All the Derrida scholars in the room say "Yeah!!"
Ok so I've been thinking a bit about this Shane Hipps quote a bit more.
"I believe certain technologies preclude incarnational ministry. And the reason I believe that is because God became embodied in Jesus. And embodiment means human physical touch; presence. And there are certain technologies that disembody us, like video."
-Shane Hipps
the words that stand out to me is "disembody". a verb meaning to separate or free somethings from it's concrete form.
Can you tell me video doesn't do this?
Video is literally taking the image of a person, without the substance of the person and representing that person with the person needing to be present.
It's not inherently wrong, but it does change things. It does carry significant meaning which is added to the message of the disembodies person's words.
Cell phones do this too right?
I am can talk to someone without seeing them. Their voice has been somehow seperated from them in time and space.
This does have theological implications as Hipps remarks.
The gospel has always been about the incarnation... or God becoming flesh, God embodied in human form.
Other Technologies are impacted with this too.
Written word.
The Bible for instance.
Is the Bible the message of God disembodied?
My first response is yes.
Of course the power and presence of the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in Hipps comment and is an important theological aspect that needs to be addressed in this conversation.
hmmm
Okay, I can see why this comment has held you for so long. But to say that the bible "disembodies" is a stretch. The bible is one of the few things that embodies Christ to us that didn't live anywhere near his time. Sure, we might get some preconceived, misdirected notions from it, but it is, some might argue, one of the only things that connects us, or rather, teaches us about a Christ that lived on the earth so long ago.
ReplyDeleteOkay, it's only the words of God and not his presence, but think about it....It's the WORDS OF GOD!!! Besides, it's the greatest source for learning about the God that Worship. We can't talk to God, or see him. Moses couldn't hardly handle seeing the shadow of God and his skin turned ghostly white. What else do we have?! What else can we handle?!
I see your point, and I'm sure some do substitute reading their bibles for "the living Christ", but the bible doesn't disembody God.
Dave C
I've always understood the Bible to be known as the "WORD" or God...not the "words." There is a big difference. And I have to agree that it does represent the Word of God disembodied, removed from the real experiences that the biblical writers chose to interpret through limited human symbology known as written language. I also agree that technology is disembodying. This is why seeing a play is a much more visceral, in your face, sort of experience than watching a movie. Those are flesh and blood people up there on the stage and the experience is happening to all of us, actor and audience, in the here-and-now moment. In a film we are watching someone else's interpretation from the past.
ReplyDeleteWhen worship relies too heavily on technology such a video, we are creating a distance between ourselves and the experience of the Spirit. Just my two cents.
I'm going to wait a bit to clarify. I've invited a few voices to pipe in, let's see if they do and what they have to say on this.
ReplyDeleteThis may seem like semantics, but to me it causes a real difference. When suggesting that these technologies disembody God you can only do so when you narrowly define the definition of "to embody" as happening in human form.
ReplyDeleteFor me, "to embody" means to put to take that which is abstract and put form to it which can be sensed by the physical senses (but not specifically just human). In this way, something that was abstract has become "real".
Mathematics are abstract concepts, but writing down numbers causes mathematics to become embodied. The telephone was once a concept in someone's mind. As soon as it was invented it was embodied.
Here's a different way of looking at it. If I'm going through a hard time in life, I'll call one of my friends. When I hear that person's voice they have become real to me. Through their presence that I can sense they become present and real in my sensation. The thought of that friend, which was disembodied, has now become embodied in a voice. The phone itself was not the embodiment. Rather, it was the tool through which the abstraction took on concrete form.
As far as this goes with the Bible, it depends on how you use it. The Bible for some is a complete work that is not interpretable, black and white (As Rob Bell would say, a signed portrait). In this way, it might become the disembodiment of God. It becomes a story about God, but not a real encounter with God. But when the Bible is seen as a living, breathing work through which God works it can be both the embodiment of God and a tool through which the embodiment of God can take place. It can be itself the very experience with God in which God becomes "real" to a person (direct embodiment). Others might read it's pages, which might cause them to be more sensitive to God in many other ways. In this way it's like the telephone, the tool through which the embodiment can happen.
In this same way, Jesus can be seen as both the direct embodiment of God, and a tool through which embodiment can be experienced.
The same general rules apply to all other "technologies" that help us to put concrete sensation upon something that is abstract.
Sorry it's so long.
But ask and ye shall recieve.