It’s the false prophet. But let’s not quibble.

I think there’s something else at work with this technology/powerpoint stuff as used in the church. It used to be that the purpose of technology was to enable us to do the labor of our daily bread with less effort — a form of thorns and thistles herbicide and antiperspirant for our brows, as it were.

Now technology, historically associated with work, has become associated with….whatever we think it is we’re doing in church, I guess. Not only is what we do in church no longer seen as a laying down of our earthly labors in order to engage in closer communion with God than is normally possible while we’re busy beating back those thorns, but we’re importing the very “technological language” of our daily work into our worship. Something about that just isn’t right. I remember a few years back I was involved in a discussion over a church that had installed data ports in the first few pews so that laptop-bearers could download the sermon whie in progress. It was being defended on the grounds of, “But where is the chapter and verse in which it says that data ports should not be in church? And isn’t more access to more information about the preaching a good thing? And how is that different from electric lights?” Not only did that bother on “come up front to the best seat, thou bearer of wealth and technology” grounds, but something else rubbed me the wrong way. I wish now I’d thought to say in the midst of that discussion, “But do you really WANT church to feel like a coporate training seminar?” And besides that, it’s implicit in the whole concept that efficient information transfer* is a priority in the church. Just typing that makes my skin crawl and I’m beginning to see visions of John Robbins dancing in my head.

The sad thing is, a vast number of people either do want church to feel like a training seminar, or it doesn’t occur to them what might be rather strange about it if they did.

*Okay, somebody’s going to say, “Isn’t efficient information transfer just a rhetorically snarky way of saying ‘teaching?’” I don’t think it is. Teaching in scripture is about a lot more than information transfer.

Okay, somebody’s going to say, “Isn’t efficient information transfer just a rhetorically snarky way of saying ‘teaching?’” I don’t think it is. Teaching in scripture is about a lot more than information transfer.

This point is ruthlessly misunderstood by not a few leaders in the evangelical church, particularly the unreflective successful businessmen who sometimes gravitate towards positions of leadership. “It works at the office; why not here?” (For the record: better that they be reflective, not unsuccessful.)

Another interesting observation: this is a huge point of contact between you and me and the–pinching nose now–Emergent community. Funny how we end up arguing that teaching is more than commending propositions for belief, at the same time as we insist that truth is propositional. It seems there is nuance in the real world–nuanced missed by the postmodernists as well as the PowerPointists.

Saving PowerPoint for another day, more about movies! They are the lingua franca of our people, so there may be a place for the rare actual clip in a teaching setting. Note, though, that teaching settings vary in acceptable pedagogical methods. You can hand out Play-Do ™ in a small class of kids to illustrate something. You would not want to hand out Play-Do ™ in a worship service. Same thing with discussion questions, brainstormed applications, etc. A small group of adults can be exposed to images and concepts through film clips with far less danger of drift or unintentional association than a static congregation of 150+ (Seemingly static, that is. There should be a terrific amount of internal, spiritual movement in settings of corporate worship, including encountering the sermon. If your tradition allows for external, emotive responses, groovy!)

Like any illustration, though, movie clips must be treated gingerly. Illustrations have the ability to overwhelm - nay, demolish! - the point illustrated. Using clips from comedies and popular films do this nearly every time. Movies that were powerful and poignant the first time around may be used to stir those emotions again, or place those emotions into the context of a given scripture.

I didn’t actually show it, but I would’ve if I had a copy: recently during a lesson on wealth and self-denial, we looked at Luke 6 where Jesus pronounces a woe on the rich who laugh now but who will weep in the day to come. I spoke of the scence in Schindler’s List, where at the end he falls down weeping because he understands how powerful his wealth was in helping real souls. I think that might’ve actually worked, even. But it would only work because of I rarely use clips, and that movie carries its own illustrative power.

My pastor’s a good example of the “cultural allusions used sparingly work” rule. I have sat through sermons elsewhere that were one illustration after another, and while the point was biblically sound, I didn’t really feel like I’d heard the Word preached substantively. OTOH, no one, and especially not my kids, has ever forgotten the point my pastor made about God uses appropriate symbolism to convey meaning by saying that if Darth Vader appeared on screen in a pink tutu, no one would be scared of him.

Most people do this badly.

We have a flat-brain wave response conditioned into us via inundation. Most meetings are boring, most PowerPoint presentations are badly done, many training clips are wretched. While I have seen compellingly good teaching tapes, I refuse to accept a default position that media is inherently superior.

When I developed interactive multimedia professionally, we pitched that you had to have it to capture our media-conditioned youth. We proposed that interactive media was among the most effective forms of teaching, and that “platform instruction” (lecture, preaching) was the worst.

We were wrong. Dead wrong. Good speaking is always better than bad media. Good coaching is better than insipid speaking. Different approaches are appropriate for different needs. When I do concept-exposure, motivational, or controversial presentations, guess what works best? Stories. That’s what my audiences typically appreciate the most. Guess what Jesus used? Parables. There’s a lesson there.

Film can be compelling, flannelgraphs can be good for visualization, slides for singing choruses can be useful. When these things hit technical glitches, however, it can be distracting. Worse, it can earn the scorn of the “youth crowd” that many of us are trying to engage (subconsciously trying to impress.)

Okay, so here’s my point. “To every thing there is a season.” If I pick up power tools to repair the church building, the Steward committee expects that I know how to use them. If we choose to use media, we should understand how and why. The worship and learning are far more important than the paint job, and they deserve at least as much competence.

[Postscript: every church’s most dreaded 11:00 a.m. spectre is the self-appointed sound man. The scope of potential distraction now is greater.]