|
|
 |
|
 The Church and the Digital Revolution
Comunication has always been important for the Church. The Great Commission includes a command to "preach the Gospel to all nations" --- and preaching is certainly a form of communication. In fact, preaching has been the primary communication method since the beginning of the church, being practised weekly throughout the world.
But writing has been a secondary but important method as well. From the beginning, the Gospel was entrusted to writing in what eventually was canonized as the New Testament. The Epistles of St.Paul were an ingenious method of communication, being carefully written and revised by him, and then taken by the hands of Deacons to many church communities, read and expounded to the people, copied and recopied to be discussed the more, or delivered to other distant church communities. In the case of the Epistles, the written word was an approximation of the preached word --- with the problems and challenges that come from using a different method of communication.
To commit thoughts to paper is different from preaching them to people. The wiitten word excludes the passion, the inflexion, the emotion, the tones of the spoken word --- it misses the eye to eye contact, the vulnerability, the ability to respond to questions or even nonverbal responses from the people. On the other hand, the spoken word is harder to carry to others, cannot be studied or discussed easily, is confined to one place and one time, and cannot be passed on to others, either distant in place or time. The point of this is that the transition from spoken word to written word changes the impact and the nature of the communication. The method effects the content, both for good and for bad.
One example of this is the change in the meaning of the phrase "Word of God". Until the 16th century, the phrase "Word of God" meant the kernel beliefs of the Church, the essence of the teaching of the Christian Faith, what had been believed by the Church for all times, what was the essence of the message believed by Christians. But with the invention of the printing press, and the printing of thousands of Bibles, so that every Christian community could have more than one --- in fact, so that Bibles became commonplace in families --- it became common to refer to the Word of God as a book --- the Bible, or at least the New Testament. Thus we find preachers carrying Bibles, quoting from constantly, and referrring to it as "The Word of God".
All of which suggests that as the church moves into the digital age, we can expect change. And change has certainly happened in the secular society where we find ourselves. There the digital revolution is in full swing. Our cars contain a number of computers, such that one can no longer "fix" ones own vehicle --- computers control the fuel, the air, and the firing of the cylinders, such that the act of driving is digitally controlled. Our TV is more and so complex that the very data that is fed through the cable or bounced off the satelite dish is a digital signal. Our newspapers are composed in one city, and sent digitally to other cities, where the printing presses are controlled by the digital signals. Email has become so normal that a person without an email address is regarded as either aged or backward. Banking is digital, websites are digital, even telephones have become digital, though the signals that tranmit conversation still is analog. Long distance
conversations, pictures, data, even currency, are flashed around the world digitally --- in fact the modern business could not exist without digital communication.
And where is the Church in all of this? With some rare exceptions, the Church has barely noticed the digital revolution. Preaching is still the normal method of communication, and the print medium still dominates in church bulletins, books, newspapers, conferences, teaching, and decision making. No wonder government, schools, and businesses consider the Church to be irrelevant to modern life.
But it doesn't have to be. Even the smallest church today boasts at least a computer in the office --- and though it may be underutilized and years out of date, it is there and can be used. About 1/2 of the nations churches now boast websites --- though few of them are maintained well, or have anything much to say. Most dioceses have websites that are well done, and include some information. Few websites however actually have much to say about the faith, preferring to share phone numbers of altar guilds or organizations. Even fewer have a blog where the faith is discussed and shared. When will the Church realize the potential in networking all the clergy and parishes together, such that information is shared collaboratively with the diocese and other parishes? Though most clergy have email addresses, there is no consistant attempt to bring all the clergy under one email system, owned and operated by the diocese or church synod. Business, schools, and governments have done this years
ago; and it has been to their benefit, streamlining their flow of information, and opening immense communication possibilities to their staff. The Church is in the Information and communication business, amongst others, and we should be in the forefront.
Of course, the Church should do so with eyes wide open. Digital communication is likely to change the content of the faith, just as any methodology will do. Like it or not, using digital technology will reduce our ideas of God to 1s and 0s. I don't mean that literally, but methodologically. An artist who is tries to paint a picture of God, is limited to form, colours, and arrangement of images. He is restricted by his medium. And yet, using his medium, he can communicate ideas of God that cannot be said in words. In other words, the method both illuminates and restricts. Digital communication will likewise both illuminate and restrict our ideas of God, just as it illuminates and restricts communication of any idea. The digital revolution both offers progress and regress, and the Church needs to be aware of this. But to ignore the digiftal revolution because there may be problems is to forego the new possibilities. To me, the nettle must be grasped.
Digital communication opens the door to collaborative education of the laity, in homes, in distant areas, in restricted possibilities. It has the same advantages as the use of Epistles in the early Church. Instead of compelling learners to come to a central location, the teaching of the Church is taken out to their locations in such a way that they can collaborate and learn together, using a medium rich in colour but virtually free in cost. Written literature can take the faith to distant locations, but not create collaborative learning with others from distant locations, with tutors thousands of miles away.
Digital communication allows the Church to lay out its teaching and its faith to people around the world, so that all may read, learn, and discuss. It is amazing to me that members of fringe groups have seized the opportunity to post their ideas and discussions on the internet for all to see and consider, yet the Church is virtually silent on the internet. Scoff if you will at the posters of religious extremism --- they have been eager to use the digital revolution while the theological leaders have ignored the great opportunities. If the invention of the printing press 500 years ago allowed the creation and expansion of a protestant revolution, how much greater can be the impact of the internet and the communication of the faith to a world eager to read and dialogue at all times from all places. The question is not whether the internet will be used by religion --- the question is if the Church will do so, or be bypassed by others.
RLB - Nov 25, 2006
| |
|
|
|
|
