Tony Morgan Live

Blog

Mar
01

Holographic Technology

I had a fascinating visit last week with the guys at Clark at their home offices near Atlanta. They took me into their new theater where I was able to see a demonstration of their holographic technology. It’s very likely the future of video for churches that are embracing technology to deliver content to multi-site locations.

Check out the picture above. That’s me on the right. That’s a holograph on the left. It’s my first time sharing the platform with a holograph.

Pricing is coming down quickly to the point that I won’t be surprised if we see this technology implemented in churches within the next 12 months. Interestingly enough, this solution that Clark is offering is unique in that churches don’t have to use special cameras to capture the content and deliver the holographic images.

I love these days we live in. It’s amazing to me how quickly technology is shifting the way we interact with each other.

Did you enjoy this article? Consider subscribing to all articles from TonyMorganLive.com by email.

http://thoughtsaboutnothing.com Kyle Reed

Church Media Design.tv did a great review of this:http://churchmediadesign.tv/hologram-church/
Big Mike

Dr. Leonard Sweet has been predicting for years that the future of ministry is holographic technology. He calls it “Avatar Evangelism”. Pretty interesting!
http://leadershipfreak.wordpress.com Dan (Leadership Freak)

Tony,

Thanks for bringing this up. It’s my first “exposure” to holographic technology.

@Big Mike… thanks for mentioning Dr. Sweet.

Regards,

Leadership Freak
Dan Rockwell
http://www.burnyourgraveclothes.com Chris Hill

*and doesn’t add ten pounds like traditional projection.
http://rivercitywc.com Jason Isaacs

That is so freaky, I had a dream last night that a church was using 3D technology for all there videos just like this. Crazy!!!
Jim Baer

Wow, good news. Keep us posted. This would be an awesome addition to our already amazing resources to reach people.
http://blog.rrchapman.us Bob Chapman

Yes, the technology is cool. But… http://blog.rrchapman.us/2010/03/let-your-technology-shine-forth-to-all.html
Bruce

We actually had considered this as a real possibility for our second campus and worked real hard on making it possible. It is very impressive. Here’s another one we looked at: http://www.dvetelepresence.com/images/product/podium_front_bg.jpg
Schuyler Hedrick

Wow!!! Who needs fellowship anymore? Soon I will be able to sit at home in my pj’s and have my Pastor in my living room. Who needs a Pastor? We can have one hologram preacher for the whole world and then we wouldn’t need to pay for one.
What is the church coming to?
In the last days…
http://tonymorganlive.com tony morgan

for those of you who think this technology is evil, where do you think churches should draw the line in embracing new technology? if holograms are bad, how about churches that use video on screens or on the Internet? how about sound amplification? what about churches that use telephones, email or social networking to communicate with their congregation or those outside their churches? how about the printing press? is air conditioning acceptable?

i’m just curious to know where we should be drawing the line.

tony
http://www.billwhitt.com/blog Bill Whitt

As a nerd, I’m a little offended that they’re calling this a hologram. It’s not. Holograms are created using lasers… and well, look it up on wikipedia. But, anyway, what churches like North Point Community Church area already doing with full-stage HD video projection are already better than this, in my opinion.
Charley

Is that Bruce Schneier?
http://blog.rrchapman.us Bob Chapman

The technology is not evil. It is all in how you use it.

Christianity spreads by contagion, not education.

On my blog post relating to this blog post, someone said, “Agreed. Why use CD Burning technology for shut-ins? Why DVD’s? The printing press? Could you imagine where we would be without the printing press? It’s simply another use of technology to spread the gospel. In this case, it just looks really, really good.”

My response was, “The act of burning a CD for a shut-in is not evangelism. Sending that CD to a shut-in may be evangelism. Taking time to deliver that CD to a shut-in would be better evangelism.”
Pingback: Multi-holographic church campuses in Topeka might be in the near future thanks to Google #1G4Topeka « Vertical Resonator
http://verticalresonator.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/multi-holographic-church-campuses-in-topeka-might-be-in-the-near-future-thanks-to-google-1g4topeka/ Bryan Nelson

Google may bring its fiber experiment (100x faster internet than average) to Topeka, Kansas. If so, I’d love to see how churches might leverage the technology for a paradigm shift in how a church’s communication method takes place.

http://tinyurl.com/yzm3tf5

Utilize a local theater or rented Sunday facility. Use super fast internet speeds to pipe a holographic image of the pastor, click-track for a live band to play simultaneously, video and images are streamed real-time, and the children interact with a holographic Bible story.
A Counter-cultural Canadian Brother

Neil Postman, in writing about technology, says this: “Embedded in every tool is an ideological bias, a predisposition to construct the world as one thing rather than another, to value one thing over another, to amplify one sense or skill or attitude more loudly than another.”

Technology gives something and it takes away something. Often, we get excited about what a technology gives and forget about what it takes away.

What ideological bias is embedded in this tool?

Malcolm Muggeridge, several decades ago, asked a similar question. Why is it that God in his sovereignty became a Jew in first century Palestine and not a television star in 20th Century America?

God seems to be slow and low-tech. The incarnation doesn’t appear to be efficient enough and exhibits little understanding of the power of technology and the instant results it could afford.

Our image-oriented culture exalts the eye and humiliates the word.

Eugene Peterson, that stubborn old prophet, says this: “More often than not I find my Christian brothers and sisters uncritically embracing the ways and means practiced by the high-profile men and women who lead large corporations, congregations, nations and causes, people who show us how to make money, win wars, manage people, sell products, manipulate emotions and who then write books or give lectures telling us how we can do what they are doing. But these ways and means more often than not violate the ways of Jesus.”

For the ordinary, average pastor, the question isn’t is this technology evil? The question we need to ask ourselves is do we understand the unintended consequences of using a technology and how it will play out?
http://tonymorganlive.com tony morgan

Canadian Brother, let’s assume I agree with you. what technologies do i need to stop using to spread the Gospel message because of their unintended consequences?

obviously, holograms would be a problem. what else? i’m assuming any form of video would fit in that category because it’s so similar to the hologram technology.

what about sound? Jesus didn’t have sound amplification. if i agree with your position, does that mean i need to get rid of our sound system? how about the Internet? are we allowed to use the Internet to spread the Gospel?

or, is your position that the church can start using technological advancements after they are fully integrated into our culture?

seems like the last technology the church embraced ahead of culture was the printing press. i wonder how our world would be different today if the church had redeemed and leveraged technology through the decades?

btw… i’m not sure that i’m a fan of holographic technology yet, but the position that the church should walk away from technology because of it’s potential unintended consequences scares me.

tony
http://halhunter.blogspot.com Hal Hunter

There are still churches all over the world meeting in conditions not unlike those of the New Testament churches, some by choice but most for lack of means. Technology does not expand or replace the Gospel (at least it ought not), but it often allows us to reach more people more efficiently.
andy n

So how do you shake the hand of a holograph?
http://www.av-interiors.com Marcus Walker

I am constantly amazed at how timeless the debate is concerning the incorporation of technology (aka change) into worship services and/or church related environments. When this discussion arrises, and it often does, I like to think about the parable of the talents: do we use resources that are currently available to us (and multiply) or do we simply operate out of fear and do nothing..? It’s crazy to think that our fear of change could also have potential unintended consequences…
Pingback: Holograms « NeilTullos.com
Pingback: Which Multi-site Church Will Be the 1st … to HOLOGRAPH the Pastor? « Beyond the Course
http://www.davidherrick.net David Herrick

I don’t have a problem with churches using technology. in fact I love it that we do, and as much as we can use innovation to make a Kingdom difference, I think that’s great.

My only concern with this specific use of technology, along with current video-cast formats in multi-site venues, is that while many churches have rightly embraced the value of reproducing leaders, groups, and campuses, they refuse to reproduce teachers. I think it sets churches up to fail to get too dependent on one rock-star preacher in a church who is digitally beamed to different locations. I say, stop bagarting the stage and take the time to disciple other “live” preachers to speak at your other locations. Your church will be better off in the long-run.
Pingback: Video Preaching is Soooo Last Year – Introducing … Holograms?!? « West Coast Witness
http://www.byron-harvey.com Byron

Tony, I’m not of the mindset that “the church should walk away from technology”; I embrace technology, and use many forms of it every week. That said, the uncritical embrace of technology is a massive problem; we have to evaluate every medium for not only the “gospel impact” it might make–but for the impact it might make on the gospel itself; i.e., to paraphrase the brilliant Neil Postman (and possibly to conflate him with Marshall McLuhan), does the medium subtly change the message? What “violence”, if any, does the use of such a medium do to the gospel of Christ, to the message of the Word? Amplifying one’s voice does no damage, IMHO, doesn’t change anything; it enables folks to hear better. The internet is a different form of technology altogether; used appropriately–and never as a substitute for church, for instance (but as an enhancement), there again seems little disagreeable.

But the hologram–as well as the video preacher–does raise concerns. I could probably identify several, but here’s a biggie, in my opinion: we already have enough of a problem with “hero worship” among professing Christians, people who follow (blindly) some charismatic leader/teacher/preacher who dazzles ‘em with his big smile and winsome personality–even while preaching, sometimes at least, rank heresy. Witness the largest “church” in America for a “for instance”…

OK, so then the question becomes, do these twin technologies serve to further feed the “superstar preacher” phenomenon that is so pervasive already? Such replaces the real, flesh-and-blood, able to respond to the audience and to interact with people before, during and after the service preacher with an automaton–perhaps a smiling, winsome, witty, well-versed automaton, but an automaton nonetheless. This doesn’t strike me as modeling the incarnational ministry of Jesus at all; He didn’t send a video from heaven, nor did he ‘clone’ Himself into so many holographic images so as to maximize His visibility.

Can God use this? Sure…but that misses the point, because He can use anything He wishes, including a jackass like me sometimes. The question is, are we employing strategies which are likely to warp the message–and the message is everything–along the way? Methinks the “holographic preacher” will do more harm than it could ever hope to balance by helping.

And that’s just ONE concern…
A Counter-cultural Canadian Brother

I am not asking if it is right or wrong to use holograms.

I am asking the question: what is embedded within the technology of holograms? With eyes wide open we need to understand what this technology gives and what it takes away.

Assume I am wrong. What if the medium we use to communicate the message has no impact on the character of our churches–and ultimately the people that make up those churches?

Is this not a little like saying that “the way” God communicated to us would be the same even if there was no incarnation?

For example, God could have sent a hologram. Imagine, if you will, that God didn’t leave the comforts of heaven. He decided it was too risky(and not efficient) to take on flesh in Jesus Christ. Instead, he sent a hologram(or a video image). The disciples never sat around and ate on a daily basis with an embodied person; instead they ate their food on their own and waited for the holograph to speak wisdom to them.

What kind of church would we have?

I don’t think it is a stretch to say the body of Christ would be vastly different. You change the head, you change the body, eh?

Similarly, once a new technology is admitted to our culture, it brings both positive and negative changes. In the same way that ecologists understand the connectedness of everything in the natural world, we must understand the interrelatedness of everything in our culture.

Here is my point: A church that uses the technology of holograms(video image) will produce a different kind of disciple than a church that does not. If this is true, and I think it is, are we content with the results?
Anotherjimmoore

I think we crossed the technology threshold when Gutenberg slapped Genesis 1 into his magic press. Hopefully since then we’ve learned the proper way to use each tool developed through trial and error.

I think Counter Cultural is right. “A church that uses the technology of holograms(video image) will produce a different kind of disciple than a church that does not.”

It’s also true that a church where everyone had a Bible produced a different kind of disciple. And besides that, since when have we been happy with the type of disciple you see in a 1950′s style church?

My answer to the last question is overall, yes, I think we are content with the results. More Christians are alive now than in the last 2000 years combined. The church is expanding everywhere.

It’s not perfect but it isn’t witch trials or the Crusades either.
http://www.advotec.com gary

It seems to me that somehow God and the Holy Spirit were able to show up and work even before the mass-producton of bibles. The new technology of the printing press in late 1500′s or so was pretty darn effecive at removing the listener from the teacher at least a little bit. Nowadays everyone who wants one has the “word” and can study apart from a live teacher (and even one another.) So I’m not so sure that watching a holographic preacher or video teaching, or live pastor is all that critically different if your idea of church is to simply convey scripture and biblical information. I imagine God can find a way to work in any medium even holographics, just as He did before we all had personal bibles.

I don’t experience a whole lot of fellowship or community when watching even a great teacher (live or otherwise.) The teaching part I can get live, listening to CD, watching YouTube – either fully dressed in a huge building or in my PJs in my house. I don’t have to shake the teacher’s hand to learn scripture and certainly not to feel closer to God.

What can’t be gotten from just watching a holographic teacher (or even a live one) is the interaction with other believers, music that is understandable and singable, corporate prayer and worship, giving thanks, and expressing adoration to God, weeping with those who weep, and rejoicing with others. Intimacy, and being part of a body.

The command to “go”, make disciples, and spread the good news of Christ that the Kindom is near – that can be ignored and avoided just as easily with a live preacher or a holographic one, in a huge mega-church as well as a small group.

If the holographic projection is really just an extension of a gifted communicator (and not a promotion for some celebrity speaker), then maybe it could have teaching value when applied to a community of believers.
http://www.byron-harvey.com Byron

Yes, the church is expanding everywhere…without the use of holograms.

But one honestly wonders, are Christians more “Christian” today than in the past? Not to suggest there’s ever been a utopian age, of course, and there are cultural sins that Christians have always been blind to, to be sure. As to the “type of disciple” (there’s one type?) produced by 1950′s style churches (in which I, incidentally, would not be happy, in case you’re wondering) there are many, many disciples produced in 1950′s style churches–in the 1950′s, but also even today–who may not be as techno-savvy, have Christian hip-hop on their iPods (or even have iPods), or Tweet their latest Jesus-buzz–but who have a sincere and abiding love for Jesus, and a commitment to Him that makes so much of today’s modern Christian “commitment” look every bit the fluff it often is. The explosion of the Christian movement we see today just might be evidence of the vitality of the discipleship of those who’ve gone before us, it seems to me, and while we ought to use the best of today’s technology to further the kingdom, a reliance on it will prove the undoing, and or the neutering, of the church.
Jim

This discussion about technology in the “church” setting draws attention to an assumption, it seems to me, that technology is crucial to the life of the Body of Christ. My read is that the talk assumes property, buildings, campuses, large assemblies, platforms, bands, etc, etc. And how effective has that been in “making disciples” who are turning their worlds upside down in the name of Christ? What has been the increase in followers of Jesus in our towns? To be brief (!), is it possible that the appearance of the proxy hologram in our midst is just an inevitable development along the direction that the Western “church”, enabled by affluence and shaped by the larger culture, has been travelling for a long time? Most of us have been sending others or working through programs, by proxy, rather than intimately engaging our neighbors, classmates and co-workers. Haven’t most of us relinquished the real “one another” dynamics of Body life in favor of shoulder-to-shoulder alignment in pews (friendly handshakes notwithstanding!). Who even really knows the fellow at the pulpit beyond his pleasant stage demeanor and well-crafted sermons? How many in the audience does he know? Can he speak to anyone more than a theoretical composite average believer? Couldn’t a case be made that much of our life together as God’s people has been hologramic for a long time? Could there be a much larger issue here — that it might be time to read again what the NT envisions for the corporate-community life of the Body? How incarnational? How relational? Just some thoughts!
http://www.advotec.com gary

Agree w/ Anotherjimmoore. A holographic church will produce a different kind of disciple and a varied understanding of “the gospel”. It probably won’t be predictible or controlled. As it has in the past, the flavor and focus of the gospel and scripture will change with mediums, technology, and cultural pressures.
pete

to anotherjimmoore

of course we have more believers on the earth now, but thats not the point. We also have far more people living than the total before, so the question is do we have a larger percentage of people living as Christians than ever before.
http://twitter.com/jacobpaulbreeze breeze

Tony,

Four times a year I travel from the States to the Dominican Republic and Haiti to teach in a Seminary. This technology’s potential for that environment is quite exciting!
Rockin’Caracan

Tony, I honestly think that your “where do we draw the line” argument is a deflection tactic. I don’t think anyone here is saying that ANY and ALL technology is bad. No one would argue that having A/C is a “God idea”! Lol. The whole point behind this issue is not simply whether it is good or bad in and of itself. In my opinion the most important thing to ask ourselves in regards to these issues is what message are we sending by employing these tactics? What are we promoting (whether knowingly or unknowingly) in regards to relationships, community, expressing God-life together as believers and most importantly in this context; what are we saying about the role of the pastor-leader over the brethren. Have we really come so far in promoting a special class of christian leaders that rule over the churches that now don’t even have to show up in person to lead!?!

My point is that technology in and of itself is not wrong or bad. It’s the principles of body life and kingdom leadership that are violated by implementing it in certain ways. IF, this technology could be implemented in a way that does NOT violate these principles of the ekklesia but rather serves to create new and exciting ways for the church to express their Lord Jesus together, then I believe it would be a blessing. But if by implementing these “tactics” we violate the DNA of the ekklesia and proper kingdom leadership then it has become just another gimmick in the modern church that exalts “ministers” and separates them into a special class of christian higher than the rest. It just serves to create more apathetic, immature, paralyzed, pew potato, spiritual babes with a “feed me” mentality. A sad state indeed.
Marcus

This will certainly give strength to the cult of personality pastorate and bring an engaging and “cool” pastor to everyone!
Whether that’s good or bad is up to God.
http://www.mommasaidwhatawaste.blogspot.com Louis

I don’t know, I don’t think this will be good.

“And the Apostles laid electronic images on Paul and he was healed.”

I hear this and all I can think of is King Herod who wanted Jesus to entertain him and not to know Our Lord.

What converts people are other Christians not fancy technology. And if we take away real people from the church and replace them with fake images it seems to make the Gospel less real and more like a TV show.

Going to Church is about the praise and worship of God and not about entertainment. If people go to be entertained then we need to have a serious conversion campaign with each other and refocus on the Gospel.
http://tonymorganlive.com tony morgan

i agree with the position that if the teaching is only on video/hologram and there is no personal interaction, that would be a bad situation. however, every church i’ve been to that has video teaching is highly relational. most still have a pastor who actually has more freedom to be engaged in the lives of the people around him. if it’s just the video teaching and nothing else, we might as well just watch church on television.

tony
http://www.myepicfaith.org Jack Wolfe

Tony, I will jump in on the conversation. I do not have a problem with technology, but having said that. I will pose this question.

Are you married? Why not just send a Hologram to sit at the table with your wife and kids

Why not send a hologram to sit on the couch with your wife and watch a movie while you play golf or something else.

Why not send in a Hologram in to tell your kids goodnight.

I wonder how the family would embrace the idea of a Hologram Husband and Dad to lead the home.

The Father did not send a Hologram, He sent His son the Express visible, touchable Jesus

if the Leader is in a Hologram would I be able to send my self to church in a Hologram, I mean who would know

Maybe I could send my offering as a Hologram now there is an idea.

Ok Point made

I will look for your response
http://tonymorganlive.com tony morgan

jack, your point would be appropriate if the church was only a 30-minute message from a pastor. i’ve never seen such a church.

your question, though, suggests you maybe haven’t seen healthy multi-site churches minister to their congregations and their communities. it may help you to read Multi-site Revolution and visit some campuses of healthy churches to see it for yourself.

btw… though most of my interactions with my family are face-to-face, our ability to stay connected and communicate with each other has improved with cell phones, email, Facebook and Skype.

tony
http://www.myepicfaith.org Jack Wolfe

Tony, I get that point and I admit I was a bit of a smart alec making my point, I just think with all things we need to be careful. We in America love our Personalities and if you are good of enough one you can draw a great crowd. I love Andy Stanley but how many people come to hear what he has to say. what if He left, or what if he had some of his staff share week after week. would church be the same. The rich churches will be able to pull this off, and draw even larger crowds. But having a huge crowd is not the only objective.

The Church in China has continued to grow and did awesome when they were not allowed to meet or preach in fact when the iron curtain came down and missionaries went in to access the church they were amazed and estimated some 80 million cheristians.

What always concerns me is anything that promotes just crowds and not community makes people more dependent on a speaker than being effective themselves

Jack
Pingback: Hologram Pastor: Really Cool…or Really Creepy? « The Church Girl Next Door
Pingback: the journeymen « emerging now
Pingback: Most Popular Posts of March 2010 | TonyMorganLive.com
http://cahayamutiarahologram.blogspot.com Irfan

John 20:25-29 (King James Version)

25The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

So, it’s not important able to see or not. The important is faith.
Pingback: #1 in 2010: Holographic Technology | TonyMorganLive.com
Pingback: Holographic blessing « Thoughts with accent
http://blog.rrchapman.us/ Bob Chapman

What’s this “different type of disciple” I’m reading about here?

There is the point of view that each person is different. Therefore, each disciple is must be different. Beyond that, a person seeks to follow the discipline of Jesus, or the person isn’t. (We are all imperfect at it, though.) The technology used makes no difference, if any technology is used at all.

Technology can and does help education. But, if a person’s heart isn’t turned to Jesus, or if someone treats this as entertainment like a big video game, it really doesn’t make any difference.

87891
Followers

4444
Followers

5724

Subscribers

On Twitter

Tweets by @tonymorganlive

Tony Morgan Live

Blog

Holographic Technology

RSS Subscribers

On Twitter

Site Map

Sponsors