"Follow along": How projector screens and liturgical texts may actually be a hindrance

edited July 2014 in Coptic Orthodox Church
"Follow along" - How projector screens and liturgical texts may actually be more a hindrance than a help in the liturgy
http://pearlofgp.blogspot.com/2013/03/follow-along-how-projector-screens-and.html


"Typography, by its nature, separates and compartmentalizes information, making it impossible for a complete and rich experience. Applying this observation to reading off a screen while participating in liturgical worship, it comes as no surprise why many complain that liturgical prayers often lack a 'prayerful feel.' And how could such liturgies be prayerful when they are reduced to a 'read-along'?

Delving into this dilemma further, it may be worthwhile examining just how text and typography actually influences our cognition and what affects it may have on our engagement with the world. Canadian communications theorist and philosopher Marshall McLuhan, wrote extensively on the effects of typography and text on individuals and society. According to McLuhan, unlike in times past or in cultures where typography is not considered the primary mode of communication, we in our modern Western culture have significantly lowered our ability to synthesize the world around us. It may be worth mentioning that McLuhan also believed that the invention of print technology and its ontologically disjunctive nature contributed to the rise of individualism, capitalism, and nationalism - all of which could be argued are anti-liturgical ideologies."
«1

Comments

  • I cannot agree more. Besides the fact that it takes away people's focus on the consecration to the sacraments taking place before our very eyes
    Oujai
  • And also in some churches the screens hide the icons of Christ and the saints!
    Oujai
  • edited July 2014
    Here's another blog that discusses the preoccupation with text. There's even some mention of icons:

    "Putting a screen in front of the ikons not only hides the ikons from the congregation, but it symbolically hides the congregation from the view of the saints depicted in the ikons. We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, except for those we have chosen to exclude in favour of our own more ephemeral and self-centred concerns, our “worship experience”.

    Orthodox Churches in Muslim countries are sometimes vandalised, because Muslims are iconoclasts. But they don’t usually vandalise the whole ikon, they just chisel out the eyes. And by putting a screen in front of the ikons we would in effect be doing the same thing.

    If you can understand this, you may able to know something of the difference between the Orthodox Christian view of worship, and that of most Western Christians, certainly most Protestants."

    http://khanya.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/liturgy-worship-and-digital-doodads/
  • But the counterargument of the clever people would be like: oh no saints don't get upset of such practice, after all those are their words and the faith that's conveyed by them!
    Oujai
  • edited July 2014
    Maybe the whole problem is that we don't understand iconography and icon theology. I find offensive that one would compare a Coptic Orthodox person (priest or laity) who pastorally wants the congregation to follow along in prayer with technology to a Muslim iconoclasts. Do you really think there is any merit to that claim? 

    Rather than discuss icon theology, we go on an attack for anything that doesn't make sense to us. This is the antithesis of iconography. And rather than attacking proponents of technology as "clever people", why don't you actually discuss the problem from a logical and theological argument. 

    Additionally, the comments on typography that was referenced is actually against what the fathers have claimed. But of course, we jump to modern resources and ignore patristics, not to mention biblical references like bronze serpent. How easy it has become to insult Orthodox praxis and Orthodoxy clergy.
  • having books is great for newcomers.
    then after 1-2 years, they should be encouraged to pray without the books (if they can understand the language).
    my first language is english, but i often don't understand chanting in english, as some words are almost skipped and others become very long! so a book clears that up. 
    once i have memorised that part of the service, i can then work out what is being said in any language.

    screens are ok if they don't obscure the icons.
    in big churches with lots of visitors, where there are also lots of new immigrants who only understand arabic, having a service with bits in arabic and bits in english and screens up for people to read the bits that are not in their language is great.
    then the immigrants are soothed after they have difficult experiences fleeing persecution, and the visiting english speakers can understand what's going on too.
    that way all benefit.
    this would not have been the case 1,000 years ago in egypt (there were not hundreds of people fleeing there), so it was fine for them to manage without screens.

    please note: i am not condoning the use of microphones unless in a very big church, and i am not condoning screens that cover icons or (and especially) the altar.

    can i also say how much i am annoyed by people taking pictures from behind the altar?
    this is just showing off.
    it is not the same as having some method of translation available for those who need it.

    it is true that we must also pay attention to our other senses and not just read and ignore the beauty of the liturgy and it's sounds and smells, but for me, the liturgy becomes 'more prayerful' when those praying there are full of love for God and sincere repentance.
    this is not something that can be objectively assessed.
  • Abouna Tadrous Yacoub always said that all of the text we put on the screens is partially, the works of the saints so they would never mind for it to be covering their icons. 
  • I think what both blog articles seem to be addressing (especially the first one in the thread) is the way liturgy is encountered. There seems to be a very modern phenomenon concerning a preoccupation with text and cognition (text as the primary source and cause of cognition).

    The Reformation sort of started the ball rolling on this privatised textual encounter in Worship. The participation is reduced to a sort of Liturgical Karaoke :p

    As moderns we have become less aurally aware and textual dependence may have contributed to this. I've no idea what the implications are but I think the two articles bring up interesting assessments on how this textual primacy might influence a Church's theology and also her liturgical praxis.


    It is so interesting that Orthodox liturgies are sung and chanted, and the Word is proclaimed out loud.

    If the tropars for the Church contain more than a literal summary of the feast day, you're also bound to hear Theological reflection spoken out loud too.
  • @Remenkimi,
    Sorry that you got rather annoyed because I mentioned the expression "clever people". There is no need for me (and certainly no capability I find in myself) to discuss icon theology. But even without that depth of knowledge I can get easily offended to see screens up on walls to help people follow texts along. 
    I totally agree there should be aids to help newcomers (for a while as you rightly suggested - what a brilliant suggestion). It becomes nonsensical, and sorry to say even frivolous to have churches in Egypt putting up screens showing movies during some services (not just Arabic text - for your information even Coptic is not used that extensively in Egypt either). This is a shame especially that when I watch BBC (when I do do that) I do not find any big screens for people to follow but sheets of hymns for people to read from. By time these should be learnt (whether in the Church of England, or the Coptic Orthodox) and even better prepared beforehand, and memorised to be said without aids. 
    I am sorry because I never that Fr. Tadros Yakoub was the one who championed such a notion. I didn't mean him when I said "clever people". I was pointing out to some people who reply to those posts, as I argued such a point before a couple of times. 
    Oujai 
  • And by putting a screen in front of the ikons we would in effect be doing the same thing.
    Iconoclast=the destruction of icons. Esthetic icon obstruent=obstruction of icons

    In what way can putting a screen in front of icons be considered destruction? Unless you are talking of conceptual or rational destruction and not actual physical destruction, it is offensive to conclude the two actions are the same.

    Now if you consider iconic obstruent a form of rational iconoclasm (and rationally and logically, it makes no sense). Then we look at some patristic information from Pope Gregory I of Rome.

    Furthermore we notify to you that it has come to our ears that your Fraternity, seeing certain adorers of images, broke and threw down these same images in Churches. And we commend you indeed for your zeal against anything made with hands being an object of adoration; but we signify to you that you ought not to have broken these images. For pictorial representation is made use of in Churches for this reason; that such as are ignorant of letters may at least read by looking at the walls what they cannot read in books. Your Fraternity therefore should have both preserved the images and prohibited the people from adoration of them, to the end that both those who are ignorant of letters might have wherewith to gather a knowledge of the history, and that the people might by no means sin by adoration of a pictorial representation.

    Register of the Epistles of St Gregory the Great, Book 9 (Originally quoted in translation in The Early Church Fathers and Other Works by Eerdmans)

    "In this letter, St Gregory is forbidding the destruction of sacred images, as well as their abuse. There is no blanket condemnation of images, and St Gregory encourages their presence in church buildings. 

    Real iconoclasm is destruction. But notice what else Pope Gregory I says in the underlined and bolded section of the quote. Dissatisfaction with iconic obstruents is nothing more than excessive adoration of a pictorial representation. It is this understanding of iconography that is sinful, not the actual physical obstruent. 


  • But obscuring can also lead to destruction...


    “It is funny how mortals always picture us as putting things into their minds: in reality our best work is done by keeping things out.” 
    C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters


    The Fall didn't destroy with immediacy but led to destruction because it obscured the Divine Image...

    "You who did fashion me of old out of nothingness, and with Your Image Divine did honor me; but because of the transgressions of Your commandments, did return me again to the earth from whence I was taken; lead me back to be refashioned into that ancient beauty of Your likeness." 
    From Evlogetaria for the Dead, Tone 5, Orthodox Funeral Hymn

  • I hope this following quote doesn't move the thread off topic but St John Chrysostom says something quote wonderful in relation to Icons/Persons in an exhortation to Catechumens:

    " Then, as in the case of painters, so let it now be the case for you. For they, after setting out their panels, and drawing on them with white lines, sketch out the royal images before they apply the truth of the the colours. And with full freedom they wipe out some things, and redraw other parts, and correct mistakes and change things which are not right. But when they bring in the final tempera, they no longer have the power to wipe things out or redraw them, since they will destroy the beauty of the portrait, and the thing will be defective...

    ...Consider the soul to be your portrait. So, before the true tempera of the spirit comes, wipe away the habits which have been wrongly put into it [a long list of sins follows]... correct your habits, so that when the colors are laid upon it and the imperial portrait shines forth, no longer will you wipe things out again, and damage or scar the beauty which has been given to you by God."
    + St. John Chrysostom, Catech.2.3[49.235], from Margaret M. Mitchell, "The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation"(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002) 60.
  • Fr. Tadros Malaty is awesome, but he would say a couple of things that might scandalize some minds, not that I am scandalized by them, since I don't mind them.  His goal is to hear everyone's voice in liturgy.  If a screen can do that, he would support it.  If it means to avoid chanting certain hymns where he doesn't hear the congregation, then he will ask the choir shamamsa not to chant it.  The point is he feels a strong responsibility that if anyone in the congregation is not using their vocal cords, he will have to make account to it before God.

    He is a living saint, and truly and miraculously transports the congregation into the Kingdom he continually preaches and prays about.

    Nevertheless, yes, there are good points being made by those who don't even wish for benches or books.  If everyone knew the liturgy, everyone would not need books.  But there's no patience for anyone who says "I can't follow along, therefore I can't pray the liturgy."  If that's the case, habibi, khalas, for your sake, we will teach you through screens in hopes that maybe generations later there would be no need for them.
  • Your references reinforce my point.

    Let me put it this way (and the way St John Chrysostom is putting it)
    If I have a full size mural of myself on my wall, does it depict the image of Christ or my external image? Possibly both, but at least my external image. If I tear that wall mural into pieces, have I damaged the image of God in me? No. If I sin, have I damaged the image of God in me? Yes. So it is sin that destroys the image of God (through the Fall as you correctly stated). Obstructed the physical mural wall picture does nothing other than damaging a individual's preference of esthetics. It is this damaging of an individual preference of esthetics that Pope Gregory warned against when he said "they sin by adoration of a pictorial presentation". St John Chrysostom is arguing to correct the canvas and partial image within a person damaged by sin, not the external beautification (or lack of beautification by physical obstruction).

    In the other thread of orthopraxis, you quoted Fr Matta who convicted churches of amassing large properties but not feeding the poor. It is no different here. It means nothing to have a church adorned by icons if we forget that the saints' orthopraxis and faith is the image of Christ. (Matthew 25). Obstructing an icon physical is not an obstruction of the image of God. It is an obstruction if the living saints (the congregation) do not experience the liturgy in the full expression of God revealed through typography because of sin. Just like amassing wealth and not feeding the poor deprives the poor of God, so also having icons without the congregation contemplating on the theological image before them means nothing (regardless of a physical obstruction or not)

    Without discussing the theology of your position, our position become nothing more than individual preference. I am saying technology is not an attack on theology. You are saying it is but not you are not explaining your position through theology. It benefits nothing to have opinions based on preference and refusing to understand the opposite position. 

    Additionally, if two people argue the same point, yet one is called "clever people" and the other is above such remarks because he is a priest, does that not only prove that your position is faulty? Does this not mean by default you are also calling the priest "clever people"? You can't have it both ways. You can't say it applies to "some people who reply to those posts" but not to a priest who holds the same position. 

    1000 years ago in Egypt, it was fine for them [parishioners] to manage without plumbing and electricity. Why is it no one seems to have any problem with those massive, electrical chandlers "obstructing" the iconostasis with hundreds of thousands of blinding lumens? Let's keep things in proper perspective. I know what you are saying. You are right that it is sin that obstructs people from God.
  • @Remenkimi,
    You're right. I'm sorry I have sinned..
    I'm afraid the compromises and concessions aren't helpful but harmful. I don't approve of that position. We go to church to seek God and some means of doing this is learning what the church books are, so we go buy them and learn the tunes of tasbeha the kholagy hymns, etc.. if I go to church and everything is readily given to me then what effort should I exert to benefit myself? Perhaps it's because faith is getting weaker people are asking more questions of the church as a screen for their laziness.. perhaps screens are making people more dependent on them that they will be lazier.. perhaps many things are done wrongly and need to be corrected..
     Oujai
  • i don't like chandeliers either.
    they cost a lost of money which should be given to the poor.
  • My point was not that chandeliers are intrinsically wrong but that one can't complain of obstructing icons by screens and not complain chandeliers block icons. We are back to arguing preferences, rather than theology. 
  • This thread went on an interesting tangent but what about screens that do not block iconography(such as TV's that do not move?) Does everyone here agree that that is ok?
  • edited July 2014
    @EsmoEpchois,
    Do they distract people from looking at the altar? Do they cause people to get dependent upon them? 
    Oujai
  • Ophadece,

    I don't think that someone who chooses to use a book and turn a page is less lazy than someone who looks at a screen. I think it is our duty to make the service as accommodating as possible in terms of allowing the congregation to participate in the responses and hymns. After all, the Liturgy is the work of the people and this is the most convenient way for them to contribute--ask them yourself! The apostle Paul went to great lengths to convert the Gentiles! A lot of the time, guests from outside the faith come and they have no clue what's going on Or what is being said in the church. Some of us even insist that they learn coptic in order to benefit from the responses! Even the apostles believed it was not necessary for outsiders to follow old Jewish laws such as circumcision so long as they were living a godly life. Saint Paul insists in his letters that we ought to worship in the native land's tongue!

    I will just list a few benefits to having screens...
    Not enough books
    Bad microphones/unclear voices
    Bad reading (seeing the text helps you see the intent)
    Better for outsiders and newcomers
    Awareness of rites(not everyone has a deacon service book)
    People won't make noises dropping books or flipping pages

    That's just a few...
  • The more important question is do TV's contribute or engage the congregation to participate in the liturgy and bring people to God? Who cares if the TVs move or don't move, block the altar or block an icon? Isn't it better to block an altar or an icon than block a person from returning to God?

    Who cares if people are dependent on TVs or electronics? We are dependent on modern electricity and electrical lighting for the liturgy. No one is asking if we need to remove outlets and electrical lights and return to real candles. Heck, if we had no electricity, we would be forced to depend on candle lighting too. Then I guess the only allowable thing to do is to get rid of electricity and candles, worshipping in God's natural light (i.e., after all we are all the light of the world.) While we're at it, we must return to completely non-industralized faith like Church of Science mixed with Amish tendencies and ban modern medicine and interaction with your neighbors. And we have to get rid of the modern calendar and daylight savings and go back to Byzantine time calculations like Mt Athos where 0:00:00 is sun rise that changes daily. 
  • @Amoussa01,
    Churches a decade ago didn't have screens, and yet people didn't complain including newcomers about their lack of understanding. As far as I am aware living in a western country and going to the Coptic church the number of newcomers barely changed since the introduction of such aids. It's for the very reason you have mentioned about liturgical books that they themselves aren't being depended on. Flipping the pages and books falling off are in themselves deterrents to using them all the time.. and the shortage of them encourage learning and memorizing. At least you're actively doing something to engage yourself in prayer rather than passively being encouraged to. That's my opinion..
     Oujai
  • oops forgot to comment on St. Paul's point. Please don't twist the argument to imply that liturgical books are burdens, or indeed the Coptic language..
    Oujai
  • Amoussa01,
    I agree with you up to the point where you say the following things.
    "Some of us even insist that they learn coptic in order to benefit from the responses!" 
    I don't think anybody has insisted they learn Coptic to benefit from responses. We strongly encourage it because you don't get the same understanding from a translation. There's a difference. Insisting on a foreign language implies there is no possibility for spiritual enlightenment by any other means. Strongly suggesting every person learn Coptic is only one possible way for spiritual enlightenment. There is a difference.

    "Even the apostles believed it was not necessary for outsiders to follow old Jewish laws such as circumcision so long as they were living a godly life."
    Circumcision was abandoned because the converted Jews placed more emphasis on the law than on God and God's grace. This is not the same as adhering to tradition. (Again notice the lowercase "t"). Let's not conflate the two.

    "Saint Paul insists in his letters that we ought to worship in the native land's tongue!"
    No he didn't. (If he did, please give us references). He said if one speaks in tongues or prophecies, there must be one who interprets. He didn't say that one must speak in the vernacular (native land's) tongue to be valid worship. In Romans 8:26, 27, he said the Spirit makes intercessions with groanings that can't be uttered. Whatever "groanings that can't be uttered" are, at the very least, it is a language that is not the vernacular. St Paul did say that intercessions should be made by searching the heart and knowing what the mind of the Spirit is. This has nothing to do with vernacular language. 

    Regardless, this is not part of the discussion. Like you said, there are benefits for using screens.

  • I'm not sure we can say "no screens" = "no technology" or "no electricity". What is being raised is how they are used and their effect on liturgics.

    The following is not a perfect comparison but say one says "guns are bad." One may counter by claiming that guns can serve some positive purpose. However I'm not sure if we should suggest that because one says "guns are bad" we should then assume that means that one is also arguing against using metal or mechanical devices.

  • BTW. Traditional Orthodox chandeliers were adorned with icons themselves. None of this fancy renaissance crap that you buy from the local hardware and lighting store.
  • Ophadece,

    Were you keeping track of all church complaints for the past few decades? Do you have an archive that we are unaware of? This is such a blanket statement that has no real foundation to it. 

    You said: As far as I am aware living in a western country and going to the Coptic church the number of newcomers barely changed since the introduction of such aids.
    This may be true for your church but you cannot generalize this to every parish. I know of many people who feel like they cannot participate in the service because they have no clue whats going on or what is being said.





  • Rem,

    you said: I don't think anybody has insisted they learn Coptic to benefit from responses.

    there are many, including in this forum, that advocate that foreigners learn the coptic language in order to benefit from services. 

    You also said: We strongly encourage it because you don't get the same understanding from a translation. There's a difference. 

    Excuse me, but how did you learn coptic? from a translation? Do you see where I am going with this...?

    you said: Strongly suggesting every person learn Coptic is only one possible way for spiritual enlightenment. There is a difference.

    Statements like these are harmful if you wish to evangelize your faith to outsiders. Personally, I do not see why they can't just pray in their own native tongue. 

    you said: Circumcision was abandoned because the converted Jews placed more emphasis on the law than on God and God's grace. This is not the same as adhering to tradition.

    I am likening your unreasonable statement that everyone ought to learn coptic in order to become spiritually enlightened. You are creating an unnecessary barrier for those outside the church who could care less about the Coptic language, thereby making yourself like the Jews who wanted to impose circumcision. Barrier is a barrier is a barrier. 

    You also said: "Saint Paul insists in his letters that we ought to worship in the native land's tongue!"
    No he didn't. (If he did, please give us references). 

    Please read 1 Corinthians 14 
  • Amoussa,
    I did read 1 Cor 14. I even referenced it in my previous post. No where does it say anything has to be done in a vernacular language. What it does say is that anyone who speaks in tongues, must have an interpreter so everyone who prays in the Spirit also prays with understanding. The assumption is that no one can pray with understanding if it is in a different language. Therein lies the fallacy. We speak a pseudo-foreign language in every part of our lives. Look at any profession. The amount of non-English communication that is used daily is enormous. In the medical field, we learn all diseases and anatomy in Latin and Greek. In the financial and banking industries, there are so many acronyms and words that are used daily that are very different from spoken English. And this is still English. When it comes to a different language in liturgical use, we have the vernacular translation available so we fulfill 1 Cor 14. No where does it say only the vernacular language will edify. If it doesn't edify you personally, fine. However, a foreign language for liturgical services will edify others. You still have many other possible ways to edification that do not involve a foreign language. I don't see why there is a need to bring down one way to edification (foreign language) in order to prioritize another equally viable way. 

    Secondly, you are misinterpreting my comparison on circumcision and liturgical Coptic usage. The Jews insisted on circumcision because they placed the law before God. No one is placing Coptic before God. No one is saying that the only way to become spiritually enlightened is to use Coptic. I specifically said the opposite. As long as you see Coptic as a barrier, then you will not understand what I am saying. At the very least don't put words in my mouth. 

    Finally, your comment "statements like these are harmful if you wish to evangelize your faith to outsiders." is a broad generalization. You warned ophadece not to generalize, you shouldn't do it either. The fact is many converts (and many have specifically told me this) say that they do not want church services in their own language 100% of the time. They are content with translations. They even learn enough of the foreign language to understand the liturgical service and in time Coptic becomes an edifying medium. They want church services to remain the way they are because it is the closest to the Apostolic tradition. Evangelization does not happen by words only. It happens by actions and it happens by remaining true to your faith. Language is peripheral among converts. It is cradle Copts that despise Coptic who think the converts' main priority is language. It is not. 

    "The following is not a perfect comparison but say one says "guns are bad." One may counter by claiming that guns can serve some positive purpose. However I'm not sure if we should suggest that because one says "guns are bad" we should then assume that means that one is also arguing against using metal or mechanical devices."
    I understand the comparison is not perfect but it illustrates the counter argument more. Using your example, the argument that "guns are bad because...." is also strictly applicable to any "metal or mechanical devices." It is the proponent who claimed "guns are bad" who has the burden to show how guns are bad and not also applicable to any metal or mechanical device. Simply stating guns are bad because it is esthetically obtrusive without showing why any other metal or mechanical devices are not ugly and included in the statement fails to meet the burden of logic. 

    You have to show why TVs are bad because they are ugly or they place priority on cognizance instead of senses and not chandeliers or a priest blocking the altar giving a sermon is not bad (sermons place a priority on cognizance outside liturgical performance). You have to show why TVs are a medium for laziness and books are not. You have to show how TVs are a liability or risk with no benefits. Until then, the statement that TVs and projector screens may actually be a hindrance has very little merit and it is misleading. 
Sign In or Register to comment.