The questions:
If the medium affects the message, how will the Christian message be affected by the new media?Christians have a duty to critically evaluate the effect of our media choices on our message. Do our choices of media forms allow the message to remain Christian? Or are the tools with which we communicate at odds with the message of the Gospel?
Media is a direct result of choices. First are the choices of those who craft the message in the media, secondarily are the choices of those who experience the media. That is why Joe Carter stated that "Christians have a duty to critically evaluate". There is an effect, but is it the effect of the tool, itself, or the effect of the ones wielding the tool? The simple answer is choice B, the ones crafting the message and using the tool, consciously or unconsciously, have complete power over the effect. But do they?
One of the problems in media is that the tool has limitations. In the graphic arts, the visual must say everything... it must get it's message across without the give and take of communication with the receiver; it must represent in static time and within limited dimension. A living organic message, such as the gospel, is limited in such a case. A single statement does not a life pathway make. The limitation of internet media, which is our own medium as bloggers, is its disconnection with aspects and relationships of a physical presence. It has a living give and take, but without the context by which we gauge the veracity of the message or person- without the checkpoints of hard copy writing, without the cues of a person's actions. So, I think what this starts to expose is the vulnerability to error that comes from ignorance both of the strengths and weaknesses of the tool. We expect the tool to be capable of everything needed to bear witness of the truth, when it is limited to making a specific kind of statement. We need much more than just our mental interaction with ideas in the type of wholeness of spiritual and physical life that is involved in the Christian walk.
One complication for Christians is the conflation that is made between weakness and evil. Most have heard stories of warnings against the evils of radio when that became a medium of sharing the gospel message, then TV, now internet. The trouble with the weaknesses is that they are real. None of the media adjuncts could ever replace the original "foolishness of preaching", or the "meeting together" of Hebrews 10:25. Real life ministers of the message taking hold of the hand of God on one side and seeking to draw the hand of the hearer into its connection on the other. Introductions realized in the first person. Yet, people always are trying to make the substitution, hence TV church, and internet "church". The adjunct replacing the primary model. Therein lies the evil. Not in the use of the media, but in its usurpation of RL® .
In answering whether the "media forms allow the message to remain Christian", I think it all depends on whether we recognize the weakness or strength of that particular medium. All the tools are at odds with a living communion of fellowship between men and God and as a church body together. The strength of media tools is in ministering to a part of the individual (mind or emotion) as inspiration and education, but as Jesus carefully taught, we must "be doers and not hearers only" . There is a whole life to be lived out in relationship that media cannot encompass, no matter how robust they are. The danger is always resident in the smoke and mirrors of creating "image", of having the form without the substance. Recognizing this will remain, as it always has, upon the willingness of Christians to test the message given and the purveyors of the message, according to the scripture's admonishments. The tools will not be at odds with the faithful gospel message of Jesus Christ, if we are careful to not allow them to be. That is, as users of the tool we convey Christ's message as truthfully and carefully ( for we have stepped into the shoes of the teacher) as we are capable. As those who attend to the messages given, we are as responsible as ever to "keep the doors" of our hearts, not allowing either error from without, or deception from within by using the critical thinking process of the Bereans who "examined the Scriptures every day to see if what [was] said was true."
Can media be used to deceive? It has always served in that capacity, as well as serving in the delivery of truth. Today's computer representations especially have blurred the lines between the true and false. A whole different world, fabricated personas, and bent realities are within the grasp of the computer driven media. The only antidote is the actual living reality. That is what Christians in using media often miss... the bedrock importance of ones actual character and relationship with God and how it works out in relationship to the people who are not screened off by the distance and perceptions of the "virtual" world. And I think that this is ever harder to do given the power of communication media of today. With a book, or a piece of graphic art, or even a performance.... the limitations of time experienced in its sphere and the ability of the mind to disengage to assess the impact of it's message creates a space in which to analyze. In today's world of computer and television media the presence is so pervasive that it becomes a filter for what is experienced in the physical life. The Matrix is here, it is us. We must separate from the thing of our making and give room for the "other" of the objective world around us, and of the very otherness of God. This is a huge challenge in further use of media, because the pathway of least resistance is to build on the consensus of our collective understanding, not break from it to call upon ancient truths now "out of favor".
Some of the dangers in giving a false message about the gospel of Christ are of our own making. When our culture is so filled with error, we -entertainment junkies that we are- try to build a false relevancy between that culture and God's kingdom. This is an example of "the choices of those who craft the message in the media". We choose to retain a distorting filter, or ignore an inconvenient truth, in the forging of a fake relevance, a superficial imaging of both ourselves and of Christ Jesus... and of God's message. What is wrong with a little "fantasy" or rewording to make something more culturally friendly? Dressing up our rather plain talking scriptures with euphemisms and gussied up with a little cultural paint? Usually, too late, we find that we lost something vital, overlooked in our proud prescience of what is "best". So, for us, the danger is in molding the message to the tool, rather than using the tool in its best form to give the message. It depends on what we start from, what is preeminent in our purpose.
In media, the temptation is to show the world who Christ is according our wisdom. Our culture, so informed by marketing, most values the image. Its incarnation as its own entity- quite apart from what it is to represent- is the idol held up for our example and estimation. So Jesus is made to be "winsome", "macho","revolutionary" in response to the taste du jour of the crowd. Cloaked under buzz themes of "seeker-friendly", "our partner", or whatever justification is desired to polish up the image of Jesus, AKA Christianity", rather than the One True God who has torn through the veil of flesh to meet with us, both as He is and as we are. That sort of intimacy with a Holy God just doesn't hold the same shiny promise of mass moving, viral 'branding'.
The tendency of using media tools is towards that constructed brand name religion. Maybe because we are so used to thinking of our messages that way. So we think God could use some improvement in how He sends His message. We know just how to word it, dress it, and what color cues to give, what soundtrack to set it to for maximum impact. That is the danger to the gospel. Not the tools or the framework, but the degree we step in to make it say what we want it to say: allowing the media to make us little gods as conduits of what we say god is and what his message should look and sound like. And it works like a charm....except that God has become lower case god...and he looks an awful lot like we do. It passes on a wonderful story, but leaves little room for revelation.
If we stay true to our foundation of what the Reformed like to call the five solas ( as listed in the Wikipedia)
we will find what we should work from to stay on course when using modern media to give a universal and timeless message. It is our choice of focus and not our choice of media that will ultimately influence whether we faithfully instill the gospel message in our communications or mar it.
So keeping God first, His message of salvation in Christ pre-eminent , conforming always to the character of Christ Jesus, we can use the media as we will to give glory to God, encouragement and correction to our fellow man. We can inspire and entertain, fulfilling our potentials as people with callings and gifts, sharing the hope within us with both soberness and joy in turn. The media is our mode of expression, but what we express is in our own choosing. Choosing to remain faithful ministers of the Lord who has saved our souls is the best and highest use of any life with whatever tools it has been given.
That is the best aim for any blogger, journalist, artist, performer, preacher,orator, politician, musician, light technician, software developer, theater director, advertiser, business person, or whatever the walk of life that utilizes media in some way. I think that the form only can pervert the message when it is divorced from the life lived in relationship and community, given the check and balance resident in its original form the message of the gospel is safely shared through any media we wish to use.
Ultimately, God has chosen for us to be part of the message: how we love each other, how we obey the commandment, our testimony and witness. It makes sense that we inflect our use of media, and of all the media probably the internet forms, especially blogs, have the greatest potential to impact each other. Not only is it instant and widely available, but it involves us in interaction of dialogue rarely experienced otherwise. It utilizes many of the other forms of media together and delivers it in an easy to digest form. It allows a message to go to a neutral area of decision making within a person for consideration because it is delivered more privately, one on one, than a speaker to a group- at least it may be perceived that way. Those delivering vices have discovered and used the internet far more pervasively and successfully than those delivering virtue. while there may be many reasons for this, one factor is likely the fear and reticence of Christians to discern the difference between the intrinsic nature of a device versus its use.
So long as we superstitiously personify the mechanics of something, we are likely to remain vulnerable to its misuse. I would personally rather see Christians learn to handle use of media properly than superstitiously preach against it monolithically. Too long we have said "eating meat" is evil while serving it up in our homes. Perhaps we need to broaden the idea of what it is to serve and glorify God, which is the backbone of the question of whether we can use media to share the gospel message with integrity. Starting with the guidance of Phillipians 4:8 we should be able to judge the value of a form of media in spreading the word of the Gospel of Christ faithfully. I think the power of the gospel is robust enough for that.
