Great post…lots to comment on here, but I just wanted to say something quickly about one issue I have had trouble with in the church…in my own experience.

That was, that there were many opportunities for there to be many winners in some church settings, but there was often so much push back from “elders” for example, or those who didn’t want change, etc…so that push back, along with the push forward, definitely created winners and losers.

I agree with your analysis…I have just been bummed in situation where everyone could have benefited but opposition was created in an attempt to keep things as is…because that’s the way we “have always done it.”

Enjoy your posts.

rhett

“will this really give us a complete picture?”
- You’re right, technology is not the complete picture, but it’s an important aspect worth thinking about.

Thanks for your thoughts!

For all the “technology” that we are aware of to analyze there are many more that will slip our minds. Sure, we can discuss the affects of computers and the internet on ministry, but will this really give us a complete picture? The church exist in a social organism which is in constant flux. Humanity continually pursues advancement of technology for the purpose of power and influence.

Maybe the question we should be asking is: does our desire to implement a new technology in our ministry stem more from our need to be perceived as winners (or ministering to winners), or from a real ministry need? We know that our larger society will inevitably get us to adopt its new technologies, so why do we have to feel like we are on the cutting edge?

So, it sounds like you’re saying that sociological changes create winners and losers and that technology is a part of that. I think Postman would agree, but he might argue that some sociological changes are driven by technological change, particularly since the Industrial Revolution. But a discussion of “the chicken or the egg” is probably beyond the scope of this little blog post :)

Taken the exposition growth in population in to account, I’m not sure if there really are more large churches today than say, 500 years ago. If you look at the cathedrals of Europe, many of them hold well of 500 and are designed to project the speaker’s, and the choir’s voices. As you say, technology (buildings) was developed to project sound, even before electronic sound reinforcement.

I believe it is important when analyzing the effects of technology, to understand that it (technology) is not a 20th cent. phenomenon. Technology is simply the creation of tools, methods or systems. Speaking as a sociologist, this could be analyzed from at least two different theories. Conflict theory would say that new technology is developed by the powerful in order to suppress the powerless and thus create a new order (thesis-antithesis-synthesis). Structural Functional theory says that new technology supports a new “function” in society.

In both theories there are “winners” and “losers”, but both groups are a necessary by-product of the system. In other words, because society is advancing (from a Sociological standpoint), the new “function” or “synthesis” will weed out the old. This is unavoidable.

I believe technology in the Church is more tied to the larger society than trends in the Church itself. “Winners” and “losers” in this technology battle are not birth in the Church, but enter the Church that way. For example, a Christian who does not have internet access cannot operate on many levels of society (pay bills online, email, etc.) When they become part of a Church that relies on the internet to communicate, they are “losers” because they were already “losers” in the broader culture.

Your thoughts requested.

I too feel the incredible joy of being able to reach people via technology and the weight of responsibility it brings. Good thing we have the Spirit of God and not just ourselves!

as the Lord has allowed me to have more and more influence in more and more circles, I don’t always find it comforting that I have more “power.” that somehow my life will be easier b/c of it. quite the opposite. with “power” comes responsibility, and I’ve realized that the more influence I have, the greater responsibility I have to use it not only wisely, but also generously for those who don’t.

it’s the kingdom paradox in one of its many forms – the “higher” I go up the ladder, the lower my role becomes…I have that much more at my disposal to serve & build others. this is how I see it with regard to the winners and losers in the advance of technology, too (in a simple and cursory way).

Also, thanks for pointing out that there were large churches before the 20th century – I need to edit the post to make that clearer. Still those were very rare exceptions, and there are exponentially more large churches today than there were a century ago. Whitefield and Spurgeon had voices that enabled them to speak to large groups, but today’s churches could not operate if you took away the electricity, lights, air conditioning, microphones, and automobiles to drive there.

A lot could be said about marketing and Protestant ecclesiology, but the point here by Postman is that the effects of a technology are not evenly distributed among people. Some reap the benefits (“winners”) and some don’t (“losers”), and this can be seen both in society at large and in the church.

For example, today the microphone has leveled the playing field in regards to vocal volume, and that affects different people differently. It would take away Whitefield’s advantage and it gives techie people like me and you a job.

I’m not sure your comment, “technology of the 20th and 21st centuries first enabled the large church” is accurate. Churches with thousands of parishioners have existed for thousands of years (i.e. Charles Surgeon’s Church, Evangelist George Whitefield). The only difference today is that “technology” seems to be the aspect helping Christian leaders with large followers. I believe the phenomenon has more to do with marketing, as it did with Whitefield.

Prominent Christian leaders of today (you term “winners”) are insensate promoters of their ministries, if not themselves. The same could be said for Bible colleges and seminaries. Not that this is necessarily bad, but I believe it is a consequence of the church’s break from the state (wherever you see that happening). There is no overarching protestant authority in this country. Anyone can setup a website, write a book or build a building and declare themselves a legitimate church or ministry. Because they are not legitimized by an ecclesiastical body, they must market themsevles. And the method by which this happens today is “technology”. It is not the “technology” that creates the winners and losers, it is those who know how to market themselves vs. those who do not.