Now actually, I do affirm that these are true tendencies. However, I would also contend that the downsides offered here are to do as much with the adaptation of presentation software and kit (nb there are other software alternatives, and I commend open source projects such as Open Office.org in order to help prevent M$ ruling the world). The scenario outlined is where the medium has been bolted on to existing formats and ends up amplifying (as McLuhan says) certain aspects of what is already there. However, if you creatively reconceptualise the worship acts the downsides can either be largely avoided or reframed so as to make the critique redundant. It may require those with an artistic soul to explore the capabilities and limitations a bit more, but it can be done.
The article disappoints in the paragraphs after that quoted above; the scenarios seem to norm a 'conventional' church experience and so amount to 'my regular way of doing church is better than yours' by not comparing like with like (eg by not telling the tales of the cock-ups or downsides of 'normal' worship). And the crit of 'sensory overload' betrays a cultural formation that doesn't necessarily work for all of us. That said, I still 'agree' that the problem is the way it is used; without a deeper exploration of the effects and affects of the medium or a willingness to change to make sure that it is used to its best effect. And the recognition of the history of adoption of technology is welcome but somehow ends up missing the lessons and serving a luddite agenda. So it was good to read the counterpoint:
there may be occasions or circumstances when computer-generated visual aids might be used meaningfully in worship. For instance, prior to the start of a service, projecting scripture verses or art appropriate to the day's themes may help to settle and center worshipers, discouraging the chatter and fidgeting that often persist up to the start of the service, and encouraging the whole community's focus on the worship to come. For churches already heavily invested (monetarily and otherwise) in computer technology in worship, moving toward this kind of limited use may be a first step in recognizing the effects of PowerPoint in worship and in generating meaningful conversation.
So I end up agreeing with the conclusion while being suspicious of the nature of the engagement with the cultural (self-)criticism shown.
The Christian Century:
2 comments:
Thanks for this. While I find that there a number of creative ways to use Powerpoint in worship, my biggest objection to having the whole service up on the screen is that it easily takes away any sense of ownership, of "our worship." Instead it leaves it at the mercy of the one who controls the projector / PC, a geekhood if not a new priesthood.
True enough Doug. Of course, there are ways to rebalance that issue but it often requires a re-think of how one approaches corporate worship in a more radical way. The 'alternative worship' people have a lot of experience in this issue. Essentially, the counterbalance has to be by ceasing to think of the projected image simply and almost solely as a substitute for a book. And of course we should also recall that 'our worship' in more 'conventional' settings is often reduced to merely singing or saying the set words as led from the front ... So I'm not convinced that any more serious crime against liturgy is being committed in that case than occurs week by week in many parish and other churches where active worship is removed from the people and given to choirs, sundry leaders and 'we' are reduced to relatively passive consumers... ?
Post a Comment