DOWNLOAD PDF OF PAPER
In the mid‐1990s video projector technology reached an important milestone: Projector technology became strong enough to view projections on a screen with mild ambient light and it became reasonably affordable (Kahn 1999). While video projectors became commonplace in business meetings during this time, churches began adopting them and using them in worship settings, as well. This new technological enhancement to worship gave rise to what we now call media ministry.
Media ministry began in Evangelical Protestant churches in the U.S. Most first adopted the technology for IMAG (Image Magnification), a technique used to project an enlarged visual image of the speaker. Innovative Evangelical churches like Ginghamsburg Church and Evangelical parachurch organizations like Promise Keepers combined IMAG technology with computer‐generated graphics and videos thanks to articles and reviews in trade magazines like Technologies for Worship. Their adoption of these technologies has been enormously successful; churches often credit these technological innovations for their dramatic increases in membership, attendance or participation.
The success of media ministry and the rise of worship technologies in churches have not been universal. The construction and the implementation of media used in worship services have been dominated by men. While women are not completely absent from the field of media ministry, they are significantly underrepresented. One explanation could be theological: The churches employing media ministry most successfully are Evangelical churches, which often have patriarchal theological understandings of worship leadership. However, in the first decade of the new millennium mainline Protestant churches have rapidly appropriated worship technologies; women are also less represented than might be expected. This paper explores these worship technologies and explores the question, “Do worship technologies have gender politics?”
Politics of Artifacts
Before we consider the gender politics of a particular technology we need to explore how a technology can have any form of politics. If we consider the example of a nuclear missile, one can easily understand that this particular technological artifact embodies a clear political message. But what about less politically charged technological artifacts? Is it possible that something as seemingly innocuous as a video projector could in fact contribute to the marginalization of women in Christian worship practices?
Langdon Winner has written about the ways in which “artifacts have politics.” (Winner 1977, 1980, 1986, 1993) Winner writes:
At issue is the claim that the machines, structures, and systems of modern material culture can be accurately judged not only for their contributions to efficiency and productivity and their positive and negative environmental side effects, but also for the ways in which they can embody specific forms of power and authority.1
The “power and authority” expressed in these artifacts can marginalize others. This is the politics of the artifacts.
1 Langdon Winner, The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 120.
Winner uses an example to illustrate this concept. Robert Moses, the well‐known city planner for New York City from the 1920s to the 70s was described by his biographer Robert Caro as racist and classist, building these prejudices into the architecture of the city (Caro 1975). An example given is his construction of more than 200 low bridges on Long Island. These bridges, with their nine‐foot clearance, may seem hardly likely to evoke much thought. However, they do deserve a great deal more inspection. These bridges crisscross the urban landscape of Long Island, across all access points in and out. At the time of their construction, they effectively blocked access to Long Island by buses, which at that time required a twelve‐foot clearance to pass underneath. Another point to consider is that Long Island is home to one of Robert Moses’ prized creations, Jones Beach. Caro concludes that Moses intentionally built low‐clearance bridges in an effort to keep the poor from New York City, who could only arrive by bus, from “spoiling” his prized beach.
We could argue about Moses’ motivation or intentionality for quite some time without any definitive conclusion. However, I would suggest that if the effect of marginalization is achieved, intentionality does not matter. If a technological artifact or an arrangement of artifacts has the effect of marginalizing others it truly has politics. Winner writes:
The issues that divide or unite people in society are settled not only in the institutions and practices of politics proper, but also, and less obviously, in tangible arrangements of steel and concrete, wires and semiconductors, nuts and bolts.2
These “tangible arrangements” will be the focus of what follows. The rise of media ministry from its Evangelical roots to its mainline adoption describes the tangible arrangement of a technology that may in fact marginalize women.
We begin this exploration with Technologies for Worship Magazine, a leading resource for the implementation of media ministry in churches. This is followed by an examination of the Promise Keepers, a parachurch men’s spiritual renewal organization that was highly influential in spreading media ministry in the mid‐ to late 90s. And finally we review Ginghamsburg Church, an Evangelical church that pioneered in media ministry.
Technologies for Worship Magazine
Published in Canada, this magazine has a wide distribution throughout the United States. By the end of 1999, circulation was 5,000. In 2006, they stopped charging for subscriptions and began free distribution (paid by its advertisers) to churches and individuals. By 2008, Technologies for Worship circulation mushroomed to more than 30,000.
This was the first magazine devoted to providing resources for those involved in media ministry. Each magazine provides expert advice and techniques on a wide variety of technology subjects. In addition to the advice articles there are also product reviews that examine the latest technologies designed for use in church worship.
Many of the “pioneers” of media ministry have authored articles in this magazine over the past decade. The magazine proffers a “who’s who” in media ministry. For many years this was the only resource of its kind available. After the magazine moved from a paid subscription magazine to a free magazine sustained by advertising, the number of articles per issue significantly declined.
While the overall number of authors declined, there was no significant change to the disparity in gender of the authors. Figure 1 shows authorship gender for 10 years. It is clear that men have dominated the magazine’s authorship. “Dominated” may not be a strong enough word to describe the overall male authorship. Adding to this disparity is the fact that a significant percentage of the female authors counted were not the solo authors of the articles.
We might speculate that there simply has not been a significant number of women who have entered this technology‐driven field. The lack of women in this newly emerging field has been explicitly addressed by contributors to the magazine. In the January 2001 issue of Technologies for Worship a column highlighting some of the discussion on the magazine’s electronic bulletin board included the following comment by “audiowoman” entitled “Men vs. Women”:
I’m an up and coming audio video tech and have begun working with our multimedia ministry, which is ALL MEN. I always wanted a career in sound and have pursued some classes but need more “hands on” training. Why do men think that women can not be technically inclined, especially in this field? The guys I work with totally ignore me when we are working in the video room. And these are supposed to be born again Christian guys? Can any male out there shed any light or information on what I can do? Is there any female out there who has gone through the same thing? – ‐audiowoman
A response to “audiowoman’s” concerns by “Steve” (reprinted with typographical errors corrected):
I hope the title Men VERSUS women is not an indication of how you see the issues with regard to the techie side of Church life. It shouldn’t be a competition… but unfortunately it often turns out that way even between men. Bear in mind that we our human and that we do need the Lord’s help. I would love some of the females of our church to take an interest in the production side of things. I must admit to sometimes feeling out of place particularly when doing the sound for Womens [sic] events. Keep plugging away there and show them men how it should be done. ‐Regards Steve
This exchange between “audiowoman” and “Steve” represents an important set of perceptions in media ministry. “audiowoman” feels excluded, marginalized by the men in her church who control the technology. “Steve” is minimizing these perceptions and claiming that women are not only welcome but needed and he simply doesn’t understand why women are not volunteering to do this work.
The exchange gets at a foundational assumption that technology is the domain of men. Judy Wajcman writes:
Gender is not just about difference but about power: this technical expertise is a source of men’s actual or potential power over women. It is also an important part of women’s experience of being less than, and dependent on, men. However, it should be remembered that the construction of masculinity is a complex process. There is not one monolithic masculinity and not all men are competent with technology. Rather, technical competence is central to the dominant cultural ideal of masculinity, and its absence a key feature of stereotyped femininity. The correspondence between men and machines is thus neither essential nor immutable, and therefore the potential exists for its transformation.3
3 Judy Wajcman, Feminism Confronts Technology (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991),78.
As Wajcman points out, the cultural assumption of technology as the domain of men is just that, a cultural assumption. This cultural assumption can be reinforced, as Technologies for Worship Magazine has done through its almost exclusively white male authorship and its recently named “expert editorial team” known as “6 dudes” (see Figure 2).
Next we will explore a men’s renewal group that has leveraged the cultural assumptions of men and technology to connect men with Evangelical Christianity.
The Promise Keepers
The Promise Keepers, a parachurch Evangelical organization, was one of the first to adopt visual technologies in its events. In the early 1990s Promise Keepers projected song lyrics on large screens so that the men at the events could easily sing along with the music performed by the band. PowerPoint was the presentation software of choice but soon the limitations of this software became evident. Several of the technologists at Promise Keepers left to form their own company, Grassroots Software and produced Prologue, a custom‐designed alternative to PowerPoint to work in worship settings. Another company was formed in conjunction with Grassroots Software to operate the technical equipment used at Promise Keepers events. This company, Fresh Air Media, used Grassroots software at the Promise Keepers conferences. In addition to music lyrics and IMAG (Image Magnification), Fresh Air Media used videos to introduce themes and reinforce the speakers’ messages.
The Promise Keepers does not align itself with any particular Evangelical association or denomination. In fact, it focuses on the need for a more ecumenical acceptance of all men regardless of their faith traditions. Some of the most conservative Protestants have refused to support them based on their avowed inclusivity, which as previously noted, is only an avowed inclusivity. The worship style and the choice of
speakers for the conferences indicate a much more narrow representation of the spectrum of faith expression.
The founder Bill McCartney and several other leaders of the organization come from the Vineyard churches, a Pentecostal/Charismatic association of churches. The Vineyard church movement began in 1974 by Kenn Gulliksen, a former pastor at Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California. Calvary Church was founded by Chuck Smith and “hippie‐turnedevangelist” Lonnie Frisbee (Chrasta 2000). The efforts of Smith and Frisbee to reach out to the “hippie” community started what some have labeled the “Jesus Movement.” From this movement sprang the Vineyard churches, an association of churches that includes McCartney’s church, the Boulder Vineyard Church.
Fresh Air Media Productions began in 1980 and is best known as the production company responsible for the Billy Graham crusades held throughout the world and often televised internationally. Greg Flessing, CEO of Fresh Air, agreed to take on the Promise Keepers conferences which at their height were held in 22 stadiums in one year. Each event was videotaped and the entire event was projected on screens throughout the stadium.
The early events in the mid‐1990s were produced using Chyron character generators. Chyrons are used by television broadcast companies to overlay graphics on live video, as in sporting events when the score and other information is produced and updated on the television screen on top of the actual video of the event. (see Figure 3)
The Chyron generators produced high quality graphics, giving Promise Keepers events a very professional look. The problem with this technology is its highly linear nature. Designed for sporting events and tightly scripted live broadcasts, where it is known well in advance what would happen next, each screen is represented by a sequential number. If the operators know what is happening at each point of a service and what is to come next, the work is relatively easy. What happens in a worship setting such as a Promise Keepers event, however, is that music leaders often change the order of songs or the verse to be sung next, requiring a director to know or to look up the number of the next screen to appear.
Fresh Air Media Production technicians found that event attendees would make their way to the production booth and ask the technical crew questions about graphics and video production. These technicians knew that if they could produce a software solution to this problem, they would have a market for it. Over the next year Fresh Air Media Productions developed a “non‐linear worship presentation software program,” an alternative to Microsoft’s PowerPoint, a linear presentation software product with the same limitations as the Chyron’s. PowerPoint is designed to move from screen one to screen two unless all the screen numbers have been memorized and can be input rapidly. Fresh Air Media’s new program utilized a new feature implemented in Microsoft’s Windows operating system, which allowed a computer to utilize multiple screens.
The software created by Fresh Air Media and named Prologue, used two screens – one seen only by the operator of the computer and another that displayed the actual output to the screen. It allowed the operator to move easily from verse to verse in a song in a nonlinear fashion. The software was tested and perfected by using it at Promise Keepers events and then sold at the events for $99. The potential market for the product was huge: At the height of the Promise Keepers events over one million men attended, representing tens of thousands of churches.
As Fresh Air Media Productions continued to update the software, its name was changed to Sunday Plus. By 2002 there were six or seven staff dedicated to the development, customer support and product design of Sunday Plus; in order to take the next step, a new round of investment was necessary. Greg Flessing, CEO of Fresh Air Media, decided it would be better to allow this portion of his company to become independent. In June 2003 this became a reality as Grassroots software was incorporated and Lou Douros named CEO.
Grassroots focused on smaller churches with an average of 100‐150 in attendance as its primary market. The company offered the ability to install the software on as many computers as a church would like, recognizing the fact that many different people work to put a service together.
Grassroots continues to use its software at Promise Keepers events, mindful of the significant marketing opportunity. Not only does Grassroots have an audience that actually experiences the use of this software, customers can attest that the software has been tested and perfected at these events.
The Promise Keepers are an important part of the rise of media ministry. Its development of the non‐linear presentation software and the distribution of this have spread media ministry at a critical moment in the development of this form of worship expression. However, the male‐exclusive setting of Promise Keepers reinforces the masculine domain of this technology.
Anthropologist Ulf Mellström studied Malaysian auto mechanics and how they created a masculine domain around their mastery and control of auto technologies. Mellström writes:
It is clear that many men in this study create truly gendered spaces through their interaction and relationships with machines. These homosocial practices continuously exclude women and perpetuate highly gendered spheres where they form communities based on an embodied relationship of their machines.4
4 Ulf Mellstrom, Masculinity, Power and Technology: A Malaysian Ethnography (Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2003), 192.
As the men who returned from the male‐exclusive setting of Promise Keepers bring with them the new technology of worship presentation software they develop a gendered space that excludes women. It is not that women lack technological competence; it is that men are creating gendered spheres that exclude women. Promise Keepers constructs this gender‐exclusive sphere via its mission to renew spirituality in men. In effect, women feel excluded from the realm of technology.
We turn now to an Evangelical church’s adoption of this technology and its creation of a specific design process for the development of worship media.
Ginghamsburg Church may not have been the first church to adopt these worship technologies, but they were the most prolific in promoting the technology to others. The church has offered conferences in which they teach others both the use of the technology in worship and their worship design process. They credit their success to both their adoption of these technologies and their process of designing worship. The story of Ginghamsburg reflects a familiar story in Evangelical Christianity. It has the key elements found in many
of these stories: a charismatic leader and a dramatic, rapid, against‐all‐odds scenario for growth.
The church was declining for as long as anyone could remember and by the mid‐1970s only 20 people attended services there. The people of Ginghamsburg were proud of their service in raising and training pastors, but they seriously considered closing the church’s doors until a pastor named Jim Morreli was appointed there. He grew the church to 80 people in his 3‐4 years and by the time he left, he was employed as full‐time pastor at Ginghamsburg. Michael Slaughter, a graduate of Asbury Theological Seminary, who had only worked as a Youth Pastor before this assignment, was then hired as the next full‐time pastor in 1979. The focus of the church at that time was on the youth and Michael Slaughter brought skills in that ministry area. In 1981, Michael Nightlen was hired as a youth pastor to assist at the church, and the youth program grew dramatically under his leadership. The youth brought their parents to worship and before long a new space had to be built for worship. In 1984 the Discipleship Center was built behind the original church building to provide space for the growing congregation.
Before long the church began offering multiple services, each of which drew “standing room only” crowds. In the latter half of the 1980s each of the services was geared to a different demographic. One was more traditional while one was geared toward twenty‐somethings. There was some shifting in service style, but eventually the church moved toward one form of service offered at multiple times. During this time the congregation grew mostly through the youth and children’s programs. The congregation decided to build a new building, and a site was chosen a few miles away in Tipp City, allowing for expansion and plenty of parking.
The new worship space is 56,000 sq. ft. and cost $5.6 million to build. It was completed in 1994 with the first service held on Christmas Eve. Ironically, the space was not designed to use a projector; this was an addition added late in the building stage. This is evident in skylights in the sanctuary that needed to be permanently covered to decrease natural light and allow the screen to be brighter.
Another late addition to the building construction was a media room to house the projector and other media equipment. At first this was to be on the balcony level but was moved one level higher to a storage space, allowing more room for people to sit in the balcony. This removed the video technicians from the midst of the congregants.
The projector was purchased as a reject from Bill Gates in 1994 and was so large that a crane was needed to lower it into place. It was designed to be used in an airconditioned room, as it was prone to becoming very hot. They tried to use fans to cool the projector but this caused dust to be blown onto the lens, cutting the lifespan of the bulbs. The projector is a 2,500‐lumen projector then valued at $65,000. The church, however, purchased the projector for less than $50,000.
As the congregation moved into the new building Michael Slaughter was developing a team of individuals to help design worship each week – The Design Team. Slaughter gathered together a large team, nearly a dozen people, mostly senior staff at the church. This group became an unwieldy group to manage. Slaughter put his Administrative Assistant, Debra Welder, in charge of the Design Team. Welder was far more than an administrative assistant; over the years, Welder became a trusted part of the inner circle called the Lead Team that provided much of the managerial and organizational direction of Ginghamsburg. In 1995 church attendance was averaging about 1,000 people per weekend.
During the first year of its use in worship, the video projector was basically used to project song lyrics (which were white text on a black background), and IMAG.
The Design Team was needed because the use of the technology required a new level of coordination. To integrate technology into worship required planning and a group to ensure that the visual media and the message for the day coincided. During May 2004, I was allowed access to the entire worship planning process at Ginghamsburg. For three weeks I was included in all the gatherings that produced the services for the week. The following is a detailed description of the methodology used to produce a worship service at Ginghamsburg (Fenimore 2009).
Planning sessions begin with the Lead Pastor, Michael Slaughter, presenting to the team the “seed idea” that will become the service. What I discovered is that often the day before the team gathers, Michael Slaughter and Kim Miller, the Creative Director, meet and begin to work on the sermon idea. They do some of the brainstorming in advance so that the team has something more substantive with which to work. This doesn’t seem to be a formal structure but it occurs frequently.
The first gathering of the team usually occurs on Wednesday morning. While I was there the team consisted of: Lead Pastor, Creative Director, Senior Media Producer, Graphics Producer and Band Leader. The process always began with a discussion of the previous week’s worship services. The discussion was mostly concerned with technical issues and issues that concerned the flow of the service (how the message was presented and received).
Then attention was turned to the coming service. Michael Slaughter (or the preacher for that week) lead a discussion of the theme for the message. The scripture was read and an outline of the sermon and the main points was presented. There was never much discussion about the content of the sermon. Slaughter seemed to be seeking feedback that confirmed his direction and I never witnessed anything other than positive reinforcement. Slaughter’s presentation of the material would take quite some time, often longer than the actual sermon.
Discussion was then opened to the group to brainstorm ways to connect songs, graphics and videos with the message. This was a true, open process that allowed people to share ideas and have them discarded or embraced as potential elements of the service. All the media (visual and auditory) were to be illustrative of the message idea presented.
At some point in the conversation, usually after several hours, Kim Miller, Creative Director, would write on the whiteboard the following: “Series,” “Word,” “Felt Need,” “Desired Outcome,” “Theme,” and “Metaphor/Look.” Each of these headings was carefully filled out. The Series referred to the particular ongoing sermon series. This was something new to Ginghamsburg. During 2003‐2004, the team had moved toward a series of worship services tied together with the same look and a common overarching theme.
The next task was for Kim Miller to decide which songs would be used for the weekend. By this time a number of suggestions had been made and the group (or just Kim Miller and the Band Leader) would make the final decision. Also a layout of the service was produced so that it was clear where all the different elements discussed would be. The group would then break up and continue with their individual tasks. The Media Producer began to work on any video shoots needed, the graphic designer began work on graphics for the service including what will be considered the “main graphic” which is the graphic used multiple times on the screen and on the print materials. This usually includes the Theme phrase as well. The Band Leader starts rehearsals with the music chosen and may need to call in other musicians depending on the selections.
Micro Team Meeting
Between the meetings Kim Miller worked with each member of the group. She considers her role to be a translator of the lesson Michael Slaughter wants to communicate and they, in turn, work to translate that to the congregation. As Creative Director, Kim Miller dominates the process because the team never regroups as a whole to discuss a change of direction or clarity on the specific elements.
The only other subsequent gathering is a small one, which has a very defined purpose. The Micro Team gathers on Friday and includes the Lead Pastor, Senior Media Producer and Graphic Artist. The purpose of this gathering is to hear a more detailed outline of the sermon the Lead Pastor has finished by this time and then to determine what graphic elements will be used to illustrate the sermon. Some graphics have been prepared at this point and those are shown to see if they are acceptable to the Lead Pastor. This is a much briefer meeting than the Design Team meeting and is focused on illustrating the message with graphic elements.
The media producers are very busy often very late into Friday night preparing the elements required. They collaborate only rarely, focusing instead on their individual tasks at hand. There are usually one or two videos every weekend that can each take 15‐20 hours to produce and last only a few minutes in length. There are 40‐50 slides used each week during a service and dozens more that may have been produced but go unused. Each slide contains lyrics to a song, words of a scripture, a picture used in the sermon, or anything else that might be projected for a given service.
On Saturday afternoon, approximately two hours before the service begins, there is a gathering of the media producers, Lead Pastor and Technical Director (who will run the technical crews all weekend) for a Run‐Through. For this meeting they gather in an office around a computer and view the slides prepared the day before. Michael Slaughter will let the Technical Director know when slides should be projected on the screen by providing some cues.
Following the Run‐Through there is a one‐hour rehearsal so the musicians can warm up; this is also the chance for the sound and video technical crews to walk through the service.
After the second Saturday evening service a large group gathers that includes all Design Team members, the Sound Engineer and several technicians, including the Technical Director. The meeting is designed to elicit feedback about any problems that have surfaced. Although much of the discussion is centered on technical or “flow” issues, I did experience one meeting in which Michael Slaughter expressed his feelings that the sermon did not work well. He opened the door for criticism and several people offered some suggestions for what might work better. The sermon was modified the next day in response to the concerns first raised by Slaughter. The process ends on Wednesday as the Design Team gathers once again to reflect on the service of the previous weekend.
The process of constructing the worship service needs careful attention. Media ministry, as we have seen in the case of Ginghamsburg Church is not about a particular technology (artifact) as it is a series of technologies that form a sociotechnical system. This sociotechnical system produces the media that is used in the worship service. The gender politics of this media is rooted in this sociotechnical system. Deborah Johnson who has written about feminist sociotechnical systems writes:
My analysis has indicated that we will not find artifacts that alone determine feminist social relations, but we will find artifacts that help to constitute (or get in the way of constituting) feminist sociotechnical systems. In other words, artifacts can constitute feminist social relations in combination with the other components of a sociotechnical system. Most important my analysis shows the importance of artifacts and the built world in constituting gender‐equitable relations. Thus, artifacts and the built environment must be part of the feminist agenda because they make feminist goals harder or easier to achieve.5
5 Deborah Johnson, “Sorting Out the Question of Feminist Technology,” in Feminist Technology, ed. Linda Layne, Sharra Vostral and Kate Boyer (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2010), 34.
In order for Ginghamsburg’s process to be a feminist sociotechnical system there must be intentionality in the process and the design of media. The responsibilities Kim Miller as Creative Director takes on is that of ensuring just that. She plays an integral role in the sociotechnical system. She alone is the one person that oversees this process at each crucial step. Without her the design process would be fragmented and lack consistency.
Miller has shared that she personally ensures that there is gender and racial inclusivity throughout the design process. This is accomplished by viewing every graphic and video projected on the screen and visually inspecting it to ensure that it reflects the values they hold for inclusivity. This intentionality is what Johnson refers to as the “feminist agenda” although Miller would never view it in these terms.
But this raises a deeper question, “Can someone who does not claim to be a feminist promote or encourage a ‘feminist agenda’?” I believe that this is possible. The key is language. The ideals of a “feminist agenda” may be more widely held and affirmed than the phrase “feminist agenda.” Miller is part of growing change within Evangelical Christianity. This change in some segments of Evangelicals reflects an acknowledgement of the increased role of female leadership in the society and the church. These societal changes in gender roles have led to renegotiations of authority within the structure of the church, some have defined this as soft‐patriarchy (Wilcox 2004). The label “feminist” still represents a more liberal agenda than that endorsed by Evangelical Christianity; however, the ideals of inclusivity and equality are growing stronger.
So we return to the original question “Are Worship Technologies Gendered?“ I believe that they are indeed gendered. But they don’t have to be. In other words there is not enough evidence to point to essentialism – or inherent gender traits “built‐into” the technologies. That would really move us in a direction of technological determinism that I cannot affirm. Rather the “arrangement” (Winner 1980) of technologies and who makes that arrangement has a major impact on the gendering of the technologies.
Media ministry needs to be viewed as a sociotechnical system. By removing the focus on any one person or individual technology we can begin to see how gender politics operate. Two factors are vitally important to this: who is constructing the media and what process is used to construct it. Although there are women who are employed in the field of media ministry, the field is dominated by men (Fenimore 2006). The quote from the blog of Technologies for Worship Magazine in which “Steve” welcomes women to join the tech team needs to move one step further. Active recruitment of women is needed, rather than simply a passive acceptance of their presence. Women need to have a significant role in the creation of worship media to have an impact on the gender politics of this sociotechnical system.
However, the inclusion of women in the construction process is not the only change needed. A process of the development of this media needs to seek to mitigate gender politics intentionally. In the case of Ginghamsburg it is the intentionality of the process and more importantly the intentionality of the Creative Director, Kim Miller, which produces more gender‐inclusive visual media.
These two steps: recruiting women and developing an intentionally gender-inclusive process are important steps to changing media ministry. Worship technologies are still perceived as a male domain or “Boy’s Toys.” What is clear is that they don’t have to be.
Caro, Robert. The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. New York: Vintage, 1975.
Chrasta, Michael J. “The Religious Roots of the Promise Keepers.” In The Promise Keepers: Essays on Masculinity and Christianity, ed. Dane S. Claussen, 99‐119. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2000.
Fenimore, James. “High‐Tech Worship: Digital Display Technologies and Protestant Liturgical Practice in the U.S.” PhD diss., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 2009.
—.”High‐Tech Worship: Gender Politics and the Appropriation of Multimedia Technology for Christian Worship.” In Gender and Technology, ed. Deborah Johnson, Mary Frank Fox and Susan Rosser, 87‐101. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2006.
Johnson, Deborah. “Sorting out the Question of Feminist Technology.” In Feminist Technology, edited by Linda Layne, Vostral, Sharra and Boyer, Kate, 21‐58. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 2010.
Kahn, F. J. “Projection Display Technology and Product Trends.” IS&T/SPIE Conference 3634 (1999).
Mellstrom, Ulf. Masculinity, Power and Technology: A Malaysian Ethnography. Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited 2003.
Wajcman, Judy. Feminism Confronts Technology. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991.
Wilcox, W. Bradford. Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.
Winner, Langdon. Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977.
—.”Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus 109 (1980): 121‐36.
—.”Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology.” Science, Technology & Human Values 18, no. 3 (1993): 362‐79.
—.The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.