When I think about Ellul's idea of image and word it makes me think about how I was taught to practice Evangelism in the 1980s when I was in college. At this point in America's media history we were just beginning to see the generational effects of television (which supports the "seeing is believing mentality by the way) and its focus on transitioning from a word based society to an image based society. Yet, I was still taught to evangelize in a word (not image) centered way. What do I mean by that? I was taught that the best way to spread the Gospel was to essentially argue someone into the Kingdom. In other words, use a logical, linear approach to find out what their objections to the Gospel were and then answer those objections with Bible verses and rational thought. Once all objections were answered, then in theory, they should be ready to accept Jesus. This was very much the idea that if you could lead them to believe that the Bible was true, then they would see the reality of their need for Jesus.
This is very much in contrast with the way most college students today are taught to evangelize. My son Daniel, who graduated from Bethel in 2021, mostly practices friendship evangelism. He wants those he is witnessing to to first see Jesus living in him (an associative process). Then, when they see that and see that something is different about how he lives his life, they are ready to hear the truth of the Gospel. In other words, he wants them first to see that Jesus is real, and then have that lead them to seek out the Bible as truth. What a contrast!
Now, in reality, I believe we need both. In order to evangelize we need to be able to share the truth of the Gospel AND demonstrate the love of Christ shining through us. Yet, we also need to be sensitive to the way the world processes information. In the current generation, this does indeed favor my son’s approach over mine.
Or,
In Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 the Bible says, "Two people can accomplish more than twice as much as one; they get a better return for their labor. If one falls, the other can reach out and help. But people who are alone when they fall are in real trouble. And on a cold night, two under the same blanket can gain warmth from each other. But how can one be warm alone? A person standing alone can be attacked and defeated, but two can stand back-to-back and conquer. Three are even better, for a triple-braided cord is not easily broken."
When I read Forster's story about the machine, this passage came to mind. There are so many times in the Bible where God calls us to be there for one another and I do not think that's what was displayed in this story. If we lived out our lives through this machine where would our sense of community be? I for one do not feel like I could gain a feeling of fellowship over this machine.
God created the church for a reason and I think it's very important for us not to change this sense of unity we gain by being a body of believers. The more believers gather together, the stronger we are as a body of Christ. This is what is important, the strength we get from being with other Christians.
I believe that to achieve this face-to-face interaction is a necessity. There is nothing like standing in Vespers worshipping with a thousand other students, I do not think I could get this sense of fellowship over any sort of communication technology like the Internet, or in Forster's story "The Machine."
Or,
In thinking about how I manage long distance relationships, I don't do very well. For me, it's "out of sight, out of mind." I much prefer a face to face setting and value proximity. It's just not the same when I keep in touch through Facebook. I'm glad for that option, but I don't find it ideal. This relates to Simmel's idea of the perception of intimacy. I perceive higher levels of intimacy through face to face interaction. I perceive less intimacy through social media such as Facebook. When face to face isn't possible, I face a dilemma. Facebook doesn't really provide the level of intimacy I prefer, but isn't it better than no communication at all? Perhaps it really comes down to how much I value each long distance relationship. If it is truly valuable I should be able to find a way to be personal. For example, I would perceive a phone call as more intimate than Facebook. The question is, am I willing to take the time to make it happen? A phone call might last an hour, a post on Facebook takes seconds.