TheyCallMePastorBryan

This is the second in a series of posts looking at some quotes from Marshall McLuhan’s The Medium is the Massage. Previous Post: As We Begin So Shall We Go

This post will be broken into looking at three smaller quotes from The Medium is the Massage. All three quotes center around aspects of how technology has effected the way we perceive the world.

The goose quill put an end to talk. It abolished mystery; it gave architecture and towns; it brought roads and armies, bureaucracy. It was the basic metaphor with which the cycle of civilization began, the step from the dark into the light of the mind. The hand that filled the parchment page built a city.

In this example, we see how the idea of writing lead to applying an organized stance to many other parts of civilization. I think this example and the second serve a double purpose, while showing how technology has reshaped the way we perceive the world, it could also be argued that the way we view the world has shaped our technology.  In this case, consider the current trend of social media – has/is social media changing the way we view the world? or has/is the way we view the world shaped our idea of including social media? The truth probably lies somewhere in between, but also explains why stories revolving around technology getting out of hand is horrifying: our technology shapes us. (consider for instance The Matrix, the storyline of Battlestar Galactica or Dollhouse as some easy examples of our wariness towards technology)  This next example as well could be interpreted in this double nature of us shaping technology and technology shaping us.

Like easel painting, the printed book added much to the new cult of individualism. The private, fixed point of view became possible and literacy conferred the power of detachment, non-involvement.

Once again we see how technology, in this case easel painting and the printed book, have the power to reshape how we view the world.  This once again brings forth the question though about whether we shape our technology or our technology shapes us.  The third example is the strongest in terms of Marshall McLuhan’s stance that our technology has the power to change us.

The railway radically altered the personal outlooks and patterns of social interdependence. It bred and nurtured the American Dream. It created totally new urban, social and family worlds. New ways of work. New ways of management. New legislation.

This is perhaps the most well documented of McLuhan’s observations which I have quoted here. When the railway was established (and later the invention of the automobile, and the telephone) it reshaped the way we consider the family and how we are related, because for the first time we could have more distance from each other while still having the possibility of connectedness.  It has led to the ability of families to be more distanced from each other while still being connected, but has invariably reshaped the way we think about where we live and the sort of considerations that would go forth in such a decision.

In all three of these examples though, we can see an illustration of one of McLuhan’s classic statements “we become that which we behold.”

Popularity: 2% [?]

When a minister reads out of the Bible, I am sure that at least nine times out of ten the people who happen to be listening at all hear not what is really being said but only what they expect to hear read. And I think that what most people expect to hear read from the Bible is an edifying story, an uplifting thought, a moral lesson—something elevating, obvious, and boring. So that is exactly what very often they do hear. Only that is too bad because if you really listen…there is no telling what you might hear. - Frederick Buechner (HT:InternetMonk)

Popularity: 2% [?]

ChristianityToday has a great interview with Rob Bell on preaching called “Tying the Clouds Together” that is worth
checking out.  I’ve posted a couple quotes below that I found especially interesting.

What else have you found unhelpful when preaching?

Focusing too much on something in the text that is an issue of hairsplitting debate among theologians. You are assuming that people care as much about the debate as you do. Somebody may be sitting there thinking, “Dude, I’m a plumber. I didn’t know that was a debate, and I didn’t know that it needed to be resolved. I’m just trying to figure out life with God and you spent sixteen minutes letting me know that you understood the origins of this particular Greek word.” Some things just aren’t helpful.

———————————-

Your NOOMA video series has been popular. What do you think about the increasing number of preachers and churches using video technology to expand their reach?

It’s powerful but there’s also a dark side. Video is not church. You put images and music on a screen, and people will listen. But it’s also dangerous. You’re playing with fire. I think video technology deserves to be scrutinized heavily.

Go a little deeper. What makes video dangerous?

I don’t think we know yet what the long-term impact will be on disciple-making. In 10 years we may discover what particular kind of Christ follower is formed by video preaching. I see warning lights on my dashboard. It’s unclear what video may do to the ways we conceive of life together.

In the New Testament, there are 43 “one another” passages, and during a Sunday morning service you might be able to practice three or four of them. And as the service gets large, you can probably do fewer. A massive group setting is also dangerous. You can come, sit, listen, and go home and think, I’ve been to church, even if you haven’t practiced any “one anothers.” And with video that only gets more intense. I’m not sure that’s the direction we want to be heading.

We want to be calling people to deep bonds of solidarity with one another. We may gather in a massive group, but from the stage I often say, “This is just a church service. Church is actually about caring for one another, and serving one another, and speaking truth to one another in love. Don’t get the two confused.”

The evidence suggests that video can have a fast and broad impact. So what’s the alternative?

There is something more powerful than simply beaming yourself into other locations, and that is raising up disciples. Over time that will go farther and faster, but right now it will be more work and slower. With technology today it’s easy to spend all of your energies reproducing your own voice, but there is a longer view that says, what if instead of beaming video to those ten locations, we train ten people who can go there and lead? That’s a very basic question that should be in the mix somewhere.

I love his input about the downside to video venues, especially the emphasis on discipleship in leading and leadership development.  I feel like it’s very complimentary to some of my own problems with video venues.

Popularity: 3% [?]

I received a copy of Donald Miller’s new book A Million Miles in a Thousand Years a while back, and was excited to read and review it.  I’ve been a big fan of Donald Miller since reading Blue Like Jazz and Through Painted Deserts, and so I had quite a bit of anticipation about his new book.

As I started to read it though, I got about halfway through the book and started to comment that I was unenthused about it. Miller’s beautiful memoire style is in full display and his voice continues to be great, but I found myself being pretty disappointed in his approach to story.  In as broad a stroke as I can paint, Miller uses lessons that he learns about story while trying to turn Blue Like Jazz into a movie as a means of looking at life.  What follows is a combination of exploration into the art of story through the lens of movies and personal anecdotes from Miller about how he’s seen the facets play out in his life. I found myself in the end thinking that he had covered for a lot of complaints that I’d had earlier, I just felt that looking at our lives as stories through the lens of movies was the wrong approach.  For instance, books rarely transfer well to movies (as Don illustrates through his story).  So my problem was that we end up using the bastardized version of story for movies as providing insights into how to live life.

In the end I found myself looking at it more positively than I had about halfway through, and I can see it being a great read for someone who needs an extra thought into how they might live their life more meaningfully, but it just wasn’t that impacting for me.  I’d give the book a 3.5/5.

Popularity: 5% [?]