Human touch is more than physical. It is emotional and mental as well. Video done right evokes human emotion in positive ways.

I'm not so sure that video "disembodies" us, as Shane says. No, it is not as personal as human touch. But it has its place.

Jesus' most effective form of communication was the parable. He used them often. We live in a video/technology age. Videos and video clips are, in my view, our modern-day versions of the "parable." We should make use of them whenever possible.

I am amazed at the attention factor that videos have. When I use a clip during a message, every eye is glued to the screen. Videos engage the senses, as well as the emotions. I believe that we, as the church, are negligent if we do not use these effective visual tools in our technological context.
http://geoffbaggett.wordpress.com

If we don't approach this in too binary a way, I think Shane is right. It's not that we should never use video because it completely de-humanizes ministry, but that we should limit the use of such technologies and favor the use of hands-on/in-person ministry.
Another underlying issue is that some of us are just simply enamored technology. Just because a tool is cool or gets attention doesn't mean it is effective in moving forward the kingdom. Shane's comments force me to examine whether I use technology because of the right reasons and if I have thoroughly examined my own motives.
Good work!

I think this is a bit of a false dichotomy. First of all, having video in service certainly doesn't prevent us from having more incarnational interactions with each other in other settings/situations.

Secondly, what then of the extensive historical use of icons in the Eastern Orthodox Church? These images are used by Orthodox believers to connect with Jesus in a very incarnational way.

Shane makes, as do the previous commenters, thought-provoking points. Video is two-dimentional and impossible to engage in conversation. On the other hand, a video story is often (always?) far more interesting and engaging than a preacher, even an accomplished anecdote-and-three-pointer. Given that the most presence and physical touch most in the congregation get (an want, presumably) is a handshake at the door, which -- the pastor or the video -- is more connecting?

And Shane's point elicits this: If video is disembodying, what is the effect of primary reliance on the bible for building a relationship with God?

I agree with Shane. Geoff, the use of techonology in "church services" is only akin to a Jesus parable if they force people to take a fiercer look at reality. Too often, in my experience videos are used to amuse and distract. Often it's more about look at us, look at our cool factor, look how "state-of-the-art" our Church campuse is.

In my community we gathering the town community center and we have minimal techonology; basic screen and powerpoint. But the bulk of our worship/fellowship is engaging in song, conversation, and interactive liturgy.

I have a feeling that Shane is speaking more about the "video venue" issue in churches right now, and less about showing/using video clips during church services. I doubt that anyone will argue against a well-placed video clip or short film as a VERY effective way to get a point across, or to evoke an emotional/mental response to something.

My gut says that he's reacting more to an entire message/sermon, every single week, being delivered via big screen TV.

If you weigh the positives and negatives of this new style of teaching during a church service, is it a net positive or a net negative?

I really don't know... My gut? A net change of zero, or maybe slightly negative. But again, that's just my gut, and it's very subjective.

Shane's concerns are warranted. Aside from embodiment concerns, McLuhan's maxim of the medium being the message should apply here.

Not only are God's people warned repeatedly about worshipping god/idols they can see, we are told specifically that faith comes by hearing and that by the Word of Christ.

Use of video in ministry and worship should be exercised with caution and discernment, two element of approach that are sadly lacking in much of evangelicalism today.

Sam,
I say good for you in your community, but I disagree with the motives you assign to the people who use video technology. Since most churches across this country do not use video, many are not using power point but a hymnal or an overhead, I think ascribing motives to people is dangerous.

It seems this is Shane's niche of warning and I appreciate it greatly, however in this quote and in some of his other writings I believe he goes to far to make a point.

Shane's quote is really thought-provoking (as is his book).

I tend to experience video as a hybrid between offline and on. As a result, it's ability to embody things is actually much stronger than text.

None of it is WRONG or RIGHT. It's all about communicating Christ. If it points to Jesus then light it up... but if worship becomes reliant on... or pointing towards technology...

I'd rather not