Tweet

EMAIL

PRINT

Comments (4)

Related articles and links |  1 of 1

Which new technologies hold the most promise—and the most peril—for use in church ministries? Brad Abare, founder of the Center for Church Communication, Mark Keller, author of God on the Internet, and John Dyer, web development director at Dallas Theological Seminary, suggest the best and worst new tech.

The question about technology makes me wonder why it seems easier to find out—online—how to follow Krishna than to follow Christ.

From my perspective as a Christian and a technology columnist, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, scientologists, and Christian Scientists are proving themselves to be highly proficient in the use of online video, sometimes more proficient than the Bride of Christ. This is especially true when it comes to the art of persuasion.

I don't mean to pick on Baptists. But if you visit the online home of the Southern Baptist Convention, you will find a link for information on knowing Jesus—in the upper-right-hand corner of the screen. There, in small lettering, are the words, "I want to know Jesus." Click on the link, and about all you get is text.

Many websites for religious organizations feature highly emotive, persuasive videos on how to become an adherent of a particular faith. Relatively few of these sites are evangelical. More of them are not, and some of them would be considered theologically dangerous by most evangelical leaders.

The age of online video, a technology that shows great potential, is still in its early stages. It's true that Christians have been early adopters of video technology. But this race is a marathon, not a 100-yard dash, and right now, we are losing both the marathon and the dash.

The great promise of online video resides in the content and message of the video, not the technology itself. But the sad, sometimes tragic reality is that online video, like many new communication technologies, brings wave after wave of filth, nonsense, and hate into people's homes and lives. A Web browser isn't morally good or bad. The content it displays on your computer is.

Similarly, social networking media such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have no particular moral dimension. They are a means of connecting socially and sharing, increasingly through video and other visual means. These media may pose problems. But it is the content, not the social network itself, that is at issue.

We should ask: How well does your church's website visually display information? Does it clearly point people to Jesus, connecting with individuals who are not part of our family of faith? Throughout Jesus' public ministry, he consistently went to where the people were, sharing with many—at their place of need—the Good News of salvation. Many accepted his message, some rejected it, and others abandoned his teaching when the going got tough. But notice the pattern: The gospel was delivered persuasively to those in need in such a way that people could visualize it.

Will our churches step up to the challenge of using online video technology for outreach as well as "inreach"? To this observer, the great peril of today's online video technology lies in our not using it to share Jesus with others.

Copyright © 2009 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Mark Kellner is author of God on the Internet and writes the technology column for The Washington Times. Brad Abare and John Dyer also suggested the best and worst new tech.

Previous articles on how churches use technology include:

The Art of Cyber Church | Joel Hunter is known by many as part of President Obama's inner circle of pastors. Fewer know him as one of America's most innovative church planters. (September 16, 2009)

From the Printing Press to the iPhone | Shane Hipps urges Christians to discern the technology spirits. (May 6, 2009)

High-Tech Circuit Riders | Satellite churches are discovering a new way to grow the body of Christ. (August 31, 2005)

Forget Televangelists; How About Going to Church to Watch TV? | Megachurches getting so mega they're building moons. (June 13, 2001)

 1 of 1

November 2009, Vol. 53, No. 11