|
Questions
About Worship and Technology: A Starting Point for a Discussion on Technology
Emily R. Brink, editor of Reformed Worship
[Article published in Reformed Worship,
Issue 65 (September, 2002), pp. 44-45. Reprinted with permission February
2003 from Quentin Schultze and Reformed Worship.]
Quentin J. Schultze is professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at
Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan. He is the winner of three national
book awards and the author of numerous books and articles. You can reach
him at his Web site.
Quentin Schultze asks many questions here that churches should be asking.
Author of Habits of the High-Tech Heart: Living Virtuously in the Information
Age (Baker, 2002), Schultze continues to study technological issues that
affect worship planning and leadership. After reading "all of the
literature I could find on technology and worship," Schultze offers
the following list of questions as a place to begin thinking, not as an
exhaustive list. Worship committees, elders, worship teams, and the growing
numbers of tech support teams in worship would do well to take these questions
a few at a time and discuss them in their meetings.
— Emily R. Brink, editor of Reformed Worship
-
Has worship in the Hebrew and Christian traditions always included
technique, if not technology?
-
Which aspects of worship should we define as "essential"
practices (that is, good in and of themselves, regardless of the expected
results), and which are "instrumental" (that is, normally
directed toward an expected result)? Does such a distinction make
sense or help us in talking about technology and worship?
-
We know that all technological developments produce unintended consequences
that can become more significant than the intended outcomes. What
kinds of unintended consequences do we see emerging in the growing
use of presentational technologies in worship? Are they good or bad
consequences?
-
Scholars of technology sometimes argue that the technologizing of
human endeavors shifts the user’s focus on the means rather
than ends. As Ellul puts it, the means become ends in and of themselves.
Is this true in worship-related technologies?
-
Other scholars suggest that human technologies over time redefine
how the users view both human nature and the technological activities.
Are worship technologies altering our view of what it means to be
a person created in the image of God? Are they altering how we think
of worship itself as a human activity?
-
Technological innovation frequently leads to human idolatry of technology--a
sense of the "awe and mystery" of the "power"
of technology to improve (if not save) the world. Does this kind of
idolatry occur with respect to worship technologies? To press it further,
do users of such technologies tend to infer greater power to technique
and less to God? (What would one conclude about this from reading
the articles and advertisements in worship technology trade magazines?)
-
Is it possible that some worship technologies are more compatible
with particular Christian liturgical/theological traditions than with
others? Or particular parts of the church year than others? Or particular
phases in the life of a congregation?
-
How might we define the "holiness" of worship with respect
to technology?
-
Do new technologies "enfranchise" all members of a congregation,
or do they tend to create new quasi-ecclesiastical differences in
power and authority? To put it differently, are technologists beginning
to dictate the way we worship in many churches?
-
Do these new technologies over time become so institutionalized in
liturgy that they are autonomous--beyond critique and charting their
own courses as new innovations appear on the scene?
-
What, if any, are the criteria that churches might use to access
their use of worship technologies? Which of these criteria might be
widely employed in society (perhaps goodness, beauty, and truthfulness)
and which ones might be idiosyncratic to the essential nature and
purposes of godly worship (that is, which ones would reflect the distinguishing
marks of "holy" or set-apart worship)?
-
What are the implications of the new technologies for church architecture
and interior design? Do "technology friendly" churches
also foster vibrant congregational fellowship and communal worship?
-
One way of talking about the different approaches to technological
innovation is to posit three alternative directions: adoption, adaptation,
and rejection. Do these kinds of categories help us to make sense
of how congregations might consider whether or not and how to employ
new technologies?
-
Frequently we laud the fact that technologies enable us to create
larger "scales" of operation. Is the scaling of congregational
size through new technologies something worthy of discussion?
-
What kind of witness to the "world outside" is the use
of cutting-edge technologies within the church?
-
Worship always involves some type of focus--thematic, visual, textual,
and so on. What happens to focus in services that rely upon extensive
technology? What do members see, hear, feel?
-
One major stream of thought in the philosophy of technology suggests
that humans should always strive for "appropriate" use
of technology in given situations. What is appropriate for worship?
How can a congregation determine this?
-
Liturgical renewal often seeks to reclaim vibrancy by getting back
to the basics or core meanings and practices. Can we imagine this
kind of purposeful renewal in the face of technological innovations
as well? Can we reclaim the essentials of traditional worship through
the process of technological consideration?
-
How shall we think about worship technology in terms of stewardship
of resources, given the seemingly unending costs incurred with repairing
and replacing technologies?
The beginning of all good human communication is listening. To communicate
well is, first of all, to listen intently. If we gab all the time, whether
in person or online, we live noisily--and foolishly. Such noise is one
of the great setbacks of our age; it leads to greater isolation. The more
we talk, without first listening, the more confused and confounded we
become. This is partly why our lives today tend to be technologically
rich and communication poor.
— QJS |
