Comments on: Catalyst 09: Shane Hipps

By: Moy2x

Moy2x — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 02:34:58 +0000

It seems to me that Shane is directly undermining a lot of Rob Bell’s “ministry.” Who would know about Rob Bell outside his city if not for his video series? His books certainly aren’t that interesting.

I think the iPhone question at the end, which seems playful, is Rob’s way to undermine every negative thing Shane just said about digital technology. Did others think this as well, or was it just me.

By: Damien

Damien — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:58:00 +0000

“The medium, in fact, IS the message – how you say something as much as or more than what you say”

I am pretty much convinced that one of the reasons why the Christian church was able to bring in more people into their beliefs is not wholly because of the message but the way evangelists conduct their teachings.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 04:29:24 +0000

I find it kinda hard to see where he’s going… But I thins his points in their own individuality are interesting. I just don’t get the whole picture

By: Tyson

Tyson — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:44:54 +0000

I was there and listened to the talk and just didn’t get it. I was mainly confused…Saying it doesn’t change yet it changes? Maybe, the other guys are right, just need to read his book.

By: Clayton Bell

Clayton Bell — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:27:44 +0000

I didn’t hear the message but enjoyed the book. It’s a little unfinished in it’s prescribed execution, but the idea of the medium changing the way we receive and interact with the message I thought was spot on. The medium, IMHO, doesn’t change the truth of the message (Jesus is Lord, we need salvation, sin is real) but how we interact with and process this truth.

I think the real question to ask is- with the advent of YouVersion Live, how will the ability to cleanly interact with a mass audience DURING a message change the way messages are presented? YV Live is a medium-changing device. No longer will sermons have to be monologues with one response at the end (alter call/raise hand) or dialogues (Q&A) where you have no idea what’s coming from the audience. You can have a NEW way of preaching.

How about THAT!?!

By: Brad Ruggles

Brad Ruggles — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:55:23 +0000

Trust me, I was wondering where he was going with some of my points myself. However I understand the difficulty of delivering a complex and controversial message like that in just 30 minutes. His points intrigued me and make me want to go back and read his book.

If you or anyone else get a chance to read Flickering Pixels I’d love to know what you think of it.

By: Joshua Skogerboe

Joshua Skogerboe — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:03:16 +0000

Hey Brad. Love your blog. Thanks for blogging Cat09 for those of us back at home. Much appreciated.

My plan as I read your bullet points was to make a comment cautioning against the “ever-changing message” of the Gospel that never changes. It was smacking a bit of “let the message be shaoped by the culture” when I really deeply believe the message ough to be shaping the culture instead.

However, I’m tipping my hat to Kurt above. His encouragement to hear Shane’s point of view in context is well written and well taken. I give Mr. Hipps the benefit of the doubt.

Bless you both Kurt and Brad! Thanks again.

-joshua

By: Kurt Libby

Kurt Libby — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:45:02 +0000

I watched an interview where Rob Bell interviewed Shane early this spring on this book. After reading your post, I almost think it is a must read if you’re going to validate his position. I think that without hearing him out entirely (more than an interview, a blog post, or a one hour presentation) it would be easy to write him off. You either think he is saying “Don’t use any technology” or “Change the gospel to make it more appealing.” I don’t think he is saying either, but to really get what he is saying might take reading the book because the end of the argument doesn’t seem evident in any medium where I have encountered him.

Also, he just seems really freaking smart. But that’s beside the point.