More on the coins of Caesar

To follow up from the previous post, Jesus is not talking about taxes. 

Marshall McLuhan was noted for saying a number of things about communication, perhaps none more famous than "the medium is the message". 

This next quote either is hyperbole or is exactly how McLuhan feels about the power of the medium when he says the content of a message "has about as much importance as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb.”

The point being that the medium you use to convey a message carries more power than the content of the message. This is in part why when you talk bad about your family it is much more acceptable than if I talk bad about your family - even if we say the exact same words. This is another reason why people cite Bible passages in order to justify their positions. If you have the medium of scripture then it carries with is additional weight than if a person shares their thoughts. The medium is a very powerful voice in the message. 

And so when we read that Caesar would put his image on the coins of the empire, then the coin is the medium of the message of Caesar. Since coins are used in every transaction in all aspects of the Empire, since nothing can happen without the shiny head of Caesar being involved, the message of Caesar is clear - I am present everywhere and I am all powerful. My image is what makes it possible to do anything. I am the god of these parts and I will change the world through these coins. 

When Jesus reminds us that humanity is made with the image of God impressed upon us then it also is worth noting that we are the mediums of God message. And through this medium of humanity God's message is clear - I am focused on relationship not on economics. At times I am strong and at other times I am weak. I bleed and cry and shout. My image makes it possible for life to be made. I am the god of these parts and I will change the world though these people. 

You and I are God's medium for God's message. Christians articulate that the Good News is not just that Christ died for us but that God lived for us. God could have chosen any sort of medium to convey the Good News. God chose a human being.

And that medium, Jesus, changed the world. We do not have every word that Jesus said but the content of his message is as important as the stenciling on a bomb. It was his life that was the message. It was the way he lived that changed the world. 

McLuhan popularized it, but God created the fact that the Medium is the Message. 

Drop the hot sermon and be cool?

I have not read much of Marshal McLuhan but continue to be fascinated when I encounter his thoughts on media. Recently I encountered his idea of 'hot' and 'cool' media. You can read about this in his book or do as we all do and just wikipedia it. 

The gist of this is that hot media is media that is high definition (that is it provides a lot of data). A cool media is low definition (provides less data). So a movie is 'hotter' than a comic strip. The movie provides a lot of data and thus requires less participation from the viewer than the viewer of the comic strip, which generally leaves a lot of room for interpretation because you only see a few frames of the story. 

Here is the kicker, the cooler the media the more participation is required the hotter the media the less participation is required.  

I think this is in part why people generally say the book is better than the movie because there is more participation that is required to interact with the book rather than the movie. 

It is clear that sermons are traditionally a hot media. The delivery of a sermon requires little participation from the hearer. Preachers are even constantly on the look out for the best stories or illustrations to "tie it all together" for the congregation to hedge the bets that the congregation will "get what is being said". Leaving less room for interpretation. 

These days the hot sermon is under attack by the cool sermon. The dialogue sermon the conversational sermon. The sermon that requires a much greater level of participation from the congregation than a typical lecture. Where participation with the media is more the norm than it had been in the past -  for instance we used to just watch television and now we interact with it by voting for our favorite dancer/singer - might it be time for the media of the sermon be innovated? 

Is it worth pursing a cooler sermon style as cooler media becomes more ubiquitous in our time? Could part of the church's problem be that we are still using - through tracts, sermons, teachings, billboards and even the way we design our websites - hot media in a world that is seeking out more cool media? 

Most preacher types think the best sermons are those that people respond to by making a change in their lives. Might I suggest that the best sermons are those in which people participate with in a way that it changes their lives?

If so then perhaps the best sermons just are not that hot and are much cooler.