http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2007/003/1.28.html
Here are some of my thoughts with regard to the use (and perhaps over-use) of video tech in preaching:
First, I think part of the reason video has taken off is because, in general, we are poor story-tellers. It's easier for us to put the DVD in and press "play" than to shape our story-telling in a way that is compelling for our audience to hear. I was thinking about this as I watched football this past Sunday afternoon, wondering where all the good play-by-play announcers went. The days of Pat Summerall, Keith Jackson, Dick Enberg, and Vin Scully are over, it seems. Those guys could really turn a phrase and describe the action in a concrete and colorful way, and you could listen to them for hours.
We need to work on our attention to detail in our story-telling, being more concrete in our descriptions and particular when it comes to our rhythm and pacing. I would rather listen to a good story-teller than watch a film clip in a sermon (and I'm a cinema-lover!)
Second, practicality shapes what we do to a large degree. This past Sunday, we had a long-time church member give a testimony via video. The reason she didn't do it live is because we have 6 services that meet 4 different hours (2 hours have 2 simultaneous services in different parts of the building) -- and logistics demanded that we have the testimony on the video screen. But something got lost, at least for me. There's a big difference between seeing someone stand up before God's community and nervously talk about how God is leading them rather seeing a professionally-done video with edits and different camera angles.
If Marshall McLuhan is right, and our methods carry with them implicit messages, this is definitely a conversation worth having.
11 comments:
If that Proctor guy could get better at telling stories maybe he wouldn't have to use video as much.
It's funny that you say that, Andy, because as I wrote these thoughts I was thinking about Matt's ability to describe a film clip (to tell its story) in such a descriptive way that showing the clip is unnecessary. It's really the best of both worlds -- you make the pop culture reference (which connects with your audience) but the video doesn't overwhelm the point you're trying to make.
First, let me acknowledge that this is a good and worthy discussion based on an excellent article that really does present varying perspectives.
For me, the discussion is broader than the use of technology to the use of imagery in our preaching. The visual culture in which we live does not demand of us the use of technology (not that I am opposed to doing so), but demands of us imagery. Such imagery can be of the video variety, but it can also be photography, objects, interactive elements, word pictures, stories, etc. Such preaching is in no way novel... see Ezekiel and Jesus!
One point of the article that I would critique was the statement made by Hipps, "You cannot depict 'the righteousness of Christ' or 'grace by faith' visually. These are abstract ideas." To which I would say, "Really!" The lowering of the gavel... the guilty made not guilty... the freeing of a slave trader... these seem pretty visual to me. What may seem abstract to us, upon further review and sound exegetical work, will turn out to be more concrete than meets the eye.
That's probably why Hipps will only preach for 15 minutes at a time.
Damien, you've hit on a valuable point -- the necessity of concrete-ness of our preaching (in whatever form that takes). Instead of leaving concepts like righteousness and holiness in the "heavenlies," we must use creative means to ground those lofty concepts into our physical reality. Otherwise, our preaching becomes vague and clarity suffers.
I would add Paul to your list of Jesus and Ezekiel -- we focus on Paul's great doctrinal paragraphs, like Rom 3:21-26 and Eph 2:1-10, but forget that they were written for very practical reasons.
Good point on the Pauline texts... even the words chosen to describe rich theological concepts conjure concrete images... reconciliation, justification, and my favorite... redemption.
The Hebrew language is a pictoral language. There are many word pictures that some translations take away in order to give us the interpretation. For example, anger in Hebrew is literally 'to have a long nose' because when you are angry with someone you look down on them. Maybe that is why images are not too easy to grasp from certain passages.
How do we go about 'redeeming' the art of storytelling? Images, concreteness, practice, listening to good story-tellers, and I would add never missing the bigger themes underneath our stories. Garrison Keiler is great because he hits big themes underneath the funny parts of his stories. He hits themes of love, life-changing decision, faithfulness, etc. When our stories are given with a big theme underneath, with a theme of redemption, hope, faith, love, Jesus, our stories then connect. i dont know. just a few thoughts.
Hmm i think theres nothing wrong with using technology. I just think as preachers we should be very careful that we dont "cater" to the worlds every desire and changing whim.
In my personal experience of watching preachers and observing churches. I have oftentimes seen preachers become more concerned with the way they present their material than what is actually in the matieral. I think oftentimes preachers might forget that their fancy speaking and clever deliveries dont save people or make them grow closer to God. Thats Gods job.
Sometimes we might be so concerned with how accepted our preaching is that we miss the hole point of preaching in the first place. We are to teach the undiluted word of God.
Another point is that if someone was turely seeking after God and wanting to learn would they need a nice preped sermon full of visuals to come closer to God? The answer is NO! We oftentimes cater our sermons to people who are going to forget about them as soon as they walk out the door.
You should cater your speeches to the ones that are listening not those that are not.
I dont know Greek or Hebrew and im no biblical scholar, but all through the bible i see God more interested in the faithful few than the lukewarm masses. "Then how are people to ever leave their lukewarmness?" you might ask. Nothing you can say will bring someone out of that no matter how fancy your sermon is or how great your delivery. Only the Holy Spirit can achieve that.
When i was in high school i saw examples of this every single year i went on youth trips. The lukewarm people in our youth group would come on the trip and be rededicated, only to fall back into the lukewarm lifestyle a week later. The fancy preaching was there, it converted them for a week. But the spirit of God wasnt, and it converts for a lifetime.
Like i said im not a biblical scholar or theologian. If i said something that was wrong please correct me.
Shane,
I appreciate your heart for truth and substance in preaching. I agree that our preaching should not be done to 'cater' or please anyone other than God. I think for the purpose of our discussion here, we are speaking of using technology/storytelling in a way that helps real Biblical truth stay with people for a long time.
As I look back on Matt Proctor's chapel sermon last Tuesday, the story he told of his son wanting to wear the same clothes as him. "Same, same." Then he equated that with Jesus becoming flesh so that he can say, "Same, same" to our wounds and sufferings. I am reminded of the Biblical truth of God taking on human flesh. I hope that this illustration [use of storytelling] will stick with me for a long time.
I agree that our preaching is done so that the truth of God will be made known. I also believe that God grows those who follow Him. I would differ with you on the issue of preaching to the lukewarm masses. God's word doesnt return void [Isaiah 55:11], even when given to those who may not respond in the way we would want or desire. So I guess what I am saying is that our preaching needs to be done to please God, and not man. I hope that helps/clarifies somethings; like you, I am just a learner.
Yes that helps.
I am not against preaching to the lukewarm masses. And as i look back at what i wrote i am somewhat in disagreement with myself no more commenting on blogs at 2 am in the morning.
Shane and Dave,
I would also add that Christ Himself "preached" (through the pen of John) to the "lukewarm masses" at Laodicea (Rev 3:14ff).
Dave -- I think you're right on with your reply. The issue is how best to be faithful to the Word and our commitment to its exposition in the midst of God's people. Expository preaching and incarnational preaching, in my opinion, go hand-in-hand.
Therefore, the question is: (1) how best to be faithful to a Word whose (as Damien and Dave both remind us) spirituality is essentially concrete, not abstract? And (2), how to preach to people who honestly learn best through concrete example and imagery? Both the Scripture and our audience demand concrete imagery, though story-telling, technology, and an occasion carved-up piece of fruit (inside joke with Damien).
If I may shape this conversation a bit for those that have commented and those that should: what have been your experiences with technology been like -- what was helpful and what pitfalls should be avoided?
Actually, I've changed my mind. Let's continue to talk about the need for concrete imagery in preaching here, and the practicality of doing that in the next post.
Post a Comment