The Use of Visual Aids in Preaching

Status
Not open for further replies.
C. M. Sheffield

C. M. Sheffield

Puritan Board Graduate
I was asked by gentleman if I would ever show a picture or video as an illustration in delivering a sermon. The short answer is no. I never have and don't believe I ever would. That said, I was hoping some of you here could provide some thoughtful considerations on why this practice would be unbiblical, unhelpful, and/or harmful.
 
I'm firmly against the use of visual aids in preaching.

The Directory of Public Worship warns against overmuch use of gestures and vocal flourishes when it counsels that preaching should be done:

5. Gravely, as becometh the word of God; shunning all such gesture, voice, and expressions, as may occasion the corruptions of men to despise him and his ministry.

The bottom line is that faith coming by hearing is the paradigm for preaching. Using visual aids is a departure from that paradigm.
 
The "lively" preaching should stand on its own without necessitating images (Heidelberg 98, particularly referring to images of deity).

With that said, I don't see how using maps when appropriate would be forbidden.
 
"He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."
~Matt. 18:2-5

Sounds like a visual aid to me.
 
So you put our Lord's object lesson in the same category as showing a clip from the film Rocky to illustrate spiritual warfare?
618ef4b9-5c1c-4157-8aae-247d9c9f790e.gif
 
Well James, my OP specifically asked about the use of projected images and movie clips as a part of sermon delivery. Your statement seemed to affirm their use by appealing to the Lord's object lesson. I am not sure what conclusion I was supposed draw from your remarks if you think showing a movie clip is problematic. If you do find it problematic, why? If not, what limiting principle would you use in determining their use?
 
Last edited:
A projected image of a map, as has already been mentioned, or other appropriately low key presentation of a location or concept. A projection or hand out of a list of books for further study. All for charities sake and nothing for shock value or things that show you are relevant.
 
A local church puts up the bible verses and sermon outline on a large screen as the pastor is preaching. As I age I find this helpful.
 
Last edited:
Chris,
I heard Robert Godfrey speak on this issue in the DVD series for the 500th celebration of the Reformation. In his lecture, he made a fantastic historical case that the visual was a clear departure from both the early church and Scripture (visual replacing the hearing) and that the primary thrust of the Reformation was one of worship, specifically the re-focus on hearing and the removal of the visual. It is available on YouTube or Ligonier's website.......
 
Southern Presbyterian said:
"He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."
~Matt. 18:2-5

Sounds like a visual aid to me.
Click to expand...
In your opinion was this a teaching moment or preaching moment?
 
earl40 said:
In your opinion was this a teaching moment or preaching moment?
Click to expand...

There was apparently a largish group about, therefore I would say preaching. But I must qualify that in my mind there is a very fine line of differentiation between preaching and teaching. Matthew 4:23 - "Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people."
 
I am not sure how to apply the RPW as much of this stuff is recent. If someone wanted to be a stickler than microphones and amplifiers would fall under a same prohibition. I think signing or captioning for the deaf could be allowed but I find most visual effects and projectors sensational and unnecessary.
 
Jesus was not above taking a moment in time, and making it a teaching moment; or using a "visual aid" depending on the circumstance. I think it is legitimate to distinguish what he might have done differently in preaching from some other situation.

At some point, a visual aid ceases to be a minor (if helpful) illustration of the point, and becomes a point unto itself. I think the downside of any "video clip" makes it unsuitable for a sermon. To me, it fails the RPW test (authorization), it stokes the (wrong) visual tendencies of our idol-factory hearts, and it warps the verbal, speech-auditory function of preaching (as the term itself indicates). There's the pure preaching of the Word; and then there's hybridization.

I want to be careful. I don't myself think that making the speaker bigger on a screen, or screens generally are positive. But I won't object to a verse being posted up, especially if it saves people flipping through their Bibles to find it as the sermon continues--either way there's a distracting element. I suppose some preachers (depending on the audience size) may be able to use some gesture, or perhaps even something small in the hand for illustrative purposes.

But pantomime? Lying on the floor? Gymnastics? All that is theater, not rhetoric. Do the people need a map? Why not put a drawing on a bulletin insert? Not flashy, not a "shared experience." Not everyone will need or profit from it the same.

Jesus conjured mental ideas in people's minds (perhaps) based on their experience of the world. He preached out of doors, and may have pointed to creation. But he didn't build models, and he didn't have his disciples act our scenes of good or bad deeds. He could have, and he didn't; and there's no indication Paul or any other apostle was so inclined either.

"The medium is the message," means that we should identify (and carefully define) and protect preaching as the divinely approved instrument for gathering and edifying the church.
 
Many years ago, I attended a church where the preacher used an overhead projector (remember those?) to put up Scripture verses, maps, and other things while he preached. His visuals were always to the point and enhanced his sermons. I found it very helpful, especially as I was a new believer at the time (1980s).
 
C. M. Sheffield said:
I was asked by gentleman if I would ever show a picture or video as an illustration in delivering a sermon. The short answer is no. I never have and don't believe I ever would. That said, I was hoping some of you here could provide some thoughtful considerations on why this practice would be unbiblical, unhelpful, and/or harmful.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that any time visuals or theatrics were used, they were commanded, eg. The temple decorations, the design of the ark, the Tabernacle (Bezalel and Oholiab were given the Spirit for their visual work), the illustrations by the prophets (eg. Ezekiel’s diorama, being tied in his house, Hosea and his wife, Isaiah walking naked).

The only visuals which Scripture now commends are baptism and the Lord’s Table, but Paul doesn’t seem to think anything further than Spirit-empowered preaching is necessary or useful.

Secondarily, people don’t separate the medium from the message, like Bruce says. Visuals and music do far more to shape your impression than you think. They are developed to grab attention and stimulate the mind in a certain way, and not necessarily spiritually. That may truly interfere with the ability to process message content.

At the least, I’d imagine nothing would ever be so helpful a visual as to see Christ Himself with our own eyes, especially as He appears in Revelation, but God doesn’t think it wise for this time. If that wouldn’t serve us, how will anything else?
 
Perhaps we should all go to church blindfolded. ;)

Seriously, though, if we can't distinguish between images of Christ or "saints"-- images that some pretend to worship Christ through-- and simple objective lesson visuals, maps, etc., I think we're simply blowing things out of proportion. Should we ever liken the kingdom of heaven to something we have seen? Wheat and tares? Mustard seeds? Leaven? When preaching on Matt. 22:10 would it be improper to take a nickel our of our pocket to demonstrate something about paying taxes? Can we point to the inscription "THE UNKNOWN GOD"?

If we classify all these things as the "images" forbidden in our confessions, we make scripture contradict itself.
 
I can certainly understand why there is a reluctance to affirm the use of visual aides. There are plenty of examples where they are distracting from the point of exegeting and applying a passage rather than aiding in the audience understanding it. However, I would respectfully disagree with the idea of stating visuals are wrong in and of themselves simply because they can be misused. That approach strikes me as slightly legalistic when pastors should instead focus on how best to communicate Christ and His gospel from the text. Obviously, this CAN be done without visual aides. But, if an aid helps a pastor to better communicate, and (it seems to me from the above) doesn't violate any clear teaching of scripture, how can that be wrong?

I understand the hesitance with visual aids. The Babylon Bee has an excellent article on how a pastor stayed up late Sat. PM to find the perfect scripture passage from which to exegate the Braveheart clip he'd planned his sermon around. (http://babylonbee.com/news/pastor-finds-perfect-bible-passage-illustrate-movie-clip/). I found the article amusing because of how unfortunately close it is to much of what passes for preaching today. However, the problem isn't specifically using a visual aid, but the lack of focus on the text in that approach. If the above pastor's elder board were to step in and ban the use of movie clips, that pastor probably wouldn't start preaching wonderful Christ-exhaulting sermons all of a sudden, but would instead find a way to introduce equally irrelevant illustrations, jokes and stories that would adhere to the rule, but wouldn't significantly improve his preaching. The one Joel Osteen sermon I watched (for educational purposes only) was entirely vocal, but had little (if anything) to say to the benefit of God's people.

One instance of "visuals" come to my mind from Ezekiel. Ezekiel build a model of Jerusalem and various siegeworks laid up against it and laid on his side for extended periods to present a visual of God's coming judgment against the city. I realize this isn't preaching, but I do think the pattern in scripture includes instances where God directs communication that is highly visual in nature.

-Paul
 
I generally have PowerPoint slides that go along with my sermon, but I mainly use them for Scripture references. I started doing this because people were asking me if I could give them an outline that contained the Scripture references. I found it easier to make one short PowerPoint presentation than printing and distributing 100 paper outlines.
 
It may be appropriate for teaching (outside of worship) to include any number of visual aids or mixed-media presentations. These can be very effective in all kinds of settings.

Preaching, on the other hand, is an act of worship. As such, it is rigidly governed by the RPW. Visual aids, being an altogether different media or mode of communication than speech, cannot be said to be a circumstance of preaching; any more than dance could be said to be a circumstance of singing.
 
Parakaleo said:
It may be appropriate for teaching (outside of worship) to include any number of visual aids or mixed-media presentations. These can be very effective in all kinds of settings.

Preaching, on the other hand, is an act of worship. As such, it is rigidly governed by the RPW. Visual aids, being an altogether different media or mode of communication than speech, cannot be said to be a circumstance of preaching; any more than dance could be said to be a circumstance of singing.
Click to expand...

For the sake of clarity, would you say that the use of a map or the projection of scripture on a screen are prohibited?
 
timfost said:
For the sake of clarity, would you say that the use of a map or the projection of scripture on a screen are prohibited?
Click to expand...

For the sake of clarity, yes. I dare not authorize anything in worship that cannot be proven to be God's own desire; mere circumstances excepted.
 
Parakaleo said:
For the sake of clarity, yes. I dare not authorize anything in worship that cannot be proven to be God's own desire; mere circumstances excepted.
Click to expand...

Should congregants use their Bibles? Should the preacher tell the congregants to turn to such and such a place in their Bibles?
 
timfost said:
Perhaps we should all go to church blindfolded. ;)

Seriously, though, if we can't distinguish between images of Christ or "saints"-- images that some pretend to worship Christ through-- and simple objective lesson visuals, maps, etc., I think we're simply blowing things out of proportion. Should we ever liken the kingdom of heaven to something we have seen? Wheat and tares? Mustard seeds? Leaven? When preaching on Matt. 22:10 would it be improper to take a nickel our of our pocket to demonstrate something about paying taxes? Can we point to the inscription "THE UNKNOWN GOD"?

If we classify all these things as the "images" forbidden in our confessions, we make scripture contradict itself.
Click to expand...

I personally hope you’ll stay out of churches where you can point to the inscription, “To the unknown God” :)

In a number of those Jesus did give an illustration and it is effective, but where does he have the object itself in hand while preaching? As for the coin, it was used in dialogue when He was approached with a trap question, but not in a message.

I think a practical concern is the burden a pastor has to bear in coming up with visuals. They are useful in right context, but still highly subjective. And if it’s not well done, people will remember how cheesy or awkward the visual was, and not how good the content of the sermon was. Seems like it’d be a little much for a pastor to sweat it out in laboring over the Word and then having to find interesting pictures or clips on top of it.

And having done movie clips for messages for a youth pastor (yes, I own my guilt), it’s tedious. That time—both in finding the clips and editing them for presentation—would have been better spent on things we know God has promised to bless.
 
I don't see the point or need for using visual tools in worship. Does it go against the RPW? I don't know if we can go that far with this. I think that if everyone decided it did go against the RPW then we would have to reconsider pastors using microphones etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Reformed Covenanter
  • Locked
The use of creeds in Reformed worship
2
Replies
34
Views
10K
richardnz
R
G
  • Locked
Use of WCF Shorter Catechism in Worship
Replies
2
Views
2K
gracewaves
G
R
  • Locked
Centrality of the Gospel or of preaching?
Replies
17
Views
2K
JohnV
JohnV
Jon Lake
  • Locked
The use of Saturday Evening Worship.
Replies
18
Views
3K
Jon Lake
Jon Lake
M
  • Locked
R. J. BRECKINRIDGE: Presbyterians PROTEST AGAINST THE USE OF INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN..
Replies
5
Views
2K
OPC'n
OPC'n
Back
Top