Some Useful Technologies for Church Ministry (Part 4)
Image
Read the series.
Technologies for Worship
Introducing new technologies into worship can be a challenge—especially into churches within the Reformed tradition.35 Some Christians within this tradition believe the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) applies only to the corporate gatherings of the church and interpret it as precluding the introduction of anything into the worship service that’s not explicitly commanded in the New Testament.36
Personally, I question whether the RPW should be limited to corporate worship. I don’t think we live by one regulative principle when we pass through the “sanctuary doors” and a different principle when we’re outside corporate worship.37 Rather, as I see it, we live by one principle, which is sola Scriptura. This principle applies to all of life in a more general way and to church worship, community, and mission with greater specificity. Thus, there’s one principle, but different applications based on varying contextual situations, i.e., worship in a broader sense and worship in a narrow sense.38
But even if we granted that the RPW only applied to corporate worship, it would not preclude the use of technology. This is because technology is a circumstance, not an element of worship. Just as technology is a tool that helps us accomplish our “cultural mandate,” so technology is a tool that assists us in our “cultic mandate.” Accordingly, we don’t need to comb through the NT looking for explicit references to modern technologies. That would be an exercise in futility (and folly)! Instead, we must recognize that
there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed (2LBC 1.6).
In reality, most Reformed Christians follow the Confession’s teaching in practice if not in theory. For example, wooden pulpits, printed hymnals, and cushioned pews are all technologies (i.e., circumstances) that help us carry out the “elements” of worship, such as preaching, singing, and listening to the Word of God. None of these technologies are commanded in the NT. Yet few question their appropriateness in worship services.
But why do older technologies get a pass while newer technologies are dismissed out of hand? I’m not suggesting every new technology is appropriate for worship. We still have to discern whether a given technology is a help or a hindrance in praising God and edifying one another. What I am suggesting is that the use of modern technologies in corporate worship cannot be forbidden simply because they’re new.
One relatively newer technology that has received admittance into most Reformed churches is “voice amplification.”39 Before this technology, the projection range of the preacher’s voice limited the amount of people he could address in a sermon. A few preachers, like George Whitefield, possessed the vocal range to reach hundreds and even thousands.40 But with the advent of the microphone and amplification, pastors can address much larger audiences than before. Not surprisingly, many modern churches—including most Reformed churches—employ this technology in their corporate worship.
Bigger churches have moved from amplifying the preacher’s voice in order to reach distant ears to amplifying the preacher’s image in order to reach distant eyes. Large auditoriums or overflow rooms are now equipped with projectors or flat screen technology in which a video image of the preacher is projected on a large screen. This enables the hearers to catch the speaker’s bodily language and facial expressions.41 Pastors can also use projectors and large screens along with software like PowerPoint or Keynote to project the outline of their sermon, quotations, graphics, photos, and even video clips to illustrate a point in their message.42
Many churches combine this technology with high-speed Internet and “live stream” their worship service for members who are providentially hindered from attending the service or for non-members who happen to tune in. Some large or “mega” churches have taken a further step and now broadcast a pastor-teacher’s sermon to other “sites” or “campuses” within a large city or region in digital audio and video format.
In addition to modern technologies that enhance and expand the preaching of God’s word in corporate worship, newer technologies are being used to facilitate congregational singing. In the place of or in addition to hymnbooks, the lyrics of songs are projected on a wall or screen for the entire congregation to see. What’s more, software is now available that enables the personnel in the A/V room to transmit the lyrics wirelessly to flats screens or tablet devices like iPads for the music leader and musicians.43 They can even project messages, prompts, or a timer on the preacher’s iPad as well!
Weighing the Benefits and Drawbacks
I don’t have time to cover other modern technologies used in corporate worship.44 But I’d like to pause for a moment and assess those we’ve surveyed. Are such technologies as flat screens, live streaming, and worship software helpful for the proclamation of God’s Word and corporate praise?
I’ve found that it depends on whom you ask. Some Christians are very positive about the incorporation of these modern technologies into corporate worship. Others are decidedly opposed to them. Many, like myself, are “open but cautious.” We acknowledge the appropriateness and even usefulness of technology for the cult (i.e., religion) as well as the culture. Moreover, we don’t view modern technology as bad simply because it’s modern. Nevertheless, we recognize that most technologies not only offer benefits but also bring some downsides, drawbacks, or potential dangers.
For example, it’s one thing to project a video of your pastor preaching on a large screen if you’re meeting in a large auditorium or if a portion of your congregation is forced to meet in an “overflow” room because there’s not enough space in the main sanctuary. But using the same technology to create “multi-site” churches is another matter.45 Some are concerned that such a strategy and methodology creates challenges for the government of the church and the care of the sheep. Such a model could also tend to promote a “celebrity culture” where the most gifted speaker virtually eclipses other less gifted teachers in the church. I’m not prepared to condemn all multi-site churches. But I think it’s a church ministry philosophy that warrants some careful and cautionary reflection.46
What about projectors, flat screens, and special software for lyrics, as well as modern technologies for the musical accompaniment of congregational praise and singing? Once again, some are enthusiastic about these technologies and believe they enhance the worship experiences. Others fear that they can tend subtly to transform worship into entertainment that disengages our minds rather than engaging our minds. 47Overall, my experiences in worship venues where these technologies were used well have been generally positive. But I’ve also been in church services where they were employed in a way that was distracting. Since I agree with John Piper that one of the goals for corporate worship is “undistracting excellence,”48 I think these technologies should be used with care and discernment. If they can aid worship without getting in the way of worship, they may be useful and legitimate tools.
Concluding Thoughts
I don’t believe all modern technologies for worship are helpful in every situation. In some contexts, they’re clearly not edifying. Moreover, along with the benefits come drawbacks and potential dangers. So we must proceed with caution. To borrow an analogy from Arthur Boers,
It would be exceedingly convenient if we could simply label every technology as either “good” (use it as much as you want) or “bad” (never, ever use it). But … technology is more like a yellow like the yellow light on a traffic signal. Unlike green, which always means “go,” or red, which always means “stop,” the yellow light is a call for a discerning look at the entire situation.49
So while we shouldn’t be dismissive of modern technologies for church ministry, we should be discerning. They can be useful tools if they help us accomplish our ministry objectives in ways that are lawful and edifying.
I’d like to close with the following thoughts:
1. Count the cost
Technology is a useful tool, but it’s also a costly tool. It demands time, money, and personnel. Therefore, make sure you know what you’re trying to accomplish or produce before you invest money on the technologies to produce it. As Len Wilson remarks,
There’s no point in having highly specialized computers, plus video hardware and software, unless you have a clear idea of its intended use. Just like you never know what tools you’ll need until you begin the project and read the manual, the types of equipment needed to begin a media ministry depend thoroughly on what it is that you want to accomplish.50
Once you know you’re ministry objectives and what technologies you’ll need to accomplish them, you’ll have to do the math and determine whether you have sufficient resources.
Better to wait till you have the funds and the staff to do it right than to rush ahead and have it backfire. Using a little technology well is better than trying to use lots of technology poorly. It’s definitely a case in which “less is more.”
2. Minister within your means
Don’t feel pressured to compete with the bigger churches. On the other hand, I’m not suggesting you should sinfully envy or despise the bigger churches. Indeed, we can aspire to grow and to have the personnel and financial resources some day to afford better technologies for church ministry. Until then, let’s be content with the resources and technologies God has given us. Perhaps the best approach may be one in which the church implements some of these modern technologies in phases.51
3. Keep your priorities right.
Churches should focus on developing, employing, and refining their core beliefs and values as well as their ministry vision and mission before spending lots of time and money on publicizing them through modern technologies. Who you really are in Christ and what you’re really doing to advance the kingdom is more important than the attractive website or videos you employ to convey this information to the public. Indeed, you know you have the cart before the horse when visitors who were attracted by your nice website and well-edited videos are disappointed when they realize that the real “state of affairs” is no where close to what was advertised on the Internet.
Moreover, remember that technology is a circumstance of church worship and ministry, not an element. It’s not itself a means of grace but a medium through which you communicate the means of grace. “When we fail to see technology within the context of the power, majesty, and glory of God,” cautions Quentin Schultz, “we can become more enchanted with our technological ability than we are humbled by God’s grace.”52
Therefore, the gospel, not technology, is our priority. We need to focus on preaching the gospel, living the gospel, and sharing the gospel. Technology may be a tool to help us accomplish these objectives. But technology is not an end in itself. Let’s keep it that way!53
Notes
35 According to one survey of over 800 churches, at least 42% rejected the use of a computer projector on the basis of ecclesiastical “tradition.” See Schultz, High Tech Worship? Kindle edition, loc. 1612-1849.
36 I agree with Derek Thomas who argues, “The case needs, then, to be established and maintained that the regulative principle is an argument on what is warranted by God in Scripture as a whole, and not merely in the New Testament church.” “The Regulative Principle: Responding to Recent Criticism,” in Give Praise to God: A Vision for Reforming Worship, ed. Philip Graham Ryken, Derek W. H. Thomas, and J. Ligon Duncan III (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003), 92.
37 A common proof text used in defense of the RPW is Deuteronomy 12:32: “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it” (ESV). The preceding context has to do with God’s prescriptions for a centralized place of worship, i.e., the Temple (see 12:1-31). However, Moses doesn’t just apply the “don’t add, don’t subtract” clause to formal or corporate worship. He’s already employed the same formula and applied it to the totality of life in covenant with Yahweh (see Deut 4:1-2). Interestingly, many scholars have noted that the structure of Deuteronomy resembles the structure of 2nd millennium suzerain-vassal treaties and that Deuteronomy’s case laws resemble those found in other ancient Near East legal codes. It turns out that these ancient treaties and law codes sometimes employed a similar literary device (i.e., a “don’t add or subtract” clause) that served as a warning not to tamper with, disregard, or distort the covenantal or legal stipulations. In such texts, the warning applies to the entire body of stipulations and not just to certain stipulations that address cultic behavior or some other specific area of life. See Eugene Merrill, Deuteronomy, vol. 4 of The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 115, notes 150, 151; 228-29.
38 According to Terry Johnson, “No Puritans, or for that matter any other mainstream spokesman for the regulative principle, would have argued that it applies only to public worship and has no application in private worship. Rather their point and ours would be that it applies differently…. All worship, then, is regulated by God’s Word, but the application is different in different contexts, whether formal or informal, public or private.” Reformed Worship: Worship That Is According to Scripture (Jackson, MS: Reformed Academic Press, 2000), 4, n. 3.
39 Late 19th and early 20th century.
40 But preaching to hundreds and thousands without voice amplification took its toll on Whitefield. He often strained his voice, sometimes to the point of rupturing blood vessels. See Harry Stout, The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of Modern Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 267.
41 Many homileticians acknowledge the importance of bodily gestures and eye contact in preaching. See C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students (Reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 272-304; Gwyn Walters, “The Body in the Pulpit,” in The Preacher and Preaching, ed. Samuel T. Logan Jr. (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1986), 445-63; John Broadus, On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, 4th edition, ed. Vernon L. Stanfield (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), 290-98; Haddon Robinson, Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1980), 198-202; Wayne McDill, “Preaching is More Than Words”; accessed January 2013 on the Internet: http://www.preaching.com/sermons/11565640/page-7/. Even the Bible acknowledges body language (Ps 47:1; Lam 2:15; Ezek 4:4-7; Acts 13:16; 19:33) and the ability of the eyes to communicate (Ps 32:8; Prov 10:10; 16:30; 30:17).
42 Some, like Leith Anderson, think PowerPoint is passé. According to him, “PowerPoint has been largely a Baby Boomer phenomenon. Younger adults wonder about the validity and credibility of anything perceived to be canned…. So PowerPoint is less used with younger adults and becoming more a characteristic of an older generation.” “Visualcy: Is PowerPoint Fading?” Interview with Leith Anderson, Leadership (Summer 2007), 37, as cited in Driscoll and Breshears, 272. While I think it’s an overstatement to say that projected words or images is no longer in vogue, I have observed that those who still use projected media tend to use less words and “special effects.” The minimalism that has influenced web design seems to be influencing PowerPoint presentations too.
43 See, for example, ProPresenter worship software.
44 For example, updates in the technology of musical instrumentation.
45 Geoff Surrat, Greg Ligon, and Warren Bird define the multi-site church as follows: “A multi-site church is one church meeting in multiple locations—different rooms on the same campus, different locations in the same region, or in some instances, different cities, states, or nations. A multi-site church shares a common vision, budget, leadership, and board.” The Multi-site Church Revolution: Being One Church … in Many Locations (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 18. As this definition demonstrates, there are different versions or types of multi-site churches.
46 Those who support the multisite church philosophy point out that early churches congregated together when possible but also divided into smaller groups and met for worship in different houses (Acts 2:46). They also note that the apostles sometimes taught the churches from a distance through written letters (a technology) rather than in person (2 Thess 2:2, 15). On the other hand, one might view the house gatherings and teaching in absentia as occasioned by certain exigencies rather than preferences. We do know that the apostles expressed a preference to minister to the saints face-to-face rather than from a distance (2 Cor 1:16; 12:14; 1 Thess 2:17; 3:10; 2 John 12; 3 John 13-14). Books and articles defending the multisite model include the following: Mark Driscoll and Gary Breshears, Vintage Church, 241-56; J. D. Greear, “A Pastor Defends His Multi-site Church,” 9Marks eJournal 6 (2009): 21-26; Gregg R. Allison, “Theological Defense of Multi-site,” 9Marks eJournal 6 (May/June 2009): 8-20; idem., Sojourner and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), iBook, loc. 539-546. Arguments against the multi-site model are found in Mark Dever and Paul Alexander, The Deliberate Church: Building Your Ministry on the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway, 2005), 87-88; Grant Gaines, “Exegetical Critique of Multi-site: Disassembling the Church?” 9Marks eJournal 6 (May/June 2009): 45-59; Jonathan Leeman, “Theological Critique of Multi-site: Leadership Is the Church,” 9Marks eJournal 6 (2009): 50-62; Thomas White and John M. Yeats, Franchising McChurch: Feeding Our Obsession with Easy Christianity (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2009).
47 Some media ecologists and critics of modern culture seem unduly biased against modern technologies that employ images or visual effects. They believe the visual medium not only affects the message but also irresistibly overrides any textual content and becomes itself the message. Ted Turnau refers to this as “imagophobia” and offers a more balanced approach to visual media and imagery in his book Popologetics: Popular Culture in Christian Perspective (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2012), 135-64. See also Brian Godawa’s Word Pictures: Knowing God through Story and Imagination (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2009).
48 See point 8 of Piper’s “What Unites Us In Worship at Bethlehem” (Oct 1, 2003); accessed January 2013 on the Internet: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/what-unit….
49 Cited by John Dyer in From the Garden to the City, Kindle, loc. 454 of 3483. Similarly, Quentin Schultz advocates a cautious approach to technology: “A wise approach to new technologies, then, is a “yes, but” attitude: yes, we will consider using it to serve our neighbors as ourselves, but we will not be duped by inflated rhetoric about its inherent goodness or badness. Yes, new technologies are part of the unfolding of God’s original creation, but we fallen human beings will never be able to use them to usher in heaven on earth. The “yes” is our faith in God to bless our imperfect use of technology; the “but” is our admission of foolishness and hubris—all sin.” High Tech Worship? Kindle edition, loc. 597-1849. Consider also some of the pitfalls summarized by John P. Jewell in Wired for Ministry: How the Internet, Digital Media, and Other New Technologies Can Serve Your Church (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2004), 29-73.
50 The Wired Church 2.0, 129.
51 For some helpful advice along these lines see “The Phasing Plan” in The Wired Church 2.0, 147-62.
52 High Tech Worship? Kindle edition, loc. 305 of 1849.
53 This applies to the younger church members who restlessly yearn for cutting edge technologies. But it also applies to older church members who may be unduly attached to their favorite older technologies. All parties need to subordinate their personal preferences to the gospel.
Bob Gonzales Bio
Dr. Robert Gonzales (BA, MA, PhD, Bob Jones Univ.) has served as a pastor of four Reformed Baptist congregations and has been the Academic Dean and a professor of Reformed Baptist Seminary (Sacramento, CA) since 2005. He is the author of Where Sin Abounds: the Spread of Sin and the Curse in Genesis with Special Focus on the Patriarchal Narratives (Wipf & Stock, 2010) and has contributed to the Reformed Baptist Theological Review, The Founders Journal, and Westminster Theological Journal. He blogs at It is Written.
- 6 views
Discussion