When we talk about using media (new, old, visual, or otherwise), it's important to first understand what media are and why media exist. So, what are media? Webster defines "medium" as "a means of effecting or conveying something." For our purposes, a medium is something that allows a message to be communicated, where previously it had been impossible.

In this sense, the answer to "why do media exist" is obvious. Any form of communication needs a medium—whether it's a human voice, an MP3 file, a video camera, or anything else. But here's a question with a less obvious answer: Why do we use a new medium over an old one, even if the old one worked (and still works) just fine? For example, why do we now use those Bluetooth earpieces instead of our cell phones (and here, I'm referring to the people that wander around the mall or the airport with earpieces, not those who use them for safety behind the wheel)? And, for that matter, why did we start using our cell phones instead of our regular phones?

Of course, the obvious and oft-repeated answer to these questions is convenience: Earpieces are more convenient because you don't need to use your hands; cell phones are more convenient because they are mobile and not bound by a cord. But is an earpiece really more convenient than a cell phone, or did we just invent that idea because it feels like not having to use hands should be an improvement?

The point here is that often, it seems like a new medium is employed because it is new, and not because it is thoughtfully considered to have more merit than another. But this is only natural. Throughout history, anytime a new medium is introduced, people react to it, not in terms of what it is or what it should do, but rather, what it can do—how we might use it. Christians—always in search of a communicative booster shot—are often at the forefront of these early negotiations of new media.

"Use the talking picture"

When cinema hit the scene in the early twentieth century, churches were among the first groups to explore its potential for education and evangelism. Before pastors even knew what the moving picture was, they were thinking about how they might use it to their advantage (well, at least those who weren't trying to shut down the neighborhood nickelodeons).

Consider this perspective of Dr. William Carter, a Presbyterian pastor from Brooklyn, who, in 1929 at the "Community and the Motion Picture" conference, heralded the possibilities of film for the Christian:

We need a vision of the future, especially a future affected by the use of sound pictures. We should stress the development of the religious motion picture for constructive teaching, for religious education, not merely in the Sunday school but in the church itself. There are 195,000 churches in this country, Protestant and Catholic, and there is no reason why we should not use the talking picture to hear the greatest preachers and the greatest choirs in the country. We could send those pictures to the smallest churches where they have never had the opportunity to hear the great preachers. Today between 15 (percent) and 20 percent of the churches are always vacant. We could fill up those seats by means of motion pictures.

The quote resonates today, as ever-evolving new media present to the church seemingly unlimited potentials to—among other things—"fill up those seats." It is true: There are many ways that new media forms can be used to great effect in a church context. But are these new forms always as useful as we romanticize them to be? Does displaying the words to a hymn on a centralized jumbo screen make the process of singing corporately that much easier or more convenient than reaching down to the pew and flipping to the correct page in the book? Sure, there are some benefits involved with trading hymnbooks for powerpoint (for one, it's cheaper), but do they outweigh the costs (the loss of a collected "canon" of sacred church music)? We are very quick to justify the change because of the pros, with scarcely little pause to consider the cons. Because it's new, because we live in a fast-paced, ever-changing world, we embrace the new technology with open arms, even when the old technology (hymnbooks) seemed to work fine for hundreds of years. We show words up on the screen because we can, not because the former alternatives were ineffective.

I'm not implying that such changes in media are wrong—just that they cannot be rationally justified or explained by use-value alone. If you want to use short films in your worship service, that's great. But I don't think that the reasoning for using film is that "no other previously established medium will do."

Of course, there are valid reasons for using new media forms, even when old ones are capable of getting the message across, and to get at those, I'd like to briefly describe three general modes of using media—of "expressing or conveying" something between one thing and another.

Commercial Mode

In this mode, media are used to "sell" something (if not an actual product, then an idea or an argument, such as the gospel) to the audience. A medium is chosen in terms of its ability to give the audience what it wants or thinks it needs. This is the modern sense of "media," as coined in the 1920s, when new forms like radio, color ad copy, and cinema were revolutionizing the advertising industry. In this mode, the audience is king. What do they like? What is the demographic? How can I relay this message—through this medium—so that the audience enjoys it, remembers it, and responds to it? Think Super Bowl ads.

Didactic Mode

In this mode, media are used to teach. This mode is still "selling an idea" in a sense, but unlike the commercial mode, the audience's pleasure is not a primary concern. Fidelity to the message trumps accommodation to the audience. Here, a medium is chosen for its ability to most clearly and effectively get a point across, vis-à-vis rhetorical prowess. For example, consider the ways in which a presidential candidate is presented to the voter. In the commercial mode, Candidate X is presented in such a way that he/she appears to fill every need or desire the audience might want. In the didactic mode, however, Candidate X is presented as he/she is—regardless of whether it pleases the voter or not. If the former mode is seen in lobbyist-funded campaign ads, the latter is demonstrated in C-SPAN. You might also think of it as the distinction between entertainment and education.

Aesthetic Mode

In this mode, media are chiefly a means of artistic expression. A particular medium is used because it is best equipped to embody a personal aesthetic vision (film to tell a temporal story, photography to capture the beauty of light, paint to emphasize color, and so on). The audience is not sold or taught anything here as much as it is given something beautiful (with no "use value" per se). The "message" that necessitates a medium in this mode is usually not something that can be clearly expressed though another medium, but is intimately tied to, and dependent upon, its specific iteration in whatever form it is presented.

Applying the modes to church media

So, how do these three modes apply to using new media in a church context? Well, let's take the example of the prominent form on FaithVisuals.com: the short video. Such a medium might be appropriately employed in the commercial mode to announce or promote upcoming events, or to "sell" otherwise "unpleasant" ideas, such as tithing or other sacrificial spiritual disciplines. It can be reasonably argued that in both of these cases, the video format is better apt to "sell" the audience on it than other forms might have been.

Videos might also be used in a church setting in the didactic mode, to clarify or illustrate a complex idea that might otherwise go over the heads or through the ears of the audience.

And finally, it is important to remember that an equally valid—and often underappreciated—use of video in church is within the aesthetic mode. Why not use the medium of video as a platform for artists and filmmakers in your congregation to create art—expressing not an ad, or a message, but merely their creative vision of beauty? Is this not also glorifying to God?

So, if it seemed in the first part of this article like I was being hard on new media (specifically its use in the church), it is only because I hate to see us using it only because we can, without thought as to how, why, and when it should be employed. As we have seen, there are several valuable uses for media—whether you want to persuasively convey or "sell" something, or effectively instruct an audience about some complex idea, or perhaps just to express some artistic vision for the aesthetic enjoyment of the audience. Each of these instances is a valid use of media, and the more you know about their differences and relative purposes (as modes of using media), the better you will be at communicating the message.

Copyright © 2007 FaithVisuals.com