the 9 marksarticlesaudiopublicationreviewsreading listchurch search
about usdonateeventseventscontact ussite maphome

« When Seeing Replaces Believing | Main | To Godly Seminary Professors Everywhere »

June 11, 2008

Video killed the...

by Michael Mckinley

With all due respect and awe, I'm not sure I'm feeling you here, MED. Since you're the one with all the fancy initials after your name, I assume this is a "me problem". So lay some knowledge on me (or have your lackey/goon Leeman do it for you).

What's the connection between wanting to see God (but not being able to as a result of the Fall) and video in church? If God made us to be visual people and to long for a visual experience, wouldn't we want to leverage that for the gospel? I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying that I'm not following you.

I personally wouldn't use video in my service for a few reasons:

1. I've never seen it really work. Usually videos boil down to:

a) "Look, we're relevant! We watch the same mind-numbing garbage you do!"

b) "Look, the culture around us is more spiritual than you think! The lady on Desperate Housewives has spiritual questions!" Don Carson skewers this kind of naive embrace of cultural deism in his "Christ and Culture Revisited". It makes foolish Christians feel less intimidated by making the secular culture seem less secular, but it can also serve to confuse them by conflating mindless pablum with Christian truth.

c) "Look, this is taking up time and space in the service! Words are mentioned here that will also be used at another point in the service or sermon. Please do not notice that little to no actual light is being shed on the subject." Of course many of the guys on the Reformed conference circuit do something like this with their humorous digressions ("mental smoke breaks" they used to call them before cigarettes were a top-tier sin).

2. Like you said Mark, it works against the kind of church culture we're trying to build. It takes some practice and discipline to listen to the Word. It's a muscle well worth building. When we import video, I think we take away some of the sense that what we're doing when we gather as a church isn't exactly like the other 6.75 days of the week.

3. I'm just a little crusty about it. It's just not the kind of thing that I like. There's a little bit of "If Bill Hybels is fer it, I'm agin'it" in me. I can admit that.

Bring the funk, Leeman.






Comments

I wonder how much of this, if we were soul searchingly honest, comes down to.
"I wouldn't like a service that has video, therefore its probably not prudent." OR

The truth is that video is like anything else, it can be done right or wrong, sermons can be done right or wrong, music can be done right or wrong...it just require discernment.

Are you limiting this discussion to use of video in connection with a sermon? It seemed that Dever's earlier post displayed a discomfort with use of video for any purpose. Could anyone enlighten me?

Sorry guys. Totally not with the discussion, but I must ask...what do you think?
http://www.founders.org/blog/2008/06/sbc-indianapolis-3-resolution-passes.html
Greg

Folks, call me a pessimist and a cynic, but in 32 years of churchgoing I have not once seen a piece of video in church that I thought was either better replaced by an illustration in a sermon, or positively detracted from what was going on; either because it was distracting, or time-consuming, or tedious, or embarrassing, or all four.

The single exception to this is carefully edited videos from missionaries in the field.

And I like videos, movies, DVDs and so on. Maybe this is part of the problem! We are all fairly discerning critics out there in congregation-land.

Maybe an updated version of the regulative principle is required—if it's not commanded in the Bible, and if what's going on in the secular world will make all your best efforts look cheesy by comparison, DON'T DO IT.

I'll second Gordon's statements. Distracting is the word I'd use to describe video usage.

We have become a culture unable to communicate effectively with words, both in the delivering and in the receiving of such.

Because of this, there seems to be an assumption that God's Word also suffers from this problem and as such, we must supplement God's Word with our own words, filtered through video.

It is a sufficiency issue. God's word is not sufficient unto salvation, so lets see a clip from Braveheart or Sex in the City.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

The 9Marks blog aims to stimulate a helpful conversation among pastors, church leaders, and Christians about life together in the local church.

 


Search this Blog

 

What is 9Marks?

 

Subscribe to Receive:


About Comments: We ask for all public comments to be made prayerfully and with the respect you would offer to people face to face. Since these comments are public, we would be grateful if you would include your first name, last name, and church affiliation unless your question or comment is of a sensitive nature. We will not respond to most comments.

» Get RSS Feed

Authors

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives