:Book Review:

Just wanted to share a review I had to write for a course I'm taking on a book that was assigned to us. I found the book VERY interesting, and would encourage everyone to read it, if they have the chance. There's lots of good stuff to wrestle with and think through--and it's one of those books that challenges you in different ways to think about things differently. 

Anyway, the book's called "Flickering Pixels" by Shane Hipps. Check it out!

...and here's the review.

Book Reading & Response

“Flickering Pixels” by Shane Hipps

            Shane Hipps’ book, Flickering Pixels, was a very intriguing read for me. It is definitely one of those books that I will likely be reading again in the near future, just to wrestle with it further. In it, Hipps basic premise is that the medium by which a message is delivered (i.e. television, radio, written word, etc) has an effect on us, regardless of the message it carries. Whether a positive or negative message, the medium will always have its own effect on the receiver of said message. Hipps also suggests that every medium can, does, and, (if not handled correctly), will “reverse” on itself—that is to say, something that started out as a positive influence, will eventually reverse on itself and become a negative influence, if not handled in a wise manner. One major example of this, to Hipps, is the cell phone—what was meant to connect people and make people accessible has in many ways made the people right in front of us LESS accessible than ever before, because their lives are run by every beep emanating from the little black box on their hip. Hipps speaks fairly in-depth about how our faith is a “communicated faith”—how from the beginning, it was passed on through oral tradition, then written down, and passed on that way. He speaks of how Jesus and Paul and others throughout scripture taught using the spoken word, and how this shaped their listeners—how (Hipps argues) the message changed depending on those they were speaking to (i.e. Jesus presented a different message than Paul did, due to speaking to Jews instead of Gentiles). He uses the example that certain passages in scripture will mean one thing to a rich businessman, and another thing to someone living under a communist regime. When it all boils down to it, Hipps’ main argument is that, to some degree, the medium IS the message. The medium we use affects the message we are presenting.

            Insofar as the effectiveness of this argument is concerned, I think that Hipps presents his argument well. He seems to tackle things in a well-though-out way, and covers all his angles well. I’m not so sure as to whether or not he presents it in such a way that would convince all readers, though. I know I, for one, still take issue with some of his points, and because of such, if we’re measuring the argument’s effectiveness on the basis of whether or not it’s convincing, I’d have to say that it is not completely convincing, depending on your own convictions and beliefs. One of the main arguments in his book was actually one that I took issue with. As I said above, Hipps argues that the message changed, depending on who someone was speaking to. He continues this line of reasoning by stating that the message does change, depending on the medium, and that our message needs to change along with our mediums. I’m not sure that I agree. Paul and Jesus may have presented the message differently, but the gist of the message was the same—believe in Jesus, and you will be saved (Paul uses those words, and Jesus talked about how he was the ONLY way to the Father). The heart of the message didn’t change—their presentation did. So I would argue that the way our message LOOKS may change, the methods we use to communicate that message might change, but the heart of the message itself does not (or maybe should not) change. Our message is still (or should be) the gospel of Jesus Christ that we see through the pages of scripture. I don’t know if I agree that whether we use video or music or printed word to communicate it changes the message. I agree with his argument that the medium speak their own message, and that they affect us in their own unique ways (completely separate from the message they are carrying), but I simply don’t see eye-to-eye with him on the fact that the message itself changes (perhaps, though, when it all boils down to it, this is more an argument of semantics—i.e. the meaning of the word ‘message’ in this context—rather than actually not seeing eye-to-eye).

            As far as it affects my thinking, life, and ministry, I think that there was plenty of good food for thought in the book, and lots to pull from that was (and is) very important to keep in mind when working with and incorporating technology into our lives and ministries. I think that Hipps’ argument about technologies reversing on themselves is a very valid one, and proves the whole concept that anything taken too far can become something negative. The challenge we’re up against, I think, as individuals and churches, is learning where that line of “too far” is. It’s also a challenge of ensuring that our congregations are educated as to the influences of technology (now, as to how we would go about doing that, I don’t know… but I think many of society’s—and the churches—issues stem from a lack of education on the part of many people toward certain things). The trick is to learn and understand the power of the particular medium you are working with, and then to use that medium wisely, without allowing it to use you, or without using it to manipulate in a wrong manner. I’m not sure that it changed my thinking, per se, to read this book, but I know it definitely brought to the forefront some things that I felt convinced of, at least to some degree, already. I know that I will (and already have made) make more conscious choices and decisions regarding my use and the level of inundation of technology in my life—these are tools, not things designed to use me as their tool.

In the end, though, isn’t it fascinating how much power a medium holds? Think about the communication tools we’ve got available—and how incredibly powerful they are! Is it any small wonder to us that, when used incorrectly, or pushed too far, they become a powerfully destructive force as well?

--Sam