And much thanks to you, too - you're a great writer and thinker, and I've learned a lot from you. Keep up the good work!

Great article, thanks, Scott. As a member of tribe spawned by Luther, we focus on lot on his actions, writings, etc. What has always struck me about Luther is your 2nd part - conviction. He was convinced that his actions were consistent with the historic Christian faith. He was not trying to bring about a revolution - he was trying to bring the church back to Scripture. His famous edict, "here I stand; I can do no other" was a result of his strong conviction that his conscience would not allow him to recant what he believed to be the truth of the Christian faith.

I think the most interesting thing in this example, though, is that, sometimes the end - Change - isn't actually what happens, at least not in the way we think it should. Luther really didn't achieve what he set out to do - reform the church. He never wanted to start a new movement; he just wanted to get the church back to Scripture. Instead the church called him a heretic and condemned him. Others, convinced that Luther was on the right track, took up the cause, but the change that resulted wasn't actually the goal.

So I think your chain of events is a great one to think through - at the same time, I think we need to be aware that the end - what that Change actually looks like - may not look the way we want, but it is all the rest that we need to be focused on. I think we might have a tendency to start with a specific vision of what we what the change to be, and I think that can compromise the rest of the chain.

All that being said, though, I think the lasting legacy of Luther is a consistent and intense passion to keep the church in God's Word. That's one reason I'm in this tribe called "Lutheran", and I think we can all learn a lot from him.

Very, very thoughtful, thanks, Scott. I live in a similar world to yours - in the intersection of theology and communication (which, at some point, I think every Christian needs to live in, but that's another post... :) ). A couple comments that came to mind from your thoughts...

Context is so critical. This is clearly an application of God's Law to people in his congregation that he feels needs to hear the Law. I'm presuming that somewhere else, he brings the Gospel to bear. I say that not having seen the whole sermon because generally it happens in his sermons. But if someone were to only watch this clip without knowing that about Mark/Mars Hill....not a good thing at all.

In terms of lack of care, your comment about Eph 2 is true - Mark was less careful than he should have been in how he quoted. But I think his point was well-taken - Paul was writing to those in Ephesus who were formerly "objects of wrath". Mark was speaking to those whom he believes presently are, because they are unbelievers. So I'd agree with you - to take these 8 minutes and present them as a standalone clip was not sinful, per se, but I don't believe it was a wise move by the communications team.

The second point about context is a bigger one, I think. I've kept an eye on Mars Hill over the past 6 or 7 years, and I really have benefited from their willingness to share stuff like this. I've received much good from their communications. Over the last couple years, I think I've seen a good example of McLuhan's "unintended consequences" as they expand. They were very much about ministry to their local context, and Mark (or whomever was preaching) would address things in sermons from that context. I clearly understood that the sermon podcasts/videos needed to be seen from that context, and that in essence, we non-Mars Hill folk were "peeking in" to their church context. That can be helpful. (In fact, I think that's how all sermon podcasts should be understood - if the intent was strictly local, why make them available to the world? Again, another post...)

But recently as they expand to non-Seattle locations with campsuses (campii?), and not church plants, that message is being (at the very least) diluted and/or confused. How can they address timely, local concerns in their local context when video sermons are being produced (at least) the week prior, and delivered in multiple states? I would argue that they can't address them as well as the local church should, and that one of their chosen media has now influenced the message in a not-so-healthy way.

Final thought (I'm getting windy again)...in terms of this particular clip, I have to wonder if the title wasn't carefully chosen to attract the attention of the Love Wins crowd. Ghandi wasn't the main point of this clip, and while I'd agree that the title is factually true, it doesn't really capture the heart of this particular part of the message. That, in itself, communicates a lot.

In the end, I agree that this clip demonstrates both a lack of context and care (both in the delivery and in terms of those who may hear it apart from its proper context), and is an example of a dangerous (but growing) form of Christian communication - preaching turned into sound bytes and divorced from local context.

Hah, exactly. The point is that most "geniuses" are not some rare breed that just start doing amazing things out of the blue. Genius = natural ability + a whole lot of hard work.

Malcolm Gladwell argues there's a 10,000 hour threshold for "genius". In Outliers that he deals with it extensively. The Beatles, Bill Gates, etc. Good thoughts, Scott, thanks!

No to mention un-Biblical. :)

(Just saw this post linked from the more recent one Scott posted...on Twitter... :) )

Seriously, though (not that my first sentence wasn't), I really struggle with this too. I'm a church worker, and I produce materials every week for our congregation to use as devotionals, study helps, etc. It doesn't seem self-serving in the least. But for me it does seem self-serving to tweet about my last blog post or whatever. And as a church musician, I do struggle with a sense of self-serving when it comes to offering my own songs for our church and others to use. Who am I to think that my songs are as helpful as David Crowder's or Chris Tomlin's. (Well, actually that's part of the problem - thinking that if you're not a "big name" you don't have anything worth saying...)

So in one case it's pretty much expected and in another it's self-serving? Maybe. But I've come to look at it like this: if you follow me on Twitter, I'm going to assume you're interested in what I have to say. Otherwise why follow me? And if I don't like what someone is tweeting, "Unfollow" is right there. Same with blogs.

Maybe it's feels "off" because with web tools, it feels like we're broadcasting to the whole world saying, "look at me!". The reality is that we're not. Sure, anyone who wants to find it can, but it's not like we're interrupting every single person's lives to try to get attention. (I know some do, but I'll assume we aren't. :) ) We're telling those people who've said, "I'm interested" that there's something new to consider and use.

I end a lot of these types of posts with "I hope that's helpful..." because I geniunely hope it is. If not, just chew whatever meat you find and spit out the bones.

I hope this has all been helpful. (I'm so meta. And notice, not one link to my Twitter account or blog or anything. ;) )

Michael.

For Christians, Jesus was very clear about this: doing good and then telling people you're doing good isn't the goal. In fact, Hewarns against it and goes the complete opposite direction (Matthew 6:1-4). In our day, could we apply this by actually striving for this (from the post): "If you never see me put a magnet on my car, RT your Twitter campaign, join your Facebook cause or put an overlay on my avatar, don’t assume I’m not sacrificially engaged in something bigger than me." Should that not be our deafult mode - no wristbands, no bumper stickers, no "look-at-how-good-I-am-because-I-give momentos?

Good stuff to wrestle with!

I think RadioLab is brilliant storytelling, and I'd echo the Relevant suggestion. I subscribe to a bunch of podcasts (a lot of sermon ones too), and those 2 are on my must-hear-as-soon-as-they-come-out list. Leonard Sweet's Napkin Scribbles is an interesting one, too - shorter musings - just him on his phone - low production value, but high thought-provoking value.

On the video side - TED talks, definitely.