Thursday
Jun102004
The church doesn't need advertising, it needs witnessing
Thursday, June 10, 2004 at 11:28AM
Letter to Garrison Keillor, and his response, found through Randall Friesen:
Dear Garrison, As a Methodist to a Lutheran, I have a pressing question. I work in church communications and one of the things I'm helping folks do is the incorporation of multimedia and digital storytelling into their worship services. Mass communication has changed from oral to written to digital and I'm trying to teach my folks how to do all three. Of course, traditional folks don't care to have a bunch of electronic gadgetry on their holy ground. Any suggestions on how to bridge the gap? Billy Dardanelle, Arkansas Billy, I have no idea what digital storytelling is ---- do you mean holding up fingers to indicate numbers? Or simply words on a screen? How this fits into the worship service I can't imagine and am not sure I want to find out. There is nothing like sitting and listening to someone with a message in their heart. That isn't old-fashioned, it's just common sense. If the Lord has spoken to you, if Scripture has spoken to you, then you ought to be able to tell the rest of us. Multimedia is for advertising. The church doesn't need advertising, it needs witnessing, and that's ordinary people saying what's in their hearts. Just like I did right now.
Reader Comments (8)
For me I love a good story that's told by someone in my presence more than any form of advertising or technological communication. But the story has to be authentic, sincerely told and with a good purpose.
Garrison doesn't get out much. But he is a good storyteller; one of the best. Visuals (digital or otherwise), when combined with a story told in a compelling way can't be beat. I think what Garrison has a problem with is overblown, MTV style video.
I disagree with you Brian only on one point. A great story told without visuals is better than with visuals because the story can stand on its own and the release of your imagination is better touched by the story itself.
Well, if by story-telling we are reffering to sermons - I'd say we've missed the boat - sermons are usually lectures, not story-telling. So we might be talking about apples and oranges here. Lectures are better with visuals - no question (that's not just my opinion - the statistics of what and how people remember prove it) However, if we're talking story telling, our generation has learned to see stories being told on the screen - and it's become a powerful mode of not just telling stories, but shaping worldviews - It seems to me that sometimes we Christians fight for something or against it just because we have a point to prove or want our preference to be the catch of the day. Having said that, I love hearing a good story told by a good story teller. However, good stories told by lecturers often make for a bad combination. I think what the church needs is for Christians to become all things and use "all things" to reach all people. And stop arguing about what I think or you think it's best in order to communicate. We need to stop thinking with a one size fits all approach - just because I like something better it doesn't mean it's better - my neighbour my not even listen if I use the method that speaks best to me - so is the method the most important thing, or is it my neighbour? Having said all that, I still think we're talking apples and oranges are we talking church services & preaching? Or are we talking every day conversations? In which case the initial argument doesn't apply (people don't carry around projectors with them / although some still got the good old tract...)
Maybe this is way off - but on the overblown thing...why do Christians have such a hang up with things being done well or even "BIG" - Pretty soon we're going to start criticizing Jesus because he did too many miracles or the size of them. Every day, heal a bunch of people, feed thousands, calm storms, what kind of ministry was that - how are we supposed to measure up? Are are we supposed to do what he did? Was there a purpose to them besides showing that he was the "son of God" - or could it be that if you're given the opportunity & resources and you can do something big for God, maybe you should! Couldn't Hollywood use a big impact by the Christian community in it? Instead of the low budget, corny Christian movies that we try to show our friends who cringe through them. Or is Hollywood not part of the world we've been called to go to and influence for Christ?
Yeah, I figured this would get a reaction. I like what he says. No amount of packaging or advertising will make up for a lack of substance. Authenticity trumps advertising these days. But if you have substance, it sure doesn't hurt to communicate it well.
I doubt that Jesus spoke from behind a lecturn reading a prepared script. I think that he spoke using life as a huge visual aid. How much of his teaching was done using parables, or pointing at birds and rocks and flowers and pharisees? I know they're not "inspired", but I like the way the Matthew videos (the visual bible?) portray Jesus' sermon on the mount. I think it would be amazing to see how Jesus would teach today... what tools and object lessons he would use.
The trouble with drama is that it's artificial. The audience can confuse the message with the medium and reject a good message delivered by a bad actor. I suspect our stories are most effective when they're authentic; delivered during daily life, not from a lectern, platform or stage.