Interview with Shane Hipps (p. 2)
Part 2 of my interview with Shane Hipps, author of The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture:
SH: Mostly it will be a lot of experimenting, failing, and trying again. Whatever the process is, though, it will be fast in the culture and slow in the church - nothing new here. However, the disparity will be more dramatic than ever before as the rate of change in culture is accelerating at unprecedented speed. Hence the church finds itself increasingly in a liminal space - with all the awkwardness, insecurity, and frustration of adolescence. This is a time of tremendous ecclesiological tumult as most of us are experiencing.
The local body more than anything else can embark on the task of navigating these changes by understanding that the medium is in fact the message. There's much more to it than this, but the medium of a blog interview affords only so much. I guess in one sense my entire book is an effort to answer this question.
SB: You discuss the church as the medium that God has chosen to communicate the message of the Kingdom to a watching world. How does this shape our image of God, as well as our self-understanding as the body of Christ?
SH: These are such significant questions. It has far reaching implications for our image of God and the way we understand the nature of the church. Not least of which is that God seems to be more concerned with forming communities than individuals. The same can be said about the church-it is a corporate witness, not a collection of individuals. This is easy to say, but it is mind boggling to consider the implications for such a radically individualized and atomistic culture.
SB: I thought your chapter on Leadership was particularly insightful. My initial thoughts were that leadership structures that can't adequately speak to a self-provisioning and self-published world enabled by the internet and other forms of electronic media are simply inadequate. I think you've done an excellent job of highlighting the positives and the dangers of a more decentralized leadership structure. How, in your opinion, have electronic media shifted our perception of leadership, and what implications does that shift have for local congregations?
SH: A simple implication is a growing distrust with pastoral authority. The emerging church (in all it's diversity) is the canary in the coalmine-a harbinger of what is to come. They carry the biases of electronic culture. And they have taken a wrecking ball to hierarchical structures of the past. Increasingly, pastors will have to learn what it means to lead by persuasion rather than position.
This is actually an amplification of what happened during the Reformation-it is simply a more radical form of information diffusion. Of course, with information glut we will find new authority in those who can sift it and make meaning of the disparate data.
There is a loss here of course. The danger is that the flattening of power structures can inadvertently undermine the potency of leaders. This impotence actually has a tendency to cause stagnation in communities of faith. This is where we can take a lesson from the Mennonites who are just now (in the last 50 years) emerging from four centuries of egalitarian leadership structures. For most of their history they didn't have professional paid pastors. Instead each year a different person was called to be pastor. The result was an incredibly vital faith had little direction and floundered in obscurity. There is some risk in repeating those mistakes if we forge ahead uncritically.
SB: I believe it was Jacques Ellul in his book The Technological Society who suggested that technology carries its own ethic and that, in a technological society, the question that is asked is often, "Can we do this?" rather than, "Should we?" How can a local body take on the task of enabling its members to begin to ask the "should" questions instead of just the "can"?
SH: Yes, Ellul offers an important critique here of Western society. This tendency to only ask "can we?" is partly a result of living in late stage consumer capitalism which drives an insatiable appetite for efficient and entertaining technologies. The antidote? As long as we view our methods and media as neutral conduits we will be in a perpetual state of asking "can we?"
However if we train our eyes to perceive the subtle secrets and hidden powers of our media regardless of content, the "should we?" question becomes inevitable. With this perspective one can't help but wonder what new environment we are accidentally creating with our new media and technology. And it is this orientation that the church desperately needs to foster.
SB: Shane, thanks again for your time and your thoughts, as well as for a fascinating and thought-provoking book!
SH: My pleasure, thanks for your interest Scott. Peace and blessings.
Email this post | Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
I confess that many of the implications of what Shane is saying are beyond me, Scott. I was intrigued, however, by your question about Shane's speaking of the Church being the medium and therefore God's Kingdom message to the world. This is at the heart of the gospel and highlights the importance of our presence in the midst of the hurt and disorder of our communities - that we are Christ in our world, redeeming it.
Posted by Scott Lyons on June 14, 2006 04:19 PMI think that was the part of the book that I was most impressed with - it was an intriguing discussion to say the least. ;)
Posted by ScottB on June 15, 2006 02:32 PMI just read the book. Hipps states that theology has to change due to the effects of media, but never says what this new theology is or will be. He does say that we need to de-emphasize Paul and re-emphasize the gospels, but what does this mean? What is the gospel? I found it disturbing that he holds out the emergent church as the example of believers who are making this theological shift, but he doesn't tell us where the shift is going, other than the direction of experience-based faith and mystery.
Hipps does acknowledge that we stand to lose the importance of Paul's writings and theology, but makes no attempt to tell us what it is that's important about Paul. How about justification by faith? Is that important, or is that too abstract and no longer part of the message? At some point he's got to take a stand and tell us what the signifance of Christ's death on a cross and resurrection is, if those even matter, or if it even matters what you believe. Hipps, as a pastor, no doubt has some firm doctrinal positions.
If you've already bought into the emergent movement and their replacement of orthodox doctrine with experience, then it may be easier to be excited about this book. I haven't.
Lastly, I question the whole premise of the book: that the media has so eroded people's ability to do left-brained thinking that we've got to present the gospel (whatever the gospel is)in a right-brained format. Is it true for you as you sit here analyzing these written words?
Posted by marshallm on July 14, 2006 11:47 AMMarshall - I apologize for the delay in responding; I needed more than a cursory reply and haven't had the opportunity to do so before now. I'd like to respond point by point, because to be honest I'm not sure by your comments that you grasped the nature of the book at all.
I just read the book. Hipps states that theology has to change due to the effects of media, but never says what this new theology is or will be. He does say that we need to de-emphasize Paul and re-emphasize the gospels, but what does this mean? What is the gospel? I found it disturbing that he holds out the emergent church as the example of believers who are making this theological shift, but he doesn't tell us where the shift is going, other than the direction of experience-based faith and mystery.What Shane actually says here is this: "A host of books and articles have been written on what has changed and how the church ought to respond to those changes. However, few writers have made a serious effort to understand why these changes have occurred...I propose that the answers to the question of why these changes have come about can be found in part by exploring the nature and effects of media and technology on culture." (p. 16-17) I certainly don't think it's fair to criticize a book for not meeting an objective that the author explicitly stated it would not meet.
At some point he's got to take a stand and tell us what the signifance of Christ's death on a cross and resurrection is, if those even matter, or if it even matters what you believe. Hipps, as a pastor, no doubt has some firm doctrinal positions.Why does he need to do so in a book about technology and its effects on culture? Nowhere in the book does he imply that the significance of the atonement is diminishing, or that Paul is no longer important - in fact, he identifies the shift in emphasis from Paul to the Gospels as one that must be guarded carefully, so that we don't lose the riches of Paul and other more linear portions of scripture. But you need to take the purpose of the book as stated by the author into consideration when you're offering these criticisms. I could likewise argue that you haven't offered any answers to your own questions here - but that would hardly be fair, as that's not your purpose here. I hope you see what I'm suggesting.
If you've already bought into the emergent movement and their replacement of orthodox doctrine with experience, then it may be easier to be excited about this book. I haven't.There are so many things wrong with this sentence that I don't know where to begin. I'll just ask a few questions of my own: Who is replacing doctrine with experience? Where has this happened? Can you provide me with some references? What is "unorthodox" about the emerging church? I need some specifics if I'm to interact with this in any meaningful fashion - as it is, it's nothing but an ad hominem that serves no purpose in advancing your case.
Lastly, I question the whole premise of the book: that the media has so eroded people's ability to do left-brained thinking that we've got to present the gospel (whatever the gospel is)in a right-brained format. Is it true for you as you sit here analyzing these written words?The irony is killing me here. Written words - posted on a blog using technology which has foundationally altered the way in which our culture receives, understands, processes, communicates, and synthesizes information. Yes, it is undeniably true for me - as it is for you as well, given that we're having this discussion at all. The only question is whether you've begun to wrestle with the implications of that shift.
I look forward to your thoughts. Please feel free to email me if you'd like to go that route as well. Blessings on your journey.
Posted by ScottB on July 16, 2006 10:50 PMScott,
Thanks for the response.
Hipps says that the message "should change and evolve." (See section on "The Ever Changing Message" p. 88, with italics on the word "should" in the text). In that section he states that media has led to unintended changes in the message. "Among them is a shift from our modern, individualistic, and highly rational concept of the gospel to a postmodern, communal, holistic, and experiential one." (p. 88). He then states his own belief that "throughout scripture God's message changes," using scriptural references to support this position. (p. 89) He goes on to say, "When we claim the gospel message is unchanging, we risk boasting of a kind of omniscience in which we presume to know the totality of God's inexhaustible mysteries." (p. 90).
Readers can decide for themselves, but it seems to me that Hipps is not just commenting on what others have said about whether the gospel message is changing but advocating for it.
As I said before, I found myself wanting Hipps to tell me more about where this changing gospel is headed, specifically in terms of the significance of Christ's death on the cross. Since he relied so heavily on the ECM and had Brian McClaren write the forward, one might assume he shares McClaren's convictions. (No, we don't have time or room to get into what McClaren's positions are, but I'm thinking of McClaren's discussion of "How Jesus Saves Us" in his book, "Generous Orthodoxy"). Anyway, rather than assume anything, I'd prefer to have Hipps tell me.
Lastly, I admit my comment on the ECM was quite ad hominous. (Emerging latin :)). I would just encourage anyone who reads the emergent authors to continually ask themselves: How do this author's conclusions fit with statements in Romans about the gravity of our sin and justification by faith? Is actual belief in Christ as the unique savior necessary or do we just need to focus on holistically following Jesus by doing and being good?
Thanks.
Posted by marshallm on July 24, 2006 12:08 PMOk - I have a better sense of where you're coming from here. I'll say up front that I'm reading a few things into Shane's discussion here, but I haven't read anything that would cause me to doubt that what I'm suggesting is accurate, so I think they're fair assumptions. If you continue reading this chapter and the one following on community, what you'll see is what seems to me to be a two-fold argument: first, that our understanding of the implications of the gospel are culturally conditioned and impacted by our media, and second, that changes in media have resulted in changes in our cultural location and thus call for a rethinking of those gospel implications, using the criteria that he's already established of retrieval/enhancement/obsolescence/reversal.
So this is what this looks like - given the testimony of the scriptures that Jesus was crucified, was buried, rose again from the dead, and is now proclaimed as King and Lord of the whole world, what are the implications of acknowledging and participating in His Kingdom? For hundreds of years, Protestant approaches (in particular) have emphasized the personal, individual aspects - sin, justification, etc. But those categories are culturally conditioned by a literate, print culture. In fact, many scholars today suggest that we aren't using those categories in the same way that the first Christians did - in the early church, those categories were more about belonging to the people of God and less about my personal eschatological destiny.
So to apply Shane's categories - electronic media retrieve communal dimensions of faith, but obsolesce individual dimensions, for example. So reread the chapter that you've referenced, pages 91-100 for example, with that in mind. Shane is talking about the gospel here - or, more specifically, the implications of the death and resurrection of Christ and our call to be a part of a new community formed in His image. It's a lot less about the ordo salutis, I'll grant you, but I'd also suggest that those concerns don't seem to be so much biblical ones either. It's more than just ontology.
I'd suggest the same is true of Romans (for example). We're conditioned to read Romans in a particular way - but what if the quesions that Paul is attempting to answer are less about the ontology of salvation - who's in, who's out, and how did they get to be that way - and more about how it is that both Jews and Gentiles are now a part of the Kingdom of God? That frames the book in an almost entirely different light - and, I'd suggest, makes a lot more sense than a lot of stuff I've read. So I think the questions are there, and they're being discussed seriously - but they're not the same questions that others have asked. However, they're still driven from the text and undergirded by a desire to submit to its authority.
Anyway - hope that helps. Thanks for the thoughts!
Posted by ScottB on July 26, 2006 12:13 PM