Marshall McLuhan’s Understanding Media  is the one of the greatest books of this century (in the same company as Alvin Toffler’s Third Wave and Jean Baudrillard’s Simulations). He was one of the first scholars to analyze the proliferation of media images and the impact of simulated images. In Understanding Media, McLuhan develops his famous statement: "the medium is the message."

There is something in the event of watching TV, which is 100% TV and nothing else. The growing popularity of Real TV type shows is an indication (America’s Funniest, Survivor, Road Rules, Real World, Cops, Big Brother, etc). The viewer is fascinated that all of these events have been captured on film. The principle appeal is voyeurism. The message is the television itself. Even now as you read these words on the Internet, there is something in the experience that is simply saying, "I am reading words on the Internet and nothing more." Cynical? Maybe. But I can recall countless times when people have told me: "They have gone to Church." And yet, they fail to remember anything beyond that. They only recall the experience of "going to Church." That was the message.

Our society has adapted to a new world of media images. For the most part, these images are fast paced and high impact. They attack the brain with ambitious over-load, reaching critical mass. The seduction is so great; you may not even realize how may "images" you actually take in. The images are there. We are simultaneously nauseated by these images and lonely without them. When I was in Moscow, the McDonald’s golden "M" comforted me so much. It told me home still exists. These images communicate something transcendent, however shallow the concept.

How is it, with this mass market for images, we are expected to shut ourselves into a large room every Sunday morning and be subjected to sensory deprivation? The focal point of the modern church-event is the sermon, the teaching moment, whatever. One person stands before many people and talks about stuff. No images. No hope of being distracted. We are only stimulated by intangible and invisible sound waves from a single voice. In some traditions, it has been fashionable to make the sanctuary as plain as possible (a Puritan influence, no doubt). This way we will not be distracted from the message.

We look at our watch, hoping the preacher will be brief and witty. This wit is not for the purpose of the message, but to maintain our enthusiasm and trust. I roll my eyes at sermons that begin with cute jokes. The message behind this medium? Christianity is all about receiving information and processing it in the appropriate manner. Is it any wonder people make a distinction between the worship portion of a service and the sermon? In doing so, we reduce worship to an event that prepares us for a sermon. We have completely flipped our priorities! The sermon should continue in worship.

What if I just preached a better message? What if I used better illustrations? What if I used better jokes? What if I used props? What if I used a large screen to post my informational outline? What if I used video clips?

In the end, it is still an info-sermon. And while this event is highly valuable to the modern world (I would never completely disregard its worth), I suspect a postmodern world would receive it differently. Some people will always enjoy a well performed info-sermon, but our emerging culture desires something more narrative than informative to replace a life that lacks story (read Richard Stone’s The Healing Art of Storytelling ). A new medium may emerge, allowing new creativity, as the proto-typical sermon is marginalized.

Along with teaching high school English, I am fortunate to be one of the pastors at Axxess. My community allows me freedom to experiment with new media for our worship. One thing particularly close to my heart is transforming what we know as a "sermon." God Yahweh called me by His Spirit to preach. He gave me the freedom to be creative in my method of expression. This spoken word should not just be a medium for communicating information to mass audiences. Spoken word must express beauty and create space within worship for contemplation and to initiate conversation.

Since the congregation will occasionally be distracted (remember our short attention spans), at least I can choose what distracts! The congregation is now active in choosing what they will pay attention to. Many good American pragmatists and utilitarians probably shudder at my approach. The pragmatist wants to construct an environment that focuses all attention to the pulpit. But my goal is not just to transfer information. It is to stimulate the mind. And maybe within that space God Yahweh will create His own message.

Possibly the most interesting phenomenon of combining random images with spoken word is the fact that people create their own meaning to connect the two mediums. A person talked with me after one of my messages. She was in tears. She had never heard such a powerful Gospel account. As she recalled the experience, I realized she had made emotional connections between the images and my words. Connections I never anticipated, but connections that communicated to her experience. It re-affirmed something I had concluded long ago: No matter how sincere people are, they hear what they choose to hear. I cannot transfer meaning---I only give the setting in which people construct meaning. The Spirit of God Yahweh will speak to a broken heart. We must trust the Spirit for the message. Our words can only do so much.

I use images to remind people of the medium itself. I believe the images encourage sacred distractions, which remind us that words fall short. They are words, nothing more. A "good sermon" is not about using the right words. It is all about the experience of worship. As Paul said (I Corinthians 2:2):

"And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."

Have we forgotten? I hope, in good postmodern fashion, to be reflective on my own medium. And in the process, I allow people to look beyond the medium to something transcendent.

In the near future, within the next few months, I hope to use more random images interwoven with my words. I hope to use multiple screens each with different images. I would like to get more people involved in the creative process. I would like those involved in media advertising and film to use their gifts to engage congregations during worship. I plan on inviting a club DJ friend to create some ambient music and tones all while I am preaching. Soon, in an upcoming message, I hope to show mute clips from Francois Truffaut’s The 400 Blows (without the subtitles).

The goal is not to get more and more strange with my media explorations. If that were my aim, I would very quickly exhaust my efforts. That pursuit would descend into nihilism. This exploration is for the sole purpose of engaging a culture where we are. If the Church is to be expressive, we must not only understand media and art, but also be purposeful in introducing these elements into our worship. Techno, in its many subgroups, occasionally uses "sound bites" from preachers and revivalists. Moby  (one of my favorite artists) uses some interesting Gospel clips in his most recent album Play. Why can’t we use "sound bites" from the rave culture? Why can’t we sample pop culture, instead of simply critiquing it?

I don’t know yet. I’m still experimenting. But I sure hope not. In fact, I hope to create an art that is truly genuine in its approach to glorifying the Gospel. I will admit, to a degree, all art is a performance. Art has an audience. Art evokes a reaction or response. I am sincere in my efforts. But I don’t know how to measure whether or not it "works." All I know is for my circumstance and setting, it creates a beautiful atmosphere for our worship. If you are a preacher or storyteller, you should do whatever is appropriate for your circumstances and your settings.