I’m leading a workshop next month at Union Presbyterian Seminary, and I thought in typical wiki-fashion, I’d get some of your thoughts. The title of the workshop is “How Technology is Changing our Faith & Worship: Whether you Know it or Not” and this is the description:
So many churches today are feeling the pressure to become “relevant” and “hip” and use as much technology as possible in the midst of worship. We will discuss reasons why you should and shouldn’t use new forms of media in your church’s worship. We’ll also look at the ways in which the technology of our times can actually not only change the practices of our churches, but our theology as well – and whether that’s a good thing or not. Finally, we’ll look at some examples of practical ways that you can faithfully use technology in your worship gatherings.
I obviously have some thoughts on the issue, but I’d love to hear from you and your experiences with technology and worship and technology and faith.
As you think about the ways in which technology and social media have been rapidly changing our lives in the past few years, where do you see that most vividly with faith and worship? Are these positive changes? In what ways does technology help us go deeper with our faith, or allow us to enter into worship in new and more engaging ways?
Are there some ways in which it is negatively impacting our faith and worship? As an early-adopter and embracer of technology, sometimes I may not be able to see the negative ways as easily, so it would be helpful to hear from you all.
And finally, what are some of the most creative and engaging ways you’ve used technology in worship? I’m speaking about using it above-and-beyond displaying song lyrics using PowerPoint (not that there is anything wrong with that, but I think folks may be interested and hungry for more than that).
I’m a one-trick pony on this stuff: Douglas Rushkoff’s “Program or Be Programmed” is the most helpful thing I’ve found for thinking about what I’m asking technology to do in a given context and whether that use actually takes advantage of the programmed bias of that technology. In that light, I’ve seen (and perpetuated) lots of bad uses of technology, uses that work against what the technology actually wants to do.
Can you say more about the bad uses? Specific examples?
Sure. Video film loops behind worship song lyrics, for example, or graphics and video used as sermon illustrations, work against what can genuinely happen in a worship setting: people connecting in a shared physical space. A Twitter back-channel is a particularly egregious example of using social media technology–which is biased towards connecting people at a distance–to connect people who are actually in the same place. Both are examples of using media technology against itself, I think.
I blog about these issue regularly. Also, check out donteatthefruit.com and theodigital.com for good thoughts. Good books include Shane Hipps’ Flickering Pixels, but his The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture is better (and harder to get).
Email me if you’d like to talk more.
I may be in touch but I think everyone here would benefit from your thoughts too – what do you think? Good? Bad?
Good or bad, I don’t know.
I think . . .
…technology’s fundamental goal is efficiency–bigger, faster, more.
…technology obscures its methods and processes by its very nature–through the push-button devices it offers.
…God is extravagant, not efficient.
…he values the process as much as (or more than) the result.
…the more we use technology, the more it shapes our habits, and us.
…technology’s formation often runs counter to our formation into Christ’s likeness.
In terms of the worship hour, I have the ability to project media in the sanctuary easily, so we have the liturgy on powerpoint (they have been doing that for a long time–well before me). In terms of other media, there are weeks when I insert photos or maps or other slides in the midst of my sermons. If I introduce a Greek or Hebrew word, for example, or a map of Israel when I want to show what it means when it says “Jesus went to the Decapolis…” I also show video clips in the midst of sermons sometimes.
I love having that ability.
We also show a video each week at the beginning of worship that is somehow connected to the service. This allows me to bring in a different voice on the same issues. Or it sometimes is a more contemporary song with images to go along with it because we have been unsuccessful at bringing in newer music in worship (another story for another day). Sometimes the videos are from Work of the People, Sermon Spice, etc. Other times they are things I see on facebook or that someone finds on youtube.
So, we don’t use media just because we can. And our powerpoint is very simple. We don’t have laser light shows. Our worship service is quite traditional in all other respects.
The rest of the week, we are changing the way we use media. Our website is being re-designed. We are starting to use things like Dropbox with the elders and deacons. I put my sermons on my “blog” (even though I don’t really blog, I just post sermons). Many of the homebound members will get online and listen to the sermons from the church website or read them on my blog. I have tried to incorporate Twitter, but there aren’t that many people in my congregation who use it.
I don’t really experience the “negative” with the technology. It seems to make things easier from my viewpoint. Will keep thinking about negatives.
In terms of positive uses of technolgy in worship, I echo Marci’s examples: when clips or pictures strengthen the message, it enhances worship. And when music is added, visuals have even more potential to touch us.
Negative uses that come to mind have more to do with how it is delivered: if technology doesn’t work well; is sound or visual is unclear; or AV volunteer is not skilled….and there is a delay or clumsy delivery.
I read this pomomusings piece after reading : christiancentury.org/article/2011-08/why-sermons-bore-us . The two topics combined in my mind. The potential of technology in worship is closely connected to the depth, and risks, we take in the message. Great technology cannot save a sermon that is mundane or superficial.
The ways that I find technology limiting is when it limits the demographic to people who use it. In my church we have a lot of recent immigrants and people of a variety of incomes. So the people in the pews may have very limited access to technology such as e-mail or facebook. I’m speaking more about communication than about worship. But, that also translates to worship. If we were always integrating the latest and best technology in our worship (tweeting through the service or something) it would draw a line across economics and demographics that we don’t want to draw.
In fact, my church doesn’t use technology in worship as such. It’s just not our vibe.
The pitfall with getting too caught up in being hip and relevant is that you’ll turn into the “church of what’s happening now” as my dad would say. Church and MTV should be distinct. Most churches I know, however, are on the other side of the spectrum – still trying to get a color printer or a website.
I’m curious about the title of your workshop suggesting technology could change worship whether we know it or not. Are you playing with ways in which technology is behind the scenes in worship? Our worship is different because of the ease of communication – facebook, etc. And technology does make it possible to communicate with those spheres of people. But, we don’t do much besides communication.
What is unique about church in our culture is that it is one of the only places where people gather in a large group to have a common experience. The next closest thing is going to a movie or sports game. All other large common experiences happen on television or through various forms of social networking, etc. In many ways, church is unique in that it doesn’t need a lot of technology to perform the best parts of worship – feeling that you’re part of something bigger than yourself. I always love that part of worship where you shake everyone’s hands. It is deliciously awkward and uncomfortable precisely because we don’t do it anywhere else.
Everything we use digitally will come at a cost. Whether we have moving backgrounds during worship to song tempo. I think we have to realize that when we become an early adopter without thinking it through it can often give the oposite side effects of what we wanted in the first place. Great post Adam. I agree with Adam up top that Shane Hipps is the man when it comes to spitituality in a digtial world.
Dr. Ian Malcom (Jeff Goldblum) – Jurassic Park:
“Yeah, but your scientists or (insert relevant name for those who are making behind the scene decisions that will change history for no well thought out reason HERE: ) were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.” – parenthesis mine.
Adam, I think the most significant way in which technology is changing Christianity and how we worship is by altering our expectations, especially the expectations of younger generations who are natives to new media and new technology.
As was shared in the comments earlier, “Technology’s fundamental goal is efficiency – bigger, faster, more.” One of the best books that unpacks this further is “Open Source Church” by Landon Whitsitt, in which he uses the example of Wikipedia and how it’s “open source” accessibility alters our expectations in significant ways. For example, “If I can go online right now and edit/update one of the most popular websites in the world, why can’t I go into a local church and participate and contribute and edit/update the ways things operate in that setting just as easily??”
The speed (or lack thereof) in which churches move and change is deeply frustrating to those of us who are used to this high level of speed and “editability” that we find in the online environment (where we spend most of our time – at work and at play).
And if our churches are not “open” to our creative contributions, inviting our ideas and input at all levels, then it is a “closed system” that we don’t have patience for. Again, this is about altering our preconceived notions of how things should work, our expectations for how involved we can/should be. Younger generations (and young at heart folks) want to be engaged and to be co-creators/contributors, not inactive spectators. We want to make a difference, make an impact, affect positive change.
There are other challenges that technology presents as we seek to “do church” in increasingly virtual environments, which I address in my presentation “The Theology of Twitter.” It’s a few years old now, but I think the three challenges I discuss there (see the notes, esp.) are still relevant: http://www.slideshare.net/knightopia/the-theology-of-twitter
Fascinating topic, though, Adam. I’d love to hear your presentation, what you harvest from these learnings and your own observations and thoughts.
I serve as the technical director for our congregation and we do have all the usual tech, projectors, computers, audio gear, FM transmitters for hearing assist etc.; but the philosophy we try to employ comes from the work I do in community theatre. That is,
“If the congregation notices the technology, you’ve gotten it wrong.”
Technology should enhance the non-technological experience. If the person sitting in the pew is thinking, “Oooh! That’s a nice background on this hymn.” rather than, “Am I really living up to the words I’m singing?” then, in my view, you have distracted them from the worship experience.
Granted, it could be the individual as well, but you get my point. Whatever we add to a service needs to work to remove barriers to people engaging in the worship experience. If it doesn’t you may need to rethink how you are implementing the technology.
A lot of good comments above, and I agree that the we can adopt technology without thinking about the impact on community or the implicit theology it communicates. I especially liked Steve’s point that the expectations of our wiki/crowdsource/social media society can cause problems when the digital natives and tech savvy folks have different expectations than the reality they see in their churches.
I do think in the best cases, technology can help us be better storytellers. Have you ever looked into the work Nancy Duarte (Slideology, Resonate) and Garr Reynolds (Presentation Zen) have done to help people be better visual communicators. They emphasize basics like knowing your audience, crafting a story, and then letting visuals and technology serve the message.