Purpose Driven – Body Parts

An 8 mm camera. Photo by Holger Ellgaard

Another book to put on my ever-growing list: “Flickering Pixels,” by Shane Hipps.

In a recent post, The Evangelical Outpost takes a quick look at the book: It sounds as if Hipps has brought to life a subject that few of us think much about but most of us should: How the media we use to digest and distribute our faith affects our perception of the faith itself. As the Outpost author states:

It has often been said that while the Gospel message will never change, the methods used to present it must change in order to make it feel immediately relevant to new audiences.  Christians have used countless methods, both conventional and unconventional, to communicate the Gospel:, movies, breath mints, billboards, T-shirts, toys, video games, flannel boards, comic books, and, in Francis of Assisi’s case, even poverty.  On the surface, this makes sense – different methods are saleable to different groups, and it’s important to communicate the Gospel effectively.

Unfortunately, Christians often assume the methods used are unimportant as long as the Gospelmessage remains unchanged.  In 1967 communication theorist Marshall McLuhan announced, “The medium is the message.”  In other words, the various media we use to communicate are not neutral – they are a message in themselves, and that message inevitably changes the content you intended to convey.

The example given in the post is how Paul’s epistles were practically filler for much of the Dark and Middle Ages: Few people could read, you see, and most folks got lots of their biblical knowledge from the local cathedral’s stained glass windows, which naturally made concrete stories all the rage. But Paul experienced something as a renaissance during — well, he Renaissance: As believers pocketed more schooling, Paul’s scholarly letters came in vogue, with the result that Christianity became a little less about story and a little more — well, stodgy.

I had never thought — at least not very deeply — on how the media might affect the faith: I simply assumed that, as long as the message is being expertly conveyed regardless of medium — books, music, movies — the core would come through.

But what if someone refused to actually read the Bible and instead got all his biblical knowledge from, say, movies? Not only would he see a lot of Charlton Heston, it seems like he’d also get a steady dose of CGI-ready stories: Noah’s Ark, Moses’ Exodus, John’s Revelation. The poetry of Psalms would never make it on screen — certainly not effectively. Meanwhile, musicians could make some outstanding albums just using the Psalms. But they might not be able to use, say, 1 and 2 Kings quite as effectively.

Which makes me wonder … what sections of the Bible seem made for this hyper-fast, hyper-wired world of ours? Is Proverbs the biblical book of choice for the Twitter age?