Technology Based Missions in the New Generation
There are at least two distinct types of technology-based missions. One type uses technology to assist other missions to accomplish their own work. One such organization is Mission Aviation Fellowship (MAF), which operates aircraft to ferry Christian workers from place to place to enable their work. Global Mapping International (GMI) is likewise a technology-based support organization, providing software and data to organizations to allow them to use global information systems (GIS) capability to enhance their work.
The second type is a mission that uses technology directly to accomplish its goals. Organizations that use radio, television, satellites, the Internet, mobile telephones, bible, book and other publishers, for instance, all use various technologies to evangelize, disciple believers, or provide other services directly to audiences or clients via technological systems. This paper will focus on the second type of organization.
The Old Model Is Dying
The model driving the use of technology that has been in use for the past 170 years (beginning with the telegraph) has relied on adopting one new technology after another. Each of them was heralded as providing the basis for a renaissance of the Christian faith and the ability to spread this faith to the ends of the earth. No technology to date, however, has been able to accomplish this feat. This is due both to the unrealistic expectations that people usually have to the wonder of a new technology (a "technological mythos" as James W. Carey described it and as Quentin J. Schultze applied it to the work of Christian radio, TV and satellite broadcasters), and to the fact that no technology ever achieves a 100% penetration of every society in the world.
Although there are probably more radios in existence than there are people on the planet, their distribution is quite uneven. In Western households there may be three to a dozen different radio sets in use, while in some poorer developing countries, there may only be one radio set for every dozen people. Even the "ubiquitous" mobile telephone may - and I emphasize the word may - only achieve 50% worldwide penetration in the next year or two (by perhaps 2012).
Content Drives The Change
Depending on technology, then, to deliver any message (whether the gospel, or justice, or democracy) is, at best, wishful thinking. Coupled with this reality is another, equally important reality. People don't invest in, or use, a technology for itself, but to access a new capability, information, or entertainment. In other words, it is content that leads to the investment in technology, and not the other way around. Sometimes when people talk about a new device, they seem to lose sight of this fact. Why invest in a mobile telephone? Some say it's because the wired infrastructure isn't available and the mobile allows people to leap over that obstacle. But why do they want to leap over that obstacle? Why carry a mobile telephone around, and keep it charged up with both power and minutes, if you don't intend to call, or be called, to text or be texted, by someone else? It's the new capability of staying connected, of talking to loved ones or friends, locating a day job, hearing the news, that provides the incentive to make the investment - not the technology itself.
A new approach to technology is now developing across the planet that will upend the assumptions technological "messiahs" have used in promoting technology as the best way to reach "lost" people with the Gospel. The question is, will those who use technology in this new environment do so wisely - and thus continue to spread the Gospel - or will they miss the point of this approach altogether, continuing to function within the confines of old assumptions that will increasingly make their work irrelevant?
No More One To Many
The premise of media as it developed in the twentieth century was "one to many." A single radio or television channel could reach many thousands of people, thus providing the ability to bypass gatekeepers (those who would control access) and to speak directly to individuals. Some of those individuals might listen collectively, in a family or community context, but each individual was the target of the programming. What mattered most of all was having the most powerful voice - the best frequencies, the most wattage, the largest coverage area, the most languages. And this premise also fit quite nicely into the individualistically-oriented Western theological assumptions about God's relationship with those who chose to follow his ways.
Various technologies have now developed that call this premise into question, some of them quite unintentionally. Even the advent of reality television shows have had the consequence of engaging ordinary people (non-actors) in entertainment, assisting in the development of expectations of engagement with traditional media that did not exist before. The use of Western-based program models, such as "Idol"-type programs in such places as Indonesia and elsewhere, have continued this developing trend. Community radio, too, which has taken off in countries such as Bangladesh, India, Laos, and Nepal, has begun to encourage people to see that participation in traditional media work is possible. The mobile telephone and the Internet have likewise enabled people to connect with friends and both nearby and distant family members in new ways, a reality that will become more apparent as "smart phones" become more prevalent and 3/4G and WiMax broadband connections become more ubiquitous. These mobile technological developments are likely to spur greater use of social networks such as Facebook and Twitter (as well as newly-developing ones), and people will work toward a situation in which nearly-continual, real-time, integration of data, voice, graphic, visual, and text capabilities will be possible on multiple multi-tasking capable technological systems.
As this occurs, the whole premise of media changes. Media is not merely one to many, but many to many, in design. It is not delivery-oriented, but interactive-oriented. It is not observer-focused, but participant-focused.
Gatekeepers And Linguistic Homogenization
What does this mean for media-based, or technology-based, missions? First, it means the reduction in the importance of what we call "heart languages," because people want to be connected and will connect using the trade languages of the Internet - English, Chinese, Spanish, French, Russian, Swahili, Hausa, Bahasa, and so on. Even Arabic has begun to be replaced in the Middle East as more users gravitate to English. It is too soon to tell what languages will eventually dominate (and there may always be a place for niche languages on the Internet), and it will likely continue to be true that mother-tongues will be used in much intra-family communication. But the pressure toward linguistic homogenization for content will also increase through these connections.
Second, it means that access to people will be through community and not through individuals. The systems that are currently developing and expanding are community-focused. People buy into them, provide content to them, interact through them. They are a place for lives to be recorded and shared. They are a place where the ephemera of everyday life is the basis for creating a permanent or semi-permanent record. They are the place where space is compressed and time becomes irrelevant - both immediate and permanent, non-linear, recursive. These communities intersect with, enhance, and focus "real" life: they eliminate the distinction between the virtual and the actual. It's a new playing field.
Third, as with all communities, gatekeepers emerge - those who access the world outside the community, select what is relevant, useful, entertaining, informative, off-beat, or instructive, etc., and import it back into the community. And all gatekeepers have their own biases. Something must engage those biased to avoid being overlooked. Just "being there" is not enough. Expecting people to "stumble upon" content will become increasingly nonsensical as available content grows like Topsy. Without control.
Master The Community, Not The Technology
How, then, will evangelization (whether faith, commercial, or political in nature) be possible? It will occur as it did (analogically speaking) in the period prior to technology. "Missionaries" will participate in these communities, gain trust, explain a new reality, encourage people in times of need, educate, disciple - all within the technologically-defined community constructed by others to meet their own human need for connection.
The difficulty with this is not in mastering the technology. It is in being part of the community. Why accept an unknown interloper when there is so much that can be done within one's own corporeal and familial circle? The skill required to enter these circles will be that which enthralls, excites, and engages the relevant gatekeepers. They are likely to be younger than the traditional gatekeepers of families. They are likely to be more collaborative in their thinking than individualistic. They are likely to be less traditional in their thinking, less judgmental of others, less focused on gender differences. They will be better educated and more knowledgeable about worldviews and religious differences. They will, in a nutshell, be both more curious and more sophisticated - less likely to accept authority without question and more likely to evaluate what they encounter in terms of its value within their community. If they can be recruited to the faith, however, they will be powerful advocates to those they influence.
These changes will not arrive overnight. Neither will they arrive in all places at the same time. But they are developing. And those in technology-based missions must anticipate them, prepare for them, and stay ahead of the curve of change if they intend keep the gospel relevant in the new environment.