One of the most intriguing and challenging books for me in recent years is Shane Hipps’ Flickering Pixels. It takes a fascinating look at how media affect content and faith. It is a bit of a big concept, so I will use some of Shane’s words to give you a glimpse of what is all about.
It is commonly assumed that as long as we protect the unchanging message of the gospel, the method of communicating doesn’t much matter.
The logic is pretty straightforward. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make it true.
If the first truth is that our methods necessarily change, the second truth is whenever our methods change, the message automatically changes along with them. You can’t change methods without changing your methods - they’re inseparable.
Throughout the book, Shane discusses the complexities of how the medium affects the content and the audience. For example, Shane writes:
Images focus our attention on the realm of cosmetics. Often, it is for the sake of showcasing beauty and talent.
The radio returned our culture to the experience of the tribal campfire with its shared stories, songs, and banter.
The Internet has a natural bias towards exhibitionism and thus the erosion of real intimacy.
Printing put the left hemisphere of the brain on steroids.
If you communicate with people through any medium, you need to understand the pros and cons of that medium and how it influences your communication. You are just as much responsible for the medium you choose as you are for the words you use (or whatever content you communicate).
Hipp’s comments are of value, but they only move the question back one step. We can maintain the proposition, that the message matters more than the method, provided we give appropriate consideration to the effects of the method on the message.
When the apostles put the gospel in written form, they altered the message which Jesus gave only verbally, according to Hipp’s diagnosis. While it is true that we interact differently with the written word and the spoken word, we can’t arrive from there at a prescription not to use the written word. Indeed, even with the spoken word, there is necessarily a change when one person preaches the gospel rather than another; if the medium is the message, in some ways it is all the more true that the messenger is the message. But again, we can hardly arrive at the conclusion only certain persons can share the gospel; instead, we should embrace God’s ability to present the message uniquely through each of His servants, while at the same time cautioning those servants to be mindful that they not alter the message fundamentally to fit themselves, but rather alter themselves to fit the message. Taking that argument back to media, Hipp’s argument should be, not which methods are suitable for carrying the message, but rather, in what redemptive ways do we need to transform the method in order to carry the message faithfully?
An addendum: I haven’t read Hipps book, only Kent’s summary, so perhaps I should have phrased my comment accordingly; for all I know Hipps tackles these issues exactly as I have suggested.