July 10, 2007
Is Video Technology in Church Manipulative?
The unintended consequences of using visual media in ministry.
As you read this post the summer issue of Leadership is arriving in mailboxes. The issue tackles the impact of living, and ministering, in an increasingly visual culture. Many churches are eager to employ video and other new digital tools, but is this tread helpful, harmful, or completely neutral to our mission? To preview the theme of the summer issue here is an interview with Shane Hipps on the hidden power of visual media from our partners at Faith Visuals.
How can we be better about perceiving the power of media in both our churches and our lives?
Probably the best orientation that I've discovered to help me understand the real power of media was when I read a quote by Marshall McLuhan where he says, "The content of any medium is the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind." What he's saying is that the medium itself has a power, a bias, and a meaning regardless of what message you put through it. He's challenging the metaphor that we often assume: Media are simply pipelines, a neutral conduit through which information can be put through. I think it's crucial for Christians to begin to perceive the media forms themselves, rather than just looking at - and understanding - the content. We're too easily distracted by the content, and we miss the power of the medium.
You mentioned Marshall McLuhan. In your book, The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture, you talk about McLuhan's four laws of media a lot. Could you explain those a little bit, and how they are useful for thinking about the media we use?
Sure. The only difficulty with the four laws is that it feels a little unnatural at times. It can be hard to answer some of those questions. The point is not to get the right answers; the point is to ask the right questions. McLuhan offered four questions he believed were crucial to understanding media.
First: What does the medium enhance and extend? For instance: The wheel is an extension of the foot.
Second: What does the medium obsolesce? And "obsolesce" doesn't mean get rid of. It means change the function of. So, for example, the automobile extends our speed of transportation, but it obsolesces the horse-drawn carriage. The horse-drawn carriage doesn't disappear; it simply changes its function. It's now used for romance and entertainment, but it is still used.
Third: What does the medium retrieve from the past? This is the conviction that nothing is new under the sun. And so every new medium retrieves some older medium. For example, security cameras retrieve the medieval city wall which simultaneously protects and imprisons its citizens.
Fourth: What does the medium reverse into? This means that every medium will always reverse into some form of its opposite when it is overused. So for example, when the automobile, which is designed to increase speed, is overextended or overused, it actually reverses into traffic jams and even fatalities.
There is no single answer to these questions; they can be asked of any medium almost endlessly to deepen our understanding. So that's one way of understanding the complexity of how media shape us.
So what do you think are some changes that would happen if people started to look at how we present our message? Like if we use McLuhan's four laws to think more about how we're presenting a message.
I think people will begin to use our media rather than be used by them unconsciously. The power of our media become less powerful when we actually understand and become aware of them. Right now, most people are distracted by the content of our media, while we miss the power of the form. Thus we encounter our media with the proverbial slip on the banana peel. We end up being used by the media we think we're using. My hope isn't that people will stop using technology in a church but rather, that they'll begin to understand so they can make more discerning decisions about how to use media.
If we ask ourselves these questions, how can video and visual multimedia do their best work? What kinds of messages do you think are best communicated by video or multimedia?
The messages that are best conveyed by video or multimedia are almost exclusively emotional and entertaining. The bias of these media is that they exercise the right hemisphere of the brain, which evokes emotions, impressions, and intuitions. Regardless of what you're conveying, these are the things that your brain uses to engage, perceive and understand the content of images. At the same time, when overextended, images erode our capacity for logic, abstract thinking, and complex discernment. Perhaps the most unintended consequence is that images too often become a form of manipulation.
Can you explain that a bit further? What do you mean by "unintended consequence?"
Well, visual multimedia are probably the favorite medium of the greatest manipulators in world history: advertisers. And I know because I was one! One of the things we discovered was that the absolute best way to move people against their better judgment was through emotion, not reason. Everything we did was to try and give emotional experiences, evoke emotional impressions, and basically ignore the nuts and bolts of the superiority of our product. Nobody cared about the superiority of our product; they cared about the kind of emotional empowerment they would experience. And so, regardless of whether they had the money to buy what we wanted them to buy, we could find ways to manipulate their emotions against their better judgment, because emotions are not things you argue with. They're simply an experience that you have. Whereas if you try and go through reason, people will argue with it.
So that's the thing I'd be concerned about in terms of how we use video and multimedia in church. We need to understand that we're dealing with an incredibly powerful medium that all too easily leans towards manipulation - a subtle form of coercion. It's not at all something that people who work and create this medium are necessarily doing on purpose. I know that. It's just a matter of helping us become aware of how immensely powerful images are.
Can you give me an example of that kind of manipulative use of visual media?
Let me give you an example from when I worked in advertising. On one campaign, our goal was to sell Porsches. And we didn't do it by convincing you that our car was better than a BMW because it had higher RPM or it could do 0 to 60 faster, but because it promised you freedom, sex, and power. And so we showed you a gorgeous woman with the car. So emotionally viewers experienced an unconscious message - buy the car and get the girl.
Another print ad we did was a shot of the Porsche Turbo running in the Salt Flats of Utah and the headline over the photograph read "Pins the logical side of your brain to the back of your skull." It's an ad that basically says, This is not a rational decision so don't over-think it; go out and buy this $120,000 car right now, but also exposes a greater truth about our methods as advertisers. Everything we did was an effort to pin the logical side of the brain to the back of skulls, so that we could simply manipulate this soft and highly malleable emotional response and experience.
How do you help filmmakers know how they can best avoid the unintentional consequence of manipulating? Especially because we obviously want people to be moved through videos, but not in the sense that we want to manipulate them into anything?
It's really hard to say to a filmmaker or an artist "Here's how you should create your art so that you're not manipulating." Part of it is the context. It's the context in which it's shown - who the audience is.
But the questions I would ask of a filmmaker or someone who is involved in creating a show video piece are:
What is your intended goal or outcome? In some ways, if your goal is too clear or concrete as an artist, you may be at risk of inadvertently using your film manipulatively.
What is the means by which you're trying to achieve that goal? Does what I depict exploit the senses or emotions, or does it awaken them? This is very fine line, so ask it prayerfully and honestly.
Only after I heard answers to these questions could I give some more meaningful direction. It's hard for me to say specifically for filmmakers what they should or shouldn't do, other than ask the hard questions and answer them as honestly as you can.
Shane Hipps is pastor of Trinity Mennonite Church - a missional, urban, Anabaptist congregation in Phoenix, Ariz. Before accepting a call as a pastor, he was a strategic planner in advertising, where he worked on the multimillion dollar communications plan for Porsche. It was here that he gained expertise in understanding media and culture. Shane speaks nationally, is a contributor to Leadership Journal, host of the "Third-Way Faith" podcast on wiredparish.com, and author of The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture: How Media Shapes Faith, the Gospel, and Church.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga on July 10, 2007
Comments
Yes, it could be manipulative.
1. Video tech is weighted on visual impact. Believers are told to walk by faith, not by sight (visual). Visually weighted communication can lead believers away from what God designed for them to live by. When believers are trained to put more stock in what they see rather than truth that is unseen, they are manipulated to wander and degenerate.
2. Video tech is primarily (but not always) one-way communication. There is no personal relationship with the truth presenter. There is no interaction. There is no follow through for questions or disagreements. This is directly opposed to the God we serve and His instructions to His saints. God is always a two-way communication God. He never digresses into one-way communication. This is especially true in the new covenant set up. Plus, most of His instructions for communication are specifically calling for two-way communication in one another form - teach and admonish, spur, encourage, build up, serve, love, bear burdens, etc. Video tech is easy, and requires no preparation by the hearer - buy it and show it. One another communication is hard work and demands spiritual preparation by everyone. What God has designed has been the low priority approach for hundreds of years. One another communication is at best - back burner cooking - the road less traveled. I think most of God's people will take in video tech with no questions asked. It fits in with their current one-way communication preference. It's also what their leaders prefer and model almost exclusively. Praise God some will walk in what God specifically asks for.
Posted by: Tim at July 11, 2007
No, hopefully, it is used to inspire and move people. We connect through this medium. It is just a modern day sermon, which is to move people.
www.matthewsblog.waynesborochurchofchrist.org
Posted by: Matthew at July 11, 2007
My concern with visual media isn't the manipulative potential, but the inherent shallowness. The best videos and visuals tend to raise questions and stir emotions. If they explore answers, they come across as manipulative, so they usually do not explore answers. If we can't follow visuals with solid teaching (and expect people to listen), we're in trouble.
Posted by: Dennis Mullen at July 12, 2007
Very Interesting! First of all, I also believe that technology is not neutral-it has immpact, it imparts direction by the very requirements to "use" technologoy. For instance, a church now has to budget and use money for technology-wasn't an issue 20 years ago but maybe they had a budget for books or flannelgraphs or posters. I like the authors questions-the questions themselves do not impart judgement-but do require careful thinking. I do not agree on the right vs left brain. I do believe the use of technology is sometimes overused but no more than the lecture, teaching, sermon, intelluctual style of the past. The truth is Jesus reached both the heart and the mind which includes solid Biblical understanding and a heart felt response. My personal experence is that churches who drive to both have outstanding disciples-neither rigid in thinking nor driven by emotions. I would like to respond to Tim's comments. The one about one-way communication seems rather hypocritical-after all-when was the last time your congregation had a two way "sermon"or even a two way teaching? So they watch some slides or hear someone preach-neither one is interactive!
Posted by: trisha at July 12, 2007
Okay ... you convinced me. We're yanking the screens out today. I'm going to run down the the Christian bookstore and order all new flannel boards and punch-out paper-people.
Not!
Manipulation goes to motive. The only real place where I see manipulation running rampant in Christianity is in the evil promotion of the (manipulative, lying, evil) prosperity Gospel.
We believe in our message ... the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We use video images to convey and reinforce that image. It's that simple. I do not understand why its use is such a theological, methodological struggle to some ... especially since we live in a culture dominated by visual images and the visual arts.
http://geoffbaggett.wordpress.com
Posted by: Geoff Baggett at July 13, 2007
1976 I had the same discussion re: Christian Education [its teaching manipulative?] The answer our class come to was yes! but so was Jesus' teaching. Like Christ's parables; teaching, preaching, marry, hymn, praise says, video, PowerPoint, even lighting and ascetics are all manipulative.
The issue is disconnect on the part of the teacher, pastor, or video tech. And on the part of the hearers, viewers of the message! Remember the believers in Berea who checked out everything Paul taught?
Peace,
Alan
Posted by: Red-Cleric at July 13, 2007
To Trisha:
Your question:"When was the last time your congregation had a two way "sermon"or even a two way teaching?"
Every week. We've discovered the Bible never specifies "preach the Word,...reprove, rebuke, exhort..." equals "lecture the Word..." We have discovered that the "word of Christ will dwell in us RICHLY with ALL wisdom" as we "teach and admonish one another". Col 3:16. There are NO requests anywhere for one-way communication. It costs $1,000 - $2,000 every week for lecture. What the Bible specifies is free so 100% of giving can go beyond the givers. It's 100% relational and it's 100% participative. It's what we are (a living body) put into action. It's a completely different paradigm of church built on specific scriptures - not tradition.
Posted by: Tim at July 13, 2007
I don't think Worship Service media should be considered as manipulative. at least not any more than Scriptural use of the printing press, or ushers handing out a pretty colored Sunday Worship Bulletin.
Media should perhaps more properly be thought of as a tool for the message. McCloon also said the Media is the Massage. The printed Book "The Bible" is a tool, the Bible on an MP3 disk is a tool, the projection in Worship is a tool, the cymbals clanging described in Psalms was another tool - all gifts from God, and with which we massage ourselves to a greater enthusiasm and bonding with God,
As the Lay leader at the time, I discussed this with our Senior Pastor, and we became mutually convinced that discrete projection, a good praise band, better quality sound, a better Pulpit design and better decor, would all combine to be the setting that showed we loved God and respected Him - we gave the symbolic "Prize Calf" each Sunday so as to speak.
Now we project the words to the music selections (with proper license), the Scripture readings, the sermon outlines (at times), and we play occasional recorded music topically connected by the sermon, as well as occasional videos during the Service, and usually have a camera projecting the images of our cute children up front of the church during the "Children's Sermon".
There was some resistance at the start of the "new face" we were putting forth, but I think today about 95% of our church congregation would say "keep it" if it were put up for a vote. This is in spite of our church culture, tradition, and reputation. We haven't lost our focus on God's message, and I would guess that most folks in the community would still say that we are a traditional ABC Baptist Church leaning towards the conservative side.
Posted by: Lee Brewer at July 17, 2007
I feel that there are a few assumptions here that are questionable: the nature of visual reasoning or not, manipulativity and rhetoric to which the issue is about education just as it is for dealing with print or verbal media. More at http://nouslife.blogspot.com/2007/07/technology-and-worship-video-again.html
Posted by: Andii Bowsher at July 18, 2007
This article does not come close to proving its point.
The first half or so is trying to argue that the medium can have a hidden influence entirely separate from the content.
The evidence then presented is how advertising campaigns tried to appeal to a person's emotions rather than dwell on the facts or superiority of the product.
How is this the "medium" of video being manipulative? Rather it is the content - how the video was edited and what is in it, that is intended to manipulate.
I will give evidence for a counter argument - there are some movies that move me, and others that don't - if the medium of video is inherently manipulative, then I should be moved by all movies regardless of content.
Point taken that we should take care not to manipulate people - but don't blame the medium without at least one good supporting argument.
Posted by: Douglas at July 19, 2007
The point of this isn't that video is inherently manipulative, but that video is very easily used for manipulation.
People are trained by media in our culture to accept all of the junk attached to advertising (like the porsche ad) and when we use that media, it's nearly impossible for us to create it without those influences, and for them to view it without absorbing them.
You can argue that we are simply using the culture's tools to reach the lost, but McLuhan and Neil Postman (Amusing Ourselves To Death) and other important thinkers of our time are saying that the media is inherently changing our message, and that we are manipulating people by using this media.
We as Christians are putting our fingeres in our ears and not listening because we like being part of the hip tech movement, and we can pretend that all this technology is as effective as real relationships and actually getting into people's lives as an evangelism tool. We're kidding ourselves.
Posted by: MrPAges at July 20, 2007
I wonder why we never asked the same questions when we started using puppets in children's ministry back in the 70s? What about the use of story or metaphor? Aren't those inherently manipulative as well? Or what about the appeal of music? If any medium is manipulative in and of itself, it's music. The bottom line is that it's not the medium that is manipulative, people are. We can choose to engage the mind and emotions or exclude one or the other. We can also choose to leverage other powers at our disposal like love, money, attention, acceptance. The list goes on and on.
The debate here is a valid one but we need to discuss this in view of Jesus teaching in Matthew 20:25-27. How does the church function without "lording it over?" This is a bigger issue than just are we going to use video or not.
Posted by: Joel at July 26, 2007
Anything can be manipulative. It comes down to motive and why we're using a particular type of media.
Posted by: Greg Atkinson at July 27, 2007
We need to hear this article (and other thinkers, as mentioned, such as Neil Postman) for the point they are raising. In many ways we confirm it in our response. This is an attempt at a logical assertion about what may be happening. It just raises a question. And being a logical assertion, we immediately start to argue (so...point made).
What I find interesting is that in many ways, the human condition is manipulative by it's very nature. None of us come to a decision based purely on logic. We are thinking, feeling, living beings. At least we should be able to admit we are motivated (at least in part) through emotion. And the trouble is for those who argue otherwise, the data supports this to be true (such as in advertising).
It's a fine line to walk indeed, where we teach people to be discerning without becoming paranoid, lead people to think while affirming their feelings, and present the Gospel in such a way that requires more of a response that simple intellectual assent.
My great concern with technology is it's limitations, not it's power. In many ways we use it because it's easier and more manageable. I recall learning of cathedrals that were fitted with small openings in the ceiling so that rose pedals could be dropped onto the congregation as a reminder of the coming of the Holy Spirit. Manipulative? Sure. Edifying? I would imagine so...but imagine the mess! Who has that kind of time and resources and foresight? Ultimately for me the trouble is that while media is easier, it is far less real. And in that way, it can not challenge us to become more real with it.
Posted by: Bil_ at July 30, 2007