We Respectfully Disagree With John Piper …

Posted by Scott McClellan on July 17th, 2009 at 7:11 am

… on at least one topic: the use of video and drama on a Sunday morning.

On Wednesday, John Piper posted a piece on his site titled “What are your thoughts on drama and movie clips in church services?” In just over 300 words, Piper voices a lot of opinions about the importance of preaching in the Church and the threat posed by drama and video. Let me encourage you to take a moment and read it. Go ahead … I’ll wait.

Hey! Welcome back. Just to get on the record, I disagree with Piper. Before we get into why, a few qualifiers:

  • I have a lot of respect for John Piper as a church leader
  • He is far more educated and experienced than I am
  • As such, Piper could preach, teach, lead, and write circles around me
  • A billion (rough estimate) more people care about his opinions than care about mine
  • Like Piper, I think preaching is important
  • Piper says he believes in the power of drama, but he doesn’t want it contaminating his Sunday morning preaching.

All that said, I disagree with Piper. After reading his piece, I have a few questions (all of which derive from a single statement).

Does preaching save?
Piper says the use of video and drama as preaching supplements will backfire on churches. “It’s going to communicate that preaching is weak, preaching doesn’t save, preaching doesn’t hold, but entertainment does.” Piper doesn’t explicitly say preaching saves, but I can extrapolate from his statement that he believes it does. I’m not aware of the scriptural basis for that idea, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. However, I am aware of the scriptural basis for truths such as the fact that God saves and that we’re saved by grace through faith. Along those lines, the I believe most proponents of the use of drama and video as minor supplements to preaching view all of these media as legitimate means of communicating a saving message. I haven’t heard any of these proponents suggest that one medium or another is a saving medium.

Does the presence of video or drama equal weak preaching?
Piper says, “I think the use of video and drama largely is a token of unbelief in the power of preaching.” And returning to a statement I quoted earlier, he believes the use of video and drama communicate that preaching is weak. Personally, I don’t see the correlation (and please forgive me if I drew improper conclusions about Piper’s point). In my experience, weak preaching does not imply the use of video or drama illustrations and strong preaching does not imply the absence of video or drama illustrations. Furthermore, I’ve never felt as though a 2-5 minute video or drama detracts from the power/importance of a 40-60 minute sermon.

Is a video always entertainment? Is a sermon never entertainment?
Let’s return to Piper’s statement: “It’s going to communicate that preaching is weak, preaching doesn’t save, preaching doesn’t hold, but entertainment does.” Here Piper distinguishes preaching from video/drama by classifying video and drama as entertainment. I’m not sure this distinction is fair.

Is a funny one-minute video that introduces a topic considered entertainment? If so, what about a joke or humorous illustration told by the preacher as part of the sermon? Is a dramatic Scripture reading on video considered entertainment? If so, is a dramatic reading as part of what Piper calls a “spirit-anointed exposition of the Scripture” considered entertainment? If a follower of Christ shares a powerful testimony of the work of God in their life via video, is that considered entertainment? What if the preacher invites the individual up on stage to share the testimony live?

To me, it’s an oversimplification to lump every sermon illustration video and drama into the “entertainment” category as the “Thriller” video. (Perhaps Piper hasn’t been exposed to the right videos, who knows.) As we’ve discussed several times in the pages of COLLIDE, engagement does not equal entertainment, and church leaders would do well to prayerfully and thoughtfully consider the difference.

Honestly, there’s more to say but I’d like to end there and turn it over to you.

What is your reaction to Piper’s position?

This entry was posted on Friday, July 17th, 2009 at 7:11 am and is filed under Visual. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

50 Responses to “We Respectfully Disagree With John Piper …”

YES! Thank you for this post. I agree wholeheartedly. Well done.

posted at 1:24 pm on July 17th, 2009 by Brewer

As always, Scott, your words are thoughtful, your logic is sound and your heart on this is clear. I very much appreciate your willingness to publicly, respectfully, politely disagree with a man that is by all accounts a very respected church leader and gifted preacher and teacher of scriptures. You do it with class and tact.

And I completely agree with your position. Well said. I dare not call into question Piper's humility, but I picked up on the same "vibe" regarding his view that preaching saves. I know, it is more a corollary to what he actually said, but I have seen and I know many pastors who do seem to carry a slight air about their preaching. It is the power of the Holy Spirit to save and I think we are foolish to place more emphasis on one form of communication of the message over any other form. God will use what He will. When He will. Where He will. How He will. I do believe in the power of preaching, but no more than the power of any other means of communication.

Thanks for sharing and thanks for the opportunity to discuss. Keep up the excellent work.

posted at 1:39 pm on July 17th, 2009 by WKevinG

I saw this the day it came out through Twitter… I don't know Mr. Piper, but based on his comments early in the article he is close to retirement. In, and of itself, this means nothing – I believe age is just a number – however, this sounds like a "parting shot" in his career as a preacher.

I believe that ANYTHING that reeks of entertainment during worship is inappropriate and that can come from media, singing, playing, preaching, drama and tons of other stuff that we as humans can dream up. I also take offense at his emphasis on preaching – he seems to elevate preaching to it's own special place. Preaching and Teaching are important and easily recognized in God's word as such. However, one of my issues with most preaching is the lack of INTERACTION – it's obvious (at least to me) that the 1st Century Church was extremely interactive – most preaching is a dialogue.

Used with appropriately media can be extremely effective!

posted at 1:40 pm on July 17th, 2009 by BSPollard

I'm so glad that Collide wants to discuss questions like these. Both Scott McClellan and John Piper make good points. Scott approaches the issue philosophically while Piper may have been describing the current practices across the body of Christ today. I've seen a LOT of weak preaching covered over with media. And I've seen preachers who apparently think they are supposed to entertain the crowd rather than preach God's word.

The church has come late to the media party, and so much of what we, the church, produce is mediocre at best. It is shallow and a waste of time–but then, that's also true of a lot of preaching as well.

For me the real issues are 1). Spiritual depth in either expression and 2), Quality of craft in both.

Peace!

posted at 1:47 pm on July 17th, 2009 by Ray Hollenbach

Harry Potter is the devil!!!!! :)

posted at 1:59 pm on July 17th, 2009 by SkylerRayTaylor

BSPollard said "I believe that ANYTHING that reeks of entertainment during worship is inappropriate".
Mr. Piper also wasn't keen on the idea of entertaining.

Just a couple questions regarding entertainment…
I define 'entertainment' as this: The ability to hold one's attention.
Is it wrong to hold one's attention?
Is it wrong to be captivating?
Is it wrong to use whatever tools necessary (outside of sin) to communicate the love of Christ?

Of course I'm bias… I have been positively affected in my own life by films, commercials, and yes, even a music video or two… When I first saw 'Secret Ambition' (Michael W. Smith music video from the 80s), the idea that Jesus was a real person who walked this earth came alive to me in ways it hadn't before.
Which begs another questions… Did Jesus have a mullet?

Seriously, I have great respect for John Piper and if he happens to read this, I hope he views our discussion of this topic as honorable and Christ-like.

One thing I know is I don't know everything. Lord give us wisdom.

posted at 2:24 pm on July 17th, 2009 by Rob Thomas

Let me just say that I am a Piper fan. I also respectfully disagree.
To use drama or video in place of preparing a good sermon is unacceptable. To use it to enhance a sermon is applaudable.
I think one only needs to watch the reaction to a viewing on Sunday morning of "That's My King" to see that God can use whatever he chooses to preach and reach. Yes, this video is of a real sermon but it is enhanced to hold our attention as we listen to the preacher's words.
A world of diverse learners may well need some diverse teaching.
God deserves excellence and we should always be striving for that in any drama, song or video used to bring a message. Keeping up with the times is important but honoring God in our endeavors should be first.
Just a thought here but using video and drama is really no different than using a song and every church does that. If someone is singing who is so distracting from the message of the song because they only think they can sing but should really only sing in the privacy of a sound proof room, I am not blessed by it.
I'd rather see a moving drama or video and skip the agony.
I don't think we are going to limit the Holy Spirit's ability but we need to be responsible in our use.

posted at 2:30 pm on July 17th, 2009 by Donnagray

Couple of scriptures that came to mind.

1 Cor. 1:21
“21 For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe.”

Romans 10:14-15
“14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? [14] 15 and how shall they preach, except they be sent? even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things!”

posted at 8:30 am on July 17th, 2009 by Greg

I find your observation embedded in this question apt, but I think you prove too much: "If so, what about a joke or humorous illustration told by the preacher as part of the sermon? Is a dramatic Scripture reading on video considered entertainment?"

I lament the adaptation of vaudevillian technique into preaching, whether or not video is employed. Sermons saturated with illustrations and humor often, quite often, detract from the raw power of the Word.

Wearing too much make-up (up to and including clown make-up) obscures one's natural beauty and/or renders one's sincerity suspect.

Psalm 119:103 declares: "How sweet are Your words to my taste, Sweeter than honey to my mouth!" Yet, like Mary Poppins, we insist on adding a "spoonful of sugar" to help the medicine go down ("in the most delightful way"). How ever will God's people develop a deep taste for God's Word he insist on adding flavors and toppings? (What percentage of Starbucks customers would enjoy a cup of black, strong, unsweetened coffee?)

I also lament the generally naive approach we take to co-opting the world's modes of entertainment. We invoke (and reinforce) either (a) a pathetic appetite for the ephemeral junk food typically found on the 24/7 media buffet or (b) a deep-seated cynicism, selectivity and/or and disdain hard-wired into most of us after years of exposure to media's blandishments. We offer salt water to those who've just come ashore from a long spell adrift at sea, some delirious from having imbibed and others, still possessed of their faculties, wanting nothing more than fresh water.

We lay the Gospel alongside the Shamwow.

posted at 2:31 pm on July 17th, 2009 by matthuggins

"We lay the Gospel alongside the Shamwow."

I totally agree with Scott on this and he said it with more grace and gentleness than I can muster at the moment (not becuase of this topic, I'm just busy at the moment) but that Shamwow quote is one of the funniest, most entertaining, spiritually inspired sentances I've heard in a long time. Preach it.

And to digress . . . http://rhettandlink.com/videos/shamwow#

You do know Rhett and Link don't you?

Bill Buchanan

posted at 3:10 pm on July 17th, 2009 by cog2803

"We lay the Gospel alongside the Shamwow."

I totally agree with Scott on this and he said it with more grace and gentleness than I can muster at the moment (not becuase of this topic, I'm just busy at the moment) but that Shamwow quote is one of the funniest, most entertaining, spiritually inspired sentances I've heard in a long time. Preach it.

And to digress . . . http://rhettandlink.com/videos/shamwow#

You do know Rhett and Link don't you?

Bill Buchanan

posted at 3:10 pm on July 17th, 2009 by cog2803

"We lay the Gospel alongside the Shamwow."

I totally agree with Scott on this and he said it with more grace and gentleness than I can muster at the moment (not becuase of this topic, I'm just busy at the moment) but that Shamwow quote is one of the funniest, most entertaining, spiritually inspired sentances I've heard in a long time. Preach it.

And to digress . . . http://rhettandlink.com/videos/shamwow#

You do know Rhett and Link don't you?

Bill Buchanan

posted at 3:10 pm on July 17th, 2009 by cog2803

Thanks for the thoughts, Matt. Is it fair to classify a joke or humorous illustration as vaudevillian? I think there's a difference between telling one joke in a 40-minute sermon and standing at the pulpit dressed as a clown.

posted at 3:14 pm on July 17th, 2009 by ScottMcClellan

Powerful passages, Greg. Thanks for sharing them. To me, both passages reinforce the important role of the preacher — someone willing to publicly proclaim the saving message. The questions remains whether or not Paul meant that such preaching could only be done through spoken words and not moving images and spoken words transmitted via video.

posted at 3:21 pm on July 17th, 2009 by ScottMcClellan

I, like Scott, greatly respect Piper and acknowledge he knows way more than I do about the Bible. I also greatly enjoy many of his teachings. But I also disagree with him on this subject. I'd like to make a few points in addition to Scott:

-Can preaching only happen in the pulpit?-
I do believe in the power of preaching and that people need to hear the Gospel clearly laid out. But does it have to always be spoken from a preacher on a pulpit? I’ve seen videos and sermon illustrations that lay out the Gospel beautifully and in visually powerful ways. Also, contrary to Piper’s statement, preaching doesn't save, the Holy Spirit does. While I know Piper believe this, he needs to be careful on how much emphasis he places on preaching’s power as the sole medium of sharing the Gospel of Christ.

-Aren't sermon illustrations today just modern parables?-
Jesus almost always told stories/parables when teaching to his followers – the prodigal son, the sower and the seeds, the talents, etc. He even would use the things around him as illustrations, engaging the eyes and not only the ears – "Consider the lilies of the field" (Matt 6:28). So what is wrong with visually telling stories that help support a sermon? Seeing a video of someone's life who's been transformed by the Gospel is powerful. A great example of this is I Am Second. As long as it's pointing back to Jesus, I don't see how this is wrong.

I do, however, AGREE with Piper on the fact that media/drama should not be used as a crutch for week teachers/preachers. It should never be used as a cop out for bad teaching, lack of gifting, or poor planning. Those that rely on media to preach their sermon for them need to reevaluate their occupation. I also believe that just because you can use media doesn't mean you should or have to.

I also agree with Piper when he says, “Let's have the arts in our churches, but don't try to squash it all into Sunday morning.” I think the church should have even more art in it, but that doesn’t mean we have to try to put in all in a Sunday service. Hold special events throughout the week to showcase the arts and invite the community. Sometimes a painting can communicate the beauty of the Gospel better than a 30 min sermon, though I doubt Piper agree with me on that point.

Finally, if a preacher’s goal is to entertain his audience, then something isn't right. But if their goal is to engage the audience with the life-changing power of the Gospel, then by all means do what it takes to get that message across. We are a media driven generation. Our living rooms are no longer centered around the fireplace, but the TV. The screen is a powerful medium that can be used in wonderful ways to tell the story of the Gospel and to aid in a sermon. It can also be abused by those who rely on it to preach the sermon for them. We must continue to preach the Gospel, for how else are people going to hear it? But I don’t believe preaching simple means just words from the pulpit.

And I'm done…

posted at 3:29 pm on July 17th, 2009 by danieldarnell

We do allow technique to smother content. Preaching can too often be hard to distinguish from motivational speaking. Too much preaching seems more concerned with tickling men's ears than kindling their souls. I have heard many, MANY sermons where illustrations and anecdotes and jokes crowded out substantive engagement with God's Word, where the preacher's "performance" was the central focus. I left entertained, but undernourished.

I find this kind of risk far more palpable among those who tend to preach thematically rather than with an expository emphasis. There the temptation is to try to cram Scripture into human categories of the age or the moment. It is one thing to begin with "What do the Scriptures have to say?" and another to start with "What do the Scriptures have to say about…?"

posted at 3:32 pm on July 17th, 2009 by matthuggins

My humble opinion is that we haven't yet clarified "preaching" and "media" in reference to our discussion (at least, I haven't been able to nor have I read on such clarification). Is preaching still preaching once it is captured in a video and broadcasted? Are dramas still dramas if they are articulated and narrated from a pulpit? I think we (or at least, I) need more clarification. What does a deaf person do? What does a blind person do?

I like that 1 Corinthians 1:21 and Romans 10:14-15 were mentioned. These are passages that we should consider and understand. By "preaching" do we mean "audible proclamation only" or is it something less specific? I honestly don't know at the moment but I do lean towards Piper's view – even being one working in the realm of multimedia!

Lastly, I thought it was funny that Scott McClellan delivered his point through written word and John Piper delivered his point through multimedia! Isn't that ironic and funny? :)

posted at 3:41 pm on July 17th, 2009 by Jacob Abshire

I think Piper stand on his grounds due to MANY WEAK teachers/pastors that Don't depend in the WORD any longer but on skits…. drama… web designs…. etc.

They are GREAT in using all those things BUT WEAK in Preaching the Truth! It's happening more often.. people are replacing the Pulpit with Videos.

I think that's why he's not BIG on it.

posted at 3:44 pm on July 17th, 2009 by GUEST

I hear what you're saying, Matt, but aren't you talking about the overuse (or abuse) of illustrative or multimedia elements?

I find that a dash of salt brings out the flavor of the food but a whole cup of salt makes me choke. That doesn't mean I'm going to banish salt from my meals, it means that I'm going to be mindful of the quantity I use.

posted at 3:45 pm on July 17th, 2009 by ScottMcClellan

What if a preacher were to use a video illustration of Piper's previous messages within their own sermon?
How would that be classed?

posted at 3:51 pm on July 17th, 2009 by Simon

Thanks, Bill. Little did I know I had a Rhett-and-Link-song-about-Shamwow-shaped-hole in my life.

Another passage of Scripture that speaks to how we transmit Gospel truth:

1 Corinthians 2:1-5 (New King James Version)

1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

While I do no believe we are to seek to be humanly unpersuasive in presenting Scripture, I think we should think hard about whether our presentational techniques tend toward the "wisdom of men" or the "power of God." I believe the media itself, even if intended only as the conduit of the message, can project a sense of earthly power. That doesn't mean, to my thinking, that we lay aside all manner of modern media. It means, though, that we are not entitled to assume that it doesn't matter, that it is neutral, that it is necessarily good. It means we have to catch ourselves when we begin to measure the effectiveness of our communication by the world's terms.

posted at 3:52 pm on July 17th, 2009 by matthuggins

[...] Magazine: “We Respectfully Disagree With John Piper …“ (No Love Yet)  Loading [...]

posted at 10:01 am on July 17th, 2009 by You WHAT?!?!?! | Christ and Pop Culture

Perhaps I am hung up on overuse. That may well lead to the same practical conclusions, as overuse is no small phenomenon. I'll comment later on the peculiar prominence of "hearing" throughout Scriptures, time permitting.

posted at 4:05 pm on July 17th, 2009 by matthuggins

I believe that would be called a catch 22.

posted at 4:07 pm on July 17th, 2009 by danieldarnell

"Aren't sermon illustrations today just modern parables?"

Yes and no. The following aspect of Christ's parables cannot be said to be true of our human illustrations:

Luke 8:9-10 (New King James Version)

9 Then His disciples asked Him, saying, “What does this parable mean?”
10 And He said, “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that

‘ Seeing they may not see,
And hearing they may not understand.’

posted at 4:11 pm on July 17th, 2009 by matthuggins

"It means, though, that we are not entitled to assume that it doesn't matter, that it is neutral, that it is necessarily good. It means we have to catch ourselves when we begin to measure the effectiveness of our communication by the world's terms."
Well said, Matt.

posted at 4:11 pm on July 17th, 2009 by ScottMcClellan

I tend to agree with Piper on this. Probably though, drama can be used along with preaching. It's not my personal preference. I'm probably jaded by my experiences with drama in worship where it really over took the preaching.

Practically preaching as Piper does may be helpful for teaching the congregation to study without having an element of drama or entertainment.

Another angle. I've wondered about this question time to time. Drama is nothing new. It's not as if Jesus and the Apostles did not have access to drama/plays. They could have easily included this type of activity to aid in biblical teaching. So I've wondered – Why didn't they?

posted at 4:11 pm on July 17th, 2009 by Mark | hereiblog

Here's what the Bible says about your questions:

Does preaching save? YES. cf. Rom 10 — preaching is the means of declaring the Gospel. Everyone should consider this far more deeply than we do.

posted at 4:16 pm on July 17th, 2009 by Frank Turk

Does the presence of video or drama equal weak preaching? YES. again, cf. Rom 10, but also consider all the parables of Jesus, or the Sermon on the Mount, or any of the preaching in Acts: Trying to make something which is not explicitly preaching the Gospel into ameans of the Gospel when that was never God's intention weakens the actual means of Grace God has ordained.____Is a video always entertainment? A video of a sermon can be entertainment

posted at 4:18 pm on July 17th, 2009 by Frank Turk

Great post.

I think balance is needed. Great preaching is necessary. Good quality drama can also be very thought provoking and helpful.

Doing either in a mediocre fashion is not good at all though!

posted at 5:17 pm on July 17th, 2009 by Peter_P

It seems to me that there is a problem with Piper's terminology.

I respect him greatly, but I'm not sure he's fully thought this through. Video doesn't equal entertainment any more than public speaking equals preaching. The real question one ought to be asking, no matter what mediums are used, is this: "is the gospel being proclaimed?"

I think we need to worry less about the FORM of communication, and instead focus on the CONTENT of our communication. Just the way I see it.

posted at 5:36 pm on July 17th, 2009 by Justin Snyder

Respect, education, experience, abilities to preach, to teach, to lead, to write and to form well liked opinions apart from the Holy Spirit will, sadly, just like a good drama, video or artistic element, only generate "entertainment".

posted at 5:50 pm on July 17th, 2009 by Nathan_V

"Preaching" doesn't save anybody. Now, the Holy Spirit saves, but absent that, preaching is just more blah, blah, blah of people who like to hear themselves talk.

The same can be said of Drama or Video. Absent the Holy Spirit it's just more diaphanous (wow, haven't used that word in a long time) window dressing masquerading as instruction, exhortation, affirmation and worship.

Time for a Pop Quiz!
Question #1 – Quote a line from five different movies or plays
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Question #2 – Quote a lyric from five different songs
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Bonus/Extra Credit section!!!

Question #3 – Quote a line from five different sermons
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
NOTE: If you've ever stepped foot on a Seminary or Christian school as anything more than a visitor you are not eligible for the bonus points. You don't represent the 99% (I just made that number up but it's got to be huge) of the people who sit at the foot of a trusted shepherd. First rule of communication. Know your audience. Second rule of communication. You are not your audience. Otherwise, you would be in the chair and someone else would be speaking. Third rule of communication. Since you are not and can not be your audience use your insight, wisdom and research to understand the what, the why and the how your audience receives, processes and accepts information. The fourth rule of communication (which applies especially so to preachers) is shed your own biases, likes, dislikes, cultural and social to increase the chance that you might actually invite the Holy Spirit in to do his Holy Ghostly thing . . .

The third paragraph of Pipers comments back on his blog site addressing this issue are as sound as a rock.

The fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs of Pipers comments leave me flat footed with my jaw agape. I can't wrap my head around his distinction that it is only the words from the mouth of a preacher standing before a group of people that counts. From a lesser person I would quickly assume that this is ego and pride talking (hhmmm, talking, funny how that word just got used). From Piper I will take him at his word and acknowledge along with him that he is free to his position and that I am equally free on my position and that thankfully, "nobody is going to go to hell because of this . . ." (though I don't really understand his coda at the end of "in the short run".)

Way to stir it up Scott. I hope your happy now :)

posted at 5:56 pm on July 17th, 2009 by cog2803

I find your observation embedded in this question apt, but I think you prove too much: "If so, what about a joke or humorous illustration told by the preacher as part of the sermon? Is a dramatic Scripture reading on video considered entertainment?"

I lament the adaptation of vaudevillian technique into preaching, whether or not video is employed. Sermons saturated with illustrations and humor often, quite often, detract from the raw power of the Word.

Wearing too much make-up (up to and including clown make-up) obscures one's natural beauty and/or renders one's sincerity suspect.

Psalm 119:103 declares: "How sweet are Your words to my taste, Sweeter than honey to my mouth!" Yet, like Mary Poppins, we insist on adding a "spoonful of sugar" to help the medicine go down ("in the most delightful way"). How ever will God's people develop a deep taste for God's Word if we insist on adding flavors and toppings? (What percentage of Starbucks customers would enjoy a cup of black, strong, unsweetened coffee?)

I also lament the generally naive approach we take to co-opting the world's modes of entertainment. We invoke (and reinforce) either (a) a pathetic appetite for the ephemeral junk food typically found on the 24/7 media buffet or (b) a deep-seated cynicism, selectivity and/or and disdain hard-wired into most of us after years of exposure to media's blandishments. We offer salt water to those who've just come ashore from a long spell adrift at sea, some delirious from having imbibed and others, still possessed of their faculties, wanting nothing more than fresh water.

We lay the Gospel alongside the Shamwow.

posted at 2:31 pm on July 17th, 2009 by matthuggins

Everyone has an interpretation of what it means to be "biblical". Your view of what's "biblical" won't necessarily be my view of what's "biblical". I could site Romans 16 as a text that demands we give each other a "holy kiss". It's right there – in the Bible. And I could come across as extremely dogmatic if you don't give every "brother" a holy kiss this Sunday. Again, it's right there…. in the Bible.

In the same way, to strictly site Rom. 10 as proof of the superiority of the preached word (in this particular argument), is also to say that deaf people will never be saved (because they can't "hear"). That's in the same verse – "and how shall they hear without a preacher?" We all know how absurd that is, and we would probably all agree that there are many different ways that people will "hear" the Gospel.

Which is exactly the point.

There are various ways to "preach", just as there are various ways we "hear" the Gospel. To claim that using drama and video indicates weak preaching may or may not be true. It depends if the speaker is good, or not so good. It also depends on if he/she has been "sent" (again, citing Rom. 10). But to make blanket statements, then to try and back it up with Scripture, is short-sided and simplistic.

I do not agree with Piper's method in HIS church. But Piper isn't saying that churches shouldn't ever use drama or media in their unique settings. He's simply telling the reader why HE doesn't use these mediums in HIS unique church setting – specifically, in his weekend worship services. It seems to me that Piper bathes his comments in freedom and grace, then gives us his very strong opinion. Good for him.

And I completely disagree with him.

posted at 10:33 pm on July 17th, 2009 by Gary Molander

I agree with 25% of what Piper says. Much of the sermon illustration content out there right now probably can be categorized as "entertaining spice". But, I think Scott nails it on the head when he says, "If a follower of Christ shares a powerful testimony of the work of God in their life via video, is that considered entertainment?" Absolutely not. That's the story of God, and His story is the most powerful story. And God's story is better told by those involved than by a pastor.

Need an example? I've been real impressed with the work "Deidox" has been doing lately (http://www.deidox.com, or they're probably on WHM). I don't think even John Piper can argue that those types of true stories are simply "spice". He probably just doesn't know those types of sermon illustrations exist.

Piper probably just thinks most of the content out there is like what's on sermonspice (of which the top 10 are mostly comedy shorts), hence his "entertaining spice" comment. And if that's all he's familiar with then it makes sense why he would make this argument.

He's wrong, but it makes sense why he would make the argument.

posted at 1:07 am on July 18th, 2009 by Dan

If you are not aware of a passage that teaches the preaching of God's word is the mechanism by which people are saved, you ought to acquaint yourself with 1 Corinthians 1:17-27. Pay particular attention to verse 21, which states "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." The word for preaching in this verse [kerugma] means to herald as a public crier – or exactly the type of communication in which Dr. Piper participates and advocates.

To ask "Does preaching save?" does address the point. We know that Christ alone saves by faith alone through grace alone. The question should rather be "Is preaching God's chosen method?" That answer would be emphatically yes!

I think there is a place for video in ministry and use it myself. To set it along side Bible-preaching in the church serves only to distract and shift-focus. I'm with Piper 100% on this one.

posted at 12:17 am on July 19th, 2009 by Abounding Media

Oh I know the verse well.

The issue was pipers position that anything “but” preaching in a worship service indicated weakness and waters down the message and the use of it to compensates for lack of preperation and such.

Bad preaching stands on it’s own and doesn’t require drama or clips to make it bad. Likewise the use of it doesn’t prove bad preaching.

Piper is wrong.

posted at 6:28 pm on July 18th, 2009 by Bill Buchanan

To be honest, I have never seen drama/video + preaching done well. When I have seen it, I clinch my teeth because it distracts from the preaching and it seems as the though the preacher gets "off rhythm".

But, "faith come through hearing and hearing through the word of God". However that is heard, Holy Spirit can do His work. I personally would never use drama/video.

posted at 2:38 am on July 20th, 2009 by Joseph Louthan

Using video/entertainment in places during the service and/or message is only "preaching" by another means. It is much needed in today's culture.

posted at 11:30 am on July 20th, 2009 by Leo Gallant

[...] about media at the pulpit? Posted on July 20, 2009 by arcee32 This morning, I was reading a response to Piper’s thoughts on the use of drama and movie clips in [...]

posted at 6:40 am on July 20th, 2009 by What about media at the pulpit? « ThInc:Theology Incorporated

Scott, the preaching spoken of in Romans was not that of a preacher, per se… But of us Christians, and our responsibility to proclaim the Gospel.

posted at 7:12 pm on July 20th, 2009 by Douglas Tollett

Scott – you title this post beginning with "We", not "I". Are you saying Collide Magazine as an entity, or just for yourself personally. Just wondering….be careful to avoid alienating your subscribers.

posted at 8:52 pm on July 21st, 2009 by ChurchKreatives

The "We" in the title is the editorial we ("in which editorial columnists in newspapers and similar commentators in other media refer to themselves as we when giving their opinions" — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We). I express my opinion in the post and then end the post by asking for the opinions of others.

Hopefully I haven't alienated anyone by expressing and explaining an opinion, but these things happen.

posted at 9:46 pm on July 21st, 2009 by ScottMcClellan

As I come from a Wesleyan-Arminian rather than a Reformed tradition, this is by no means the first time I've disagreed with John Piper. And it's interesting (to me at least) that here, over a question of form and praxis, I have the same difficultly following his (theo?)logic as I do when it's a question of doctrine.

Let me state clearly that I believe in preaching, as a means of grace (sacrament) and as kerygma or proclamation. Lucas Cranach the Elder's Wittenberg altarpiece comes to mind: it depicts Luther at the pulpit, preaching up a storm, and between his position to the right of the frame, and the congregation, which is pictured to the left, is the mortified body of Christ on the cross, made present (the painting seems to indicate) through the preaching of the Word. The art of the high middle ages (pre-Reformation) fixates on the Eucharist as the primary (only?) mediation of the real presence of Christ, and so this painting is uniquely Protestant in nature – ah, I finally found it! (This is only the lower pane of a more elaborate work.)

Here's my point: there are two key "acts" of Christian worship, if you really want to boil it down, that form a common thread throughout the history of Christian liturgy: the Word (Sermon) and the Table (Sacrament). These are not opposed to one another but mutually reinforcing, thoroughly interdependent. And both (here I follow Wesley, good Anglo-catholic that he was) are *means of grace* – the word proclaimed and the sacrament offered, each, when received by an open and humble and longing heart, mediate the divine, transforming presence of Christ, who *alone* reconciles us to God.

The correction to the Catholic mistake is this: sacraments (Eucharist, Baptism) do not save us – only Jesus saves us. The sacraments make this salvation materially/physically present to us – they mediate. Hence they are called *means* of grace.

The correction to the Protestant mistake is this: sermons do not save us (and, in fact, neither does the Bible) – only Jesus, the Word (Logos) of God, saves us. The proclamation of scripture makes physically (the spoken voice is material reality; acoustical = physical) present to us the Gospel message, as the Bible reveals all truth necessary to salvation – in this sense, the Bible, and the sermon, both mediate. They, too, are *means* of grace.

Piper's mistake, it seems to me, is at least consistent with the tradition he comes out of: the elevation of the sermon to a level of primacy that it was never intended to hold; and this due to an elevation of the Bible to a status that it, as a text, was never intended to hold. Completely Divinely inspired? Yes indeed. Authoritative? Absolutely. But *salvific* (as Piper implies about preaching) in and of itself? No.

COLLIDE is all about media. We need to bear in mind that preaching is media. The sermon is a techne, a technology (and incidentally one that has only been dominant for about one-fourth of the history of the Christian Church). But the same is true of the Eucharist, Baptism, footwashing, and any number of other "everyday sacraments" through which God's presence and grace are mediated to us – they are technologies.

Now, on the one hand, I don't believe you can extrapolate the message from the media without affecting the message; changing the medium inevitably alters the message. On the other hand, when we confuse that which mediates (the vehicle) with that which is mediated (grace), we're guilty of idolatry.

Good dialogue here, Scott (and everybody) – thanks!

posted at 10:01 pm on July 21st, 2009 by Brannon Hancock

Epic comment. Thanks for laying out everything that way.

posted at 1:33 pm on July 22nd, 2009 by ScottMcClellan

"For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and a not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." 1 Cor. 1:17

As a C.D. for a church, i see (body wide) how the communication style of the message is being given far more attention than the actual message. In other words, we're wasting our lives if we're not preaching Christ. I'm a designer, but design is worthless if we're just crafting a better church consumer. People who don't know Christ don't need another "consumer experience", they need to turn that they might be saved. Preaching is confrontational, it's the appeal to turn. The appeal is made through preaching, it's personal and it's not going to come across the same way on twitter. There's no getting around that.

posted at 9:41 pm on July 23rd, 2009 by Damian

One of the greatest dramas that one can participate in is found in the Mass which is traditionally a full-contact, no holds barred, interactive event that is filled with drama, poignant moments of silence, movement, and explicit action that engages the congregation and the clergy in a worship experience that takes my breath away…and there are times that video and audio elements added at appropriate times can accomplish in a moments passing what would take me twenty minutes to get across in a homily and I would still have missed the minds of many.

Video technology elements are wonderful gift to be used as directed by the Spirit – not as though spilled by a bucket kicked over, but skillfully applied. Even those of us in the liturgical world can see that the spoken word is often unable to hold a candle to the drama of movement, color, textures and visual effects that work together to tell the story of the Good News of the Gospel that reconciles man to God through the one mediator between God and man — Christ Jesus… as it was in the beginning, is now and will be forever, world without end…Amen

posted at 12:18 am on July 24th, 2009 by Thomas Anderson, MSJ

I find that the argument is quite weak overall. To state that the scriptures do not reinforce that there were literal presentations of media in preaching is factual but that would be difficult to do the issue harnessing of electricity didn't even occur until well over a thousand years later, then we have the invention of the television, etc… However we do find the teachings of Jesus, whom I believe that we will agree was the greatest preacher ever, utilizing stories, illustrations, or even a word/concept being debated here, drama in the use of the parables. Form of media, if you missed it. It is nothing more than a story to help reinforce the point. If your drama or media overtakes your sermon then it wasn't through quite as well as it should have. Weak preaching can be countered by planning. My preaching professor's words ring true again and again. "What is the point?"
If it is not scriptural shame on you. If you think that God can't work through media, then you are limiting God, shame on you again.

My fear is that you will miss the upcoming generation if you don't find creative ways to reach them. Think and be creative. Paul tried to do whatever was necessary to win as many to Christ as possible. I think that call is upon all of us. Don't limit yourself.

posted at 2:26 am on July 24th, 2009 by Pastor_Bill

I'm so unbelievably tired of these fundamentalist Evangelical "hero" pastors take shots at everybody…

What gives them the "papal bull" authority to denigrate what others are doing?

Pipers comments were ignorant, uninformed, and sadly humorous. Preaching has been an entertaining artform for centuries…

posted at 1:47 pm on July 29th, 2009 by Mark

Church Media Group, Inc.