: to be “on” it but not “of” it. It does tend to make for second rate art. The medium of the gospel is relationships and that’s where its true art exists. It’s great to play with high-tech toys if that draws the tech community into relationships with the church. Relationships in the blogosphere tend to involve a lot of curt and inflammatory opinions like those written by larhule. I don’t think that anything he wrote was beyond the pale for this kind of a forum. But, having said that, I have to admit this is my first visit to this forum, and it’s better blog etiquette to lurk for a while before making such a call. I saw a note from Scott on Twitter and that led me here. I knew I couldn’t fit my reply into 140 characters, so I’m using this space to answer his Twitter question.

posted at 5:30 pm on December 4th, 2008 by Rick Broussard

I will agree with Rick Broussard that this is my first visit here too. After that, we part on many levels.

You request the atheist to lurk, before comment, yet, like me, you comment on YOUR first visit. Beams and specks of sawdust anew.
Many churches like folks to visit and be quiet until they learn the local rules too.
That is NOT Jesus Christ.

I dialoged with an atheist online years ago. In his personal life, he had made a committment to help someone get toys for Aids orphans. He failed and used his own money to supplement the deficit dolls.

I advised him to commit double the amount next year, and prayer would deliver. Given his financial beating the first year, he was more than skeptical; he was afraid. The next year saw contributions in excess of doubling.

We talked more, and repeated the offer of prayer for a double again on Aids gifts to Africa. He made the committment and met it! He became Man of the Year in Holland (lives in Amsterdam) and ended up on TV.
[His efforts in Africa reflected on the country well and they recognized him for it --- he is from Wisconsin :) ]

From that TV show, the money to help Aids orphans flowed. It is amazing to me how he understood Christ out of all of that, and is a firm believer today.

All from a blog comment.
Do NOT underestimate your Creator.
Each person you come in contact has value. Find it. Including the gentleman above who sees shadows as well as light.
Why do you think God sent him here?
For rejection? Or Grace.
Your answer may well determine his eternity.

Ps. The atheist I mentioned now emails me privately about the wonders of Jesus Christ. Isn’t that better than private emails of arguing?

posted at 8:57 am on December 5th, 2008 by Danny Lucas

“And what about a private conversation with Scott intimidates you, larhule? Why do you only welcome the dialogue in a forum where others can “listen in?” Do you really want to have a discussion, or do you want to broadcast your opinions?”

and

“thank you Scott for not feeling the need to engage larhule in the a negative debate via this blog space. It has been my experience that those seeking to provoke such antagonistic conversations are only looking to “impress” the earshot audiences anyway.”

Judging by the reaction to my simple disagreements it is obvious that you don’t get much diversity in opinion here at Collide. Rather than having my opinion engaged with seriousness I’m simply labeled as intimidated and voyeuristic. I’d rather focus my attention to people like Paul and Rick who actually responded to the content of my message.

“larhule – you were correct in stating that people are coming to the conclusion that morality does not originate from the pages of a the Bible. Which has left us all wondering, “where does morality come from?” Is it a Darwinian mechanism, a social consensus, or is each person free to determine his/her own moral standards? Any suggestions?”

Thanks for the reply, Paul. Short answer: All of the above and then some. I think that all of your suggested options play a role in the current state of morality. It is obvious that morality shifts over time. No sane person in today’s U.S. could possibly find some of the preachings of the Old Testament to be “moral”, whereas, in the age of Mesopatamia those ideas were commonplace. Any respectable citizen of the U.S. could not possibly agree that slavery was acceptable though, regardless of interpretation, the Bible plainly justifies it in many places. The “prophet” Muhammad took a wife of age 9 but we have chosen to have laws prohibiting pedophilia. Most Muslims choose to betray their leader by prohibiting such a marriage. Philosophy and human law shape morality as well. We as a governing people can come together to agree upon laws that punish people for actions that we deem ‘wrong’. Through enforcement, people who violate those rules are punished. The desire to not be punished creates a population of people who believe that slavery is bad. The Darwinian component of pressure-on-a-population-causing-a-shift-in-behavior is obvious. This is behavioral evolution rather than biological evolution.

Ideas such as do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-done-to-you were spread through early Chinese philosophy in the form of proverb. The number of such fine-tuned philosophical proverbs focused on morality are countless and predate any Judeo-Christian origins. If morality existed before the Bible then morality did not come from the Bible. I know I’m slightly begging your question of where morality came from. It is likely that we’ll never know for sure what the ORIGINS are (a good quote for those who aren’t taking this discussion seriously) due to the soupy complex nature of the interactions between Darwinian natural selection, zeitgeist shift, personal respnosibility, human law/concensus, philosophy, DEBATE, etc. As well, these pressures have been placed on humans long before written history. Even the dawn of written history shows that concensual morality was well in place before people started carving their thoughts into stone. What we can be sure of is that there is no single source of “goodness” and that all of the above components are at work in the constantly shifting process that shapes our current “morality”. Atheists can feel that abortion is wrong. Take me, for instance.

“I’m a believer, willing to accept that a certain collection of “literature written by bronze age men” also contains the essential moral circuitry and code for the world without needing to understand or rationalize every sentence or even every book within it.”

Keywords: “willing to accept”. The only reason one need be “willing to accept” is when a conclusion must be drawn in spite of the evidence. No one has to be “willing to accept” that the Earth is round or that our current morality has strong roots in time long before the Bible was written.

Also, the unwillingness to “understand and rationalize every book” of the Bible in order to find morality just further solidifies my point that morality does not come from the Bible. You take a piece here, you take a piece there, you ignore the part about acceptable slavery, (some of) you ignore the part about unacceptable homosexuality. To whatever extent you get your morality from the Bible you cherry-pick it. The standard by which you cherry-pick is your morality.

“I also have a problem with the tendency of the church to perform a chameleon act with popular culture: to be “on” it but not “of” it. It does tend to make for second rate art.”

Third rate even! If I were a church-goer I would go to the one where I might be able to catch Brahms’ “Ein Deutches Requiem”.

“You request the atheist to lurk, before comment, yet, like me, you comment on YOUR first visit. Beams and specks of sawdust anew.”

Shrewd and well-stated observation.

Scott’s Twitter message that led you all here:
“an angry, anti-theist blog commenter has chosen to splash Hater-ade on me today”

Angry? Hater-ade? That is low. I’ve not once been angry or hateful. Disagreement and even slight antagonism does not equal anger or hate. Your attempt to mis-characterize is deceptive and evasive. When you reply directly to me it is “in-depth dialogue” and “private email conversation”. When you’re trying to rally the troops on your Twitter account it’s “angry anti-theist blog commenter” and “splash Hater-ade on me”. How Jesusy.

posted at 11:57 am on December 5th, 2008 by larhule

Second visit ever here at Collide.
I find it a blog that lives up to its name. lol.

larhule, hello.
I am Danny.
I once posted at a site and made a comment on church. The blog owner got bent out of shape big time. He did not like my tone. The content was apparently irrelevant to him. After a few back and forth comments, he agreed with my assessment that the use of “frigging” was probably not the best choice of words to employ by him (I invited him to just use the real word that “frigging, freaking, etc” stands for, if you are compelled to use the substitute.

He responded “Point taken”.
Then added that,.. tone counts more than content.
I disputed that, but now, you come along and make me have second thoughts on my own contention.

I came here from Tweets.
I stand convicted of your judgment that the Tweet by Scott was unkind at best. However, a small benefit to you comes two ways:
1) a larger attention to your opinion is gathered.
2) your lament that you are blackballed to a private chat is incorrect.

That is clearly written above by Scott. However, he appears willing to not delete the living daylight out of your comment, or even edit it (to my knowledge). Consequently, I think it fair to say you have been welcomed to the table, as well as I have been welcomed here twice so far.

Whether you write publicly, or privately, is not really the point. In fact, I encourage you to do BOTH. We are both visitors to a domain we do not own. Scott holds the Aces…..all of them.
You, nor I have a winning hand at words.
Scott is within his rights to say “get out of my house”.
So be nice.
I will try too.

Social mores change over time. I agree.
Morality does not. It remnains consistent over all of time. We have an inherent knowledge, built in our hearts, of right and wrong.

There has never been acceptance of murder, for example. Obviously, murder occurs all times. However, all times have considered murder to be morally wrong.

That is why we parse it under the law.
Involuntary, voluntary, first degree, second degree, and so forth. It allows us to overide morality and deal with an actual murder under whatever circumstances they occur. But the morality is always there. Murder is wrong.

I could site many moral truisms. But, if that one is mentioned, it is enough to confirm that morality stays the same, tho mores change socially.
We are currently less puritan, than the Puritans, and so far,..less heathen than the Romans at the end of their happy empire.

Here is the crux.
Christians get law wrong often. You have documented that very well and it can not be disputed. That is the human side of being Christian. We are working on it and trying to do better, but some generations, societies, and countries “get it” better than others. Ditto that for denominations too.

But all of the above take their cues from Jesus Christ. Christian belief is that Christ always existed, exists now, and always will. Same for God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Three distinct characters that have been the Creator, Savior, and Counselor…..to us!

Amazingly, everyone likes to discuss bad Christians and good Christians, Moslems, old Testament, all kinds of things. In reality, there is only ONE discussion. Jesus Christ.

Everyone gets to decide for themselves, HE IS….
or he is not. And no one, can force anyone else to believe one way or the other.

While Scott holds all the Aces at this domain, and can determine if he chooses to allow comment or close it, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit play by different rules.

They are big enough and great enough to force submission. Some “christians” tried to imitate that during the Crusades and I suspect Jesus wept.

What God has done, larhule, is to take His aces and plant them in hearts of all people ever created.
Guess what?
Everyone has a trump card!
YOU get to choose whether you want to love Jesus Christ and accept that He provides everything you need in life. OR, you can choose to decline that and deny Jesus is the King.

The beauty of His system is that ONLY the people who genuinely love Him, live with Him….forever.
Who would YOU rather live with? Someone who chooses to love you and accept you as you are, even die for you? Or, someone who likes your money, your looks, your ability to sweet talk, your performance in whatever you do, or a myriad other bunch of reasons to be yours.

One of the above is genuine love.
The other is imitation.
By giving you the trump card to choose (everyone gets one in their heart) HE relinquishes power to force you to love Him.
You do; or you do not.
That is as simple as it gets.

Now I will add this from Christ.
In the final times, many are going to His door and pounding on the outside. They yell to get in to heaven saying: “Lord! Lord! Let us in! Don’t you recognize us?”

Please note….these are “believers” in Jesus Christ…they are calling Him “Lord!”.

He says to them brutally: “GET AWAY from me.
I NEVER knew you”. And shuts the door forever.

So, larhule, your complaints square with the Bible.
There are people who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ and He claims “I never knew you”.

I suspect that you have run into an inordinate amount of those types of , so called, “believers”, for you appear to have insight and wisdom to spot hypocracy easily. So does Jesus Christ.

And the morality that we opened with above comes from HIM. That is why, morals, like Jesus Christ, always were, are, and always will be.

It would be morally wise…to choose Christ and get to know Him independent of the “christians” you have encountered that no nothing of Him or His Grace. Christians are afraid to talk about Grace (He died for our sins). You believe in Him? Then you own more than a trump card to love God, you own a Get Out Of Hell free card.

We can not lose, for we are covered by Grace in every sin we can possibly make, except one.
He was never big on someone blaspheming the Holy Spirit. He said He won’t forgive that. I believe Him on that. Again, everyone is free to choose, yup or nope on blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

Since it is the ONLY one not forgivable, why tempt it? There are plenty of other sins to do instead.
And mankind has done em all, eh?

God has no problem with sinners. He loves em.
He does have a problem with sin. He hates it.

Find a way to become ONLY a sinner, who chooses to stop sinning. This is not a bad way to choose to live, doncha think?

Christians rarely tell even themselves that His Grace already covers any sin that can be made or has been made,…ever!

Paul, a Christian killer, who stopped that sin, and wrote sections of the Bible, spoke the most on Grace,…. for he received a lot of it.

His point? If grace is so cool, how about we sin more and more so that grace adds up faster to cover more sins. More sins = more grace, eh?

No, No, No, No.
When you chose Christ and STOP sinning, you are exercising that trump card of love. You are in!
Welcome to the family of God!

And, when others see this transformation in a fellow or woman, named larhule, they are struck by the audacity of that turnaround in life choices and want it for themselves. THAT is how believers grow in numbers, and they are the ones who will reside with Christ forever—-NOT the fake’oes.

You already have a keen eye to detect the frauds and the faults. Refocus.
Do NOT look at Christians.
Look at Christ.
Christians often get Christ wrong.
Do NOT be one of them.
Be real.
I already told you what He will tell the fakes that call Him “lord”, but live their lives to piss off larhule.

I have made my choice on Jesus.
Like Him, I will force loving Him on no one.
That is what His followers are supposed to be like.

One guy, Augustine, told God….
“Make me pure like you,…..but not yet”.
His momma knew this and prayed for help from God to overlook that big mouth, and save her son.
THAT mom knew how to love a tough kid to love, eh?
She prayed like crazy. Her name is Monica.
Her prayers were answered.

Augustine and God got close enough, because of the consistent prayer of a momma for her son to get it right. Soon, Augustine looked at Christ, instead of Christians and sinning did not seem so important anymore.

I gotta run. That’s the best offer you will get this side of heaven larhule.

Consider Jesus Christ.
Nothing else in life matters except Him and the love He offers forever.
Do NOT follow Christians. Follow Christ.
And, if you do not know him, find someone like Monica that knows how to pray and ask for help.
Humility was His greatest character trait.
Let it be tours too.
He will answer.

Have a great life larhule, and begin the best life has to offer sooner, rather than later.
The best is yet to be.

posted at 2:55 pm on December 5th, 2008 by Danny Lucas

Now that everyone has had a chance to voice their opinion, and since the comments now have nothing to do with the original post, I’m going to delete new comments manually when they are posted. In other words, no more comments on this post, please. In future posts, comments that don’t address the preceding post will be deleted immediately as well.

As always, I invite anyone to email me in order to share their thoughts, opinions, questions, or experiences. If you have a blog or forum in which you’d like to host a discussion of your own or publish your own thoughts, I encourage you to do so. This space, however, doesn’t exist for that purpose.

Going forward, the COLLIDE blog will continue to thoughts and news on the intersection of media, technology, and the Christian faith—nothing more and nothing less.

Thanks for your patronage and compliance.

posted at 3:13 pm on December 5th, 2008 by Scott McClellan

Scott, please allow me this last link…If anyone would like to continue this discussion please see my blog (12/05/08):

http://larhule.blogspot.com

posted at 3:31 pm on December 5th, 2008 by larhule

Larhule,

I’m happy to do that. I encourage anyone interested in reading Larhule’s perspective on this interaction and continuing the conversation to visit his blog: http://larhule.blogspot.com/

posted at 3:46 pm on December 5th, 2008 by Scott McClellan

Thanks!

posted at 4:02 pm on December 5th, 2008 by larhule

Church Media Group, Inc.