I didn’t realize that it was Marshall McLuhan who first coined the phrase “global village” but of course he’s most known for the phrase, “the medium is the message.” So in thinking about Missional Church this morning, a new way of conceiving of something has occured to me:
If the gospel is a message, then the church is the medium.
The medium being the message can too often present a problem for the church/gospel relationship. Changes to the medium could mean much more widespread appeal for the message.
Thoughts?
YES! And the strong implication is that the medium and message must coinhere.. they must be integral.. they must participate in the same ethos. METHODS are not ETHICALLY NEUTRAL. They all have a moral vector. The concept of mega-church has a moral vector.. leadership methods like “senior pastor” have a moral vector.. I’ll let you decide whether that vector is congruent with the core of the message.. ;)
This was the thrust of my four-part series, an Emmanuel Apologetic. The Medium (the Church) is the message (the Gospel).
As we live as the “God With Us” with the peole in the world around us, our message should become pretty clear: This is what God is like; this is what God deems important; this is how we find our identity and purpose; this is what we intend to do for the good of the world; would you like to be a part of this?
I have a couple variations.
If the Gospel is the message, then Christianity is the medium.
I realize (especially among those identifying with the church that is emerging) that “Christianity” can have just as many negative connotations as “church”. For some reason, I associate “church” with an assembly of God’s people–whether it be in a sacred space or around a table. But Christianity has, I think, a broader application to overall followership of Christ in all aspects of life rather than just the communal (church) aspect.
Another variation:
If the Gospel is the message, then the Kingdom is the medium.
Introduction of the term Kingdom, takes us to a whole new set of connotations–these having less perversion (since I think there has been less perversion of the Kingdom of God than “church” or “Christianity”). Using the Kingdom moves the focus of the statement from a human organization (church) and from adherence to a particular philosophy (Christianity) and introduces the dominion and rulership of God Himself. His organization. His society and culture. If we live, work, and play, as citizens of the Kingdom–foreigners, aliens, from a different culture–we will expose a world where the blind see, the lame walk, and the captives are set free. Hmmm…
I think what we’re saying is all basically the same, Bob.
When I say “Church,” I don’t mean just the local body or a human organization, but the Universal Body of Christ manifested in a Local Community, living in such a way that it Lives Out the Kingdom of God in the midst of its local environment.
The Gospel of the Kingdom of God is manifested locally in the Christian community that represents God as Emmanuel in that locality…
How’s that?
Agreed. (BTW, I followed your Emmanuel Apologetic series and enjoyed it.)
Brother Maynard….you’re spot on with this thought. And because I love ya, and have been reading your site almost exclusively in my News Reader, I have to say that the redesign needs to be run through the filter of this post.
I’ve studied McLuhan and as a creative, have always seen how the MEDIUM detracts from the message–particularly as it applies to the Gospel. And whether that’s a not so perfect stylesheet on a blog, a Sunday morning service (of which I’ve lost ALL hope), or something in between, the message can be lost in transit due to the medium not cutting the mustard.
And frankly, this is serious (and exponentially becoming MORE serious) because our culture is constantly dumping BILLIONS of dollars into refining and expediting the evolution of “medium.” It is manifest in fancy candy bar wrappers, book covers, and neato AJAX infused blogs and websites. “The Celebration of Medium” continues in even more finely tuned and taut films, wickedly unique TV, and stunningly sharp works of fiction and non-fiction.
SO. I think we have one of two choices–keep up (join ’em) with the evolution and make sure all of our MESSAGES are contained or are enmeshed with an acceptable medium…OR we can see that most of mass communication is more sizzle than steak and can mature to the point where we’re NOT dazzled by it, and thereby can forego it. Sizzle is more expensive. Always.
Bob…I think your variations need tweaked. Your first one doesn’t click with me, but the second one REALLY does–if you invert it:
If the KINGDOM is the message (which it IS the desired outcome), then the GOSPEL is the medium (how we get there).
We’re used to thinking of the GOSPEL as the message and as the end all, but it isn’t. We are here, with a GOAL of the Kingdom and we can achieve that goal by successfully using the medium of the Gospel.
Thoughts?
Dang! Yup: “Kingdom the message, the Gospel the medium.”
And Bob R., now I think we’re (collectively) saying something different.
Yup from me too. We are all clicking together on this idea.
Thanks, Bro’ Maynard, for initiating this conversation!
Man, I really wanted to take part in this conversation, but I’ve had another pretty busy week. I think the discussion landed up pretty well though, Kingdom/Gospel. I’m still digesting this one though… I think there are obvious implications, but it’s probably a series worth of observations rather than a single discussion thread.