http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL52fveMhb8&feature=channel_page
This seemed like a fitting subject for the Brown House blog. I like what he has to say, and I'm glad to see someone invoking Postman for a bunch of college students. But... (you had to know it was coming) ...I'm still unconvinced that the emphasis on "word" over "image" is the right angle to take when criticizing the visual and technological media. The theological emphasis on the "Word" has its roots in the Reformation, which, not unsurprisingly, developed its theological emphasis on Word alongside the printing press.
I'm wary of giving the written word theological precedence over symbol, image, audio, etc. because such an approach smacks of cultural fundamentalism. I don't deny the theological importance of the spoken word: In the Bible (lots of written words, of course), God is always speaking, and he's always asking his people to speak -- the prophets in the OT and the Apostles in the NT. Sometimes God tells them to write it down (for example, Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch). But other times he tells them to do stuff that can't be written down (like Isaiah running around naked). Or take the act of public proclamation. Isn't the act itself at least as important as the content of the message itself -- and I'm pretty confident Postman would agree with that statement. After all, "the medium is the message."
But while I, along with Postman, lament the loss of written public discourse, I'm not sure that we shouldn't also celebrate the gain of a symbolic, image-driven, public discourse (while at the same time noting its dangers). Just because actions (or pictures) speak louder than words doesn't mean we should try to avoid using them.
There are a host of issues here, and I've conflated some important distinctions -- for one, there is some distinction (practically if not ideally) between how we minister to a changing culture, on the one hand, and how we try to affect that culture, on the other hand. Culturally, I think we have a lot to lose if we stop valuing verbiage; theologically, I think we have a lot to gain by re-learning how to value other forms of communication, particularly as they reveal something about God (icons, anyone?). What do you all think? What do we do as congregations become less fluent in written discourse, and more fluent in symbol and image? How do I squeeze the 4 spiritual laws into a 160-character tweet? Or, even better, let's draw them on a napkin and record it for YouTube....
(And I'll be disappointed if we don't hear from a certain Reformed grad of Westminster Theological Seminary. You know who you are.)
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Immediate thoughts:
1) I'm at work and can't watch the video, thus can't really leave an informed post (also, I'm working, so I shouldn't really post at all).
2) Tweets must be 140 characters or less, Mike, not 160. You better learn your twitter-ese better.
3) I just sent a certain Reformed grad of Westminster Theological Seminary an IM letting him know he should check the post out.
4) Brown House love makes me so very happy, even when it's online. But in person is better... reunion, anyone?
I suppose I've been called out as an honorary Brown House member by way of marriage. So, in honor of our begun but never finished conversation about a long forgotten topic way back at the Giberson's home, here's my debut response, Mike!
If I understand the video correctly, it's primarily a critical reflection on the impact of the electronic medium on culture and Christian faith. I'm not sure that Schuchardt really uses the image/word dichotomy as his primary critique of the electronic medium. He seems to be talking more about mediated and unmediated community, or communication through direct (physical) as opposed to virtual means. Phones, email, and song lyrics on powerpoint are still verbal communication after all. Granted, he does talk about looking versus listening, and specifically mentions You Tube and music culture.
As for the issue of word versus image, here are some thoughts from a Reformed (and ever reforming!) perspective. Granted that there were associations between the printing press and the theological emphasis on the word, I would argue that this was far from the main reason the Reformers held to the primacy of the word. This time period also made significant use of wood cuts (by those same printers!) in polemics by both Catholics and Protestants against one another, so images were prevalent as well . However, the Reformation was in large part shaped by a rediscovery of the vernacular Word in its unmediated accessibility to all, as opposed to Latin worship mediated by Catholic priests alongside image-heavy pageantry. This was God speaking to us directly through his Word.
Entirely apart from other considerations, like a theology of Christ as logos, don’t forget the concerns about the 2nd commandment. It’s not primarily about whether verbal communication is better than visual communication. (Although a case could be made regarding technology and the visual medium’s detrimental impact on attention span, memory, and cognitive processing). The major concern over images is the question of idolatry – not just worshipping false or created gods, but worshipping God falsely through our images like the Israelites did with the golden calf.
By the way, I’m not sure I agree with you that the medium is the message. Just as food for thought, Hebrew culture was primarily a verbal culture whereas Greek culture was largely visual. How does that impact our understanding of the shaping of the NT? We might want to consider what the differences in strengths are between verbal and visual communication. Just as one example, I think image may be powerful in symbolism, but limited in delivering propositional truth. There must be a reason that people communicate primarily through words and not pictures or pantomime.
Thanks for this, Mike.
My initial reaction to this video in it's first 15 seconds or so was to slam my laptop shut and walk away in a huff. Another white male predisposed to lecture-style learning wants me to throw aside the visual arts and their spiritual benefits because the second commandment says we're not allowed to use our eyes. (See also "Knowing God" by J. I. Packer, chapter 4.)
But thankfully, this isn't at all what this guy was talking about, so once I got past my initial prejudice, I was able to hear him a little better.
Something that stuck out to me was: "Real presence is a prerequisite for real love." My sister is a teacher, and she helps her husband coach the girls' high school basketball team. She has shared stories with me about how the team were having issues getting along. Sally would have a problem with Susie. My sister would ask Sally if she talked to Susie about it, and Sally would say, "Well, I texted her." I see this with our youth group, too. Today's youth have absolutely no idea how to communicate face-to-face let alone resolve conflict face-to-face. I can't tell you how many times I have pleaded with my high school girls to not have "serious" conversations on facebook chat. It's really quite sad.
But before I start pointing fingers at "today's youth," I also have to take a look at myself. At a meeting of "Academic Support Staff" at Gordon, the older generation was lamenting problems with "helicopter parents" (parents who protectively and intrusively hover over their children even into adulthood). One of the main issues was that students don't talk to their professors. Instead they send them emails. (And let me tell you...professors are not the most technology savvy bunch. I have several who "don't do email." Really?!? Yes, really.) I guess this is just me wanting some moral high ground, but I think emails are a perfectly legitimate form of communication. Instead of getting up out of my chair to to talk to a person right across the hall from me, I will send her an email. It's efficient. It allows her to address my concern in her own time. And it allows me to communicate my full message in thought-out, careful language. But there is something to be said for "real presence." I think part of the reason my job satisfaction is low is because I don't seek out opportunities to talk to people face-to-face. It's just not the best use of my time and resources.
And sadly, the Church is not immune to the idea that efficiency is a primary virtue. We send email blasts and have calendars on websites and set up facebook events. And all these things are good...because that's how people are open to receiving information. But real love, real community, real Good News gospel goes beyond information. It requires formation...dirty hands, inconvenient meetings, living together. It requires us (like Dr. Schuchardt encourages us) to throw aside technological mediation that stands between us and our brothers and sisters and instead to be the hands and feet and faces and smile and arms of Christ...in other words, to be the Church.
All that being said, I really appreciate this blog as a mediation for all of us to connect when face-to-face alternatives are too expensive for poor seminarians and their wives and other miscellaneous post-collegiates/pre-professionals.
It seems that my "what does that look like" responses always end up longer than the stereotypically wordy theological treatises. Sorry about that, folks.
Am I a comment killer? I feel like I might be a comment killer.
Postman's critique of technology is not based on a personal bias for the written word over visual imagery. He writes to shed a critical light on the implications of the new medium(s) - namely that image-based forms of communication result in a culture that emphasizes entertainment over subtance. Schuchard's point about old pop stars being ugly but singing well v. todays stars who are beautiful and sound like crap is a simple example of what Postman is talking about.
*Note that the recent example of Susan Boyles from Britain's Got Talent demonstrates that we've come to the point as a society where marketing groups and producers are actually dipping back into the pool of real (i.e. ugly) talent and using the "phenomenon" to sell commercials. But I digress...
Images are not themselves the problem. As Josh pointed out, cultures have used imagery in various forms for thousands of years. Idolatry may have been the issue prior to modern times (and of course there are contemporary forms of idolatry), but the bigger problem today is that the Christian faith is evaluated along "amusement" lines. Do I enjoy this church? How does a relationship with Jesus make me feel?
Post a Comment