T. Allen Burr Ministries

It seems everyone is talking about the outpouring happening at Asbury College right now. What began as a simple chapel service on Feb. 8 has now exploded into an outpouring that has gone on for more than a week, now. However, one thing that I have repeatedly heard from those who have had the opportunity to attend is that the atmosphere of the outpouring is profound yet simple.

A gentleman named Brent posted online about the outpouring:

No fancy lighting. Wood seats without cushion. Stained glass windows. The floor was concrete. There was [sic] NO words on a screen to sing from.

The outpouring at Asbury reminds me a great deal of the Azusa Street Revival. The contexts are different but the similarities in one regard are striking: technology. Rather, it is the lack thereof that is interesting. This brings me to my question: Do we rely too much on technology in the American church?

Believe me, the irony of asking that question as I write a blog reflecting on church practice is not lost on me. However, I feel like this is a topic worth exploring.

Social Media Connection

In my last post, I mentioned that many churches have replaced the church bulletin with social media posts. Why is that? The answer many pastors and church leaders would give is that it helps connect people better to what is happening at the church. And I agree that social media (and technology more generally) is enabling us to connect with more people than ever before.

That said, is being connected on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or God forbid, TikTok really a connection? Sure there is a sense of familiarity for those who connect this way, but there is also an intense disconnect. They are familiar with the church’s online presence and the teaching and beliefs the church espouses, but they may never meet the pastor or develop the familial bonds necessary for greater enrichment.

Livestreaming

For example, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many churches, both liturgical and otherwise, set out to provide their congregants with an online attendance option. This was and is a respectable thing to do. It allows shut-ins, those who are sick or out of town, homesick college students, and many more to attend their home church in spirit while they are unable to be there in person. However, it also gives those who simply want to check church attendance off their spiritual bingo card, those who decided to skip church to attend a sporting event, those who elected to sleep in instead of going to church, etc. an excuse to not come to church because they will just “attend virtually.”

I am by no means saying that livestreaming your church service is a bad thing. The same thing goes for posting about your church’s events on social media. It helps those who were unable to be in service physically to still feel connected to the life of the church. Nevertheless, I do want us to consider the potential implications of these things. And so, I turn once again to Brent…

The American church is depending on too many gadgets and personalities.

‘Too Many Gadgets’

Lights. Cameras. … I won’t finish that cliché. However, I will say that I agree with Brent’s assertion that the American church depends on too many gadgets. There are churches that have multiple cameras, stage trusses full of professional lights, fog machines, and high-grade sound equipment. Surely, all of this is not necessary.

The technology is not necessarily the issue. The issue lies in the motivation of the churches implementing their use. Is the goal the enrichment and interconnection of the saints or is it to simply boost attendance for numbers sake? This is the dilemma.

When the church has a highly technological setup and a highly polished service, what does a visitor come away thinking? My fear is that in that circumstance the Gospel message can be overshadowed and swallowed up by the “production” the church is putting on. When churches have moved beyond acquiring the technology necessary to enhance the ability of congregants to hear the pastor and worship team clearly, it is time to consider where those funds could be better utilized.

Big Churches Need More Technology?

The natural response for pastors and leaders of large churches to my last statement is to say, “We have a lot of people, so we need all of this technology. It would not be fair to the people at the back of the sanctuary to not be able to see the pastor or hear him clearly.” I agree. Well. Partly.

This is a bit of a different topic, but it is related, nonetheless. British anthropologist Robin Dunbar did some research into the number of people whom we can be connected with in a meaningful way. What Dunbar found is that we can have 15 good friends, 50 friends, 150 meaningful contacts, 500 acquaintances, and 1500 people whom we recognize. What does this mean for the church? Once the church grows beyond 150 active attenders, there will be people who fall through the cracks and do not connect well with that body.

So, yes, I agree that in a church of 350, 500, 1200, etc. it is not fair to the people sitting in the back to not be able to see or hear the pastor clearly—just not for the reason you might think. How, then, do we fix this? Once the church reaches that critical threshold of approximately 150 people, instead of investing in more technology—more powerful projectors, better stage lights, extra cameras to be able to capture more than one angle—why not use those funds to plant churches?

In All Things, Balance

Believe me, I enjoy technology; I am no tech geek, but I make constant use of technology. I grew up in a church that makes use of technology to help those who could not be in service in person participate in the message, going all the back to recording the sermon on cassette tapes. So, I should make it abundantly clear that I am not opposed to the use of technology in the church. My heart is this: In all things, balance.

Technology can certainly enhance ministry, but too much of a good thing can be detrimental. The atmosphere of that the American church should strive to cultivate is one that is profound, yet simple. I am not saying that we all have to revert back to cushionless pews, concrete floors, stained-glass windows, and no technology. What I am calling for is pastors and church leaders to consider the purpose of the technology they are buying for the church and what the motiviation behind such purchases are. As I said: In all things, balance.

But what do you think? Do we rely too much on technology in the American church?