Keeping Preaching Pure

July 17, 2009 by

John Piper is someone I respect to an extraordinary degree. We might not agree on everything, but on those matters, if you want to be safe, you should defer to his point of view rather than mine. When it comes to theology and preaching, don’t mess with this guy. So it obviously interested me when he addressed using movie clips and non-speaking material in the context of preaching. Here’s the crux of his argument:

I think the use of video and drama largely is a token of unbelief in the power of preaching. And I think that, to the degree that pastors begin to supplement their preaching with this entertaining spice to help people stay with them and be moved and get helped, it’s going to backfire. It’s going to backfire.

So what say you, intrepid Church Marketing Sucks reader? Dare you step in the ring and go toe-to-toe with the hard-hitting (Christian) hedonist? Or do you buy his argument that we’re getting a little soft in our preaching with all this non-preaching bologna?

Post By:

Joshua Cody

Josh Cody served as our associate editor for several years before moving on to bigger things. Like Texas. These days he lives in Austin, Texas, with his wife, and you can find him online or on Twitter when he's not wrestling code.
Read more posts by | Want to write for us?

46 Responses to “Keeping Preaching Pure”

  • Greg Dungan
    July 17, 2009

    It has been my experience in life that preachers and surgeons have a few things in common. If you ask a surgeon how to fix a problem, you’ll usually be advised that only surgery will do the trick. It could be because he or she gets paid to operate and admitting that other approaches have merit could be bad for business. It could also be that he or she became a surgeon on the sincere belief that surgery is actually the best option. Either way, surgeons and preachers will nearly always stand vehemently behind their craft. So do actor/musicians, can you tell?

  • JimBo Stewart
    July 17, 2009

    I think like most things there is a balance. I think that many churches do rely more on their ability to wow you than the word of God. On the other hand, Jesus did some great miracles for the sake of getting his point across.
    You also have to consider that the most important thing someone can get from your church experience that you give them is the glory of God. If your media, marketing, or even preaching don’t point to and bring glory and honor to God then it is a waste.

  • Robin Curry
    July 17, 2009

    Piper is a powerful speaker and writer to be sure, but this is idiotic.
    I can just see him in Jesus’ day…”I think the use of the parable and the miracle is a token of unbelief in the power of preaching. Why, I went to hear a speaker a few days ago and and he used visual artwork in the sand to make a point about sin. We don’t need visual aids to communicate the danger of sin. It just communicates that the preaching is weak…”

  • Olon Hyde
    July 17, 2009

    I think I understand where John Piper is going with his point. I don’t think he said it in the best manner possible.
    I think he is pointing out the fact that too many preachers are using these visual aids as crutches. They don’t do their homework of digging into God’s Word and their message begins to reflect that. The fix is to get a really cool visual illustration. I agree with John Piper on this point.
    However, there are times when visual aids are very appropriate. I think perhaps John Piper has forgotten the linen belt God instructed the prophet Jeremiah to use. Or even better, imagine Jeremiah not going to the potter’s house to purchase a jar that he was supposed to smash as he delivered his message from God.
    Illustrations serve a powerful place in preaching as long as they are not used to replace actual study and preparation.

  • Danielle Hartland
    July 17, 2009

    I guess I’m not clear on why the “preaching of the Word” has been reduced to a man behind a podium on a Sunday morning.

  • Brian Lusky
    July 17, 2009

    …or why drama and visual art is less acceptable than musical artistry on Sundays.

  • dean craig
    July 17, 2009

    the problem i have here is that Piper seems to define preaching as only the spoken word. that’s not in the bible either.

  • Richard
    July 17, 2009

    I don’t think I agree with the phrase, “the power of preaching”. I wouldn’t say that preaching has any power beyond any other form of communication, but it’s the Word that is being preached (and ultimately the God who gives the Word) that has the power.
    Preaching is a single medium among many media. Each media has it’s own strengths and weaknesses with regards to what messages it can convey to a particular audience. I have confidence in the Word of God, empowered by the Holy Spirit, clearly communicated, no matter what the medium is.

  • Rich
    July 17, 2009

    I think the way you oriented this topic is correct. John Piper should not be messed with when it comes to preaching content. However, when it comes to style, one could certainly step up to Piper’s assumptions. No offense to Dr. Piper but his line of thinking here makes him sound a bit behind the curve…almost out of date (I am trying to be tactful and respectful without being offensive here). The confusing aspect to Pipers assertion is that he is a total supporter and advocate of a missions mindset. The essential task of a missionary is to relate the message of Jesus to the culture at hand. The American pop culture is so media sophisticated now that to present THE MESSAGE without a modern approach will in itself attenuate the responsiveness of the people. Not only will this be true of those outside but also inside the church. The churchgoers of today watch just as much TV and see just as many movies as anyone outside of the church. We all have essentially become acclimated to modern editing and the use of music to tell stories. (Even ESPN presents its already bigger than life stories with tons of editing and evocative music). In a sense our learning style has changed. We all have an individual learning orientation. However it is still filtered through a media presentation. When I watch old video from the fifties of kids in a classroom they all sit attentive and look at the teacher. This is essentially what Piper and most other pastors expect from today’s congregations. The problem is that our society has long ago moved past this type of method to disseminate information. Today we tell stories though pictures and music….not lecture. This society also values dialog rather than one person being the disseminator of truth. If you mix this all together what you get is something that looks far different than Pipers assumption of proper preaching. The Biblical directive for this topic is the parable of the wine skins. (Matt 9:17; Mk 2:22; Lk 5:37-39) Get a commentary and what you will find is that this is meant to teach that we need to present the Gospel in a way that is understandable tot he culture. Surface logic would tell you that we are doing something wrong with those inside the church…we can’t even keep our own kids in the church after they turn 18. The bigger problem is that we are not really following God’s lead…as it is His church and He surely wants it to grow in numbers and depth. If we were perceptive to His leading we would not have the decline in the church as we have seen for 50 years. One thing we could do immediately to remedy this problem is to love one another better than we currently do. John 13:35
    35By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
    If we followed those two steps we could then move on the the third which would be take some editing classes and re-connect with the artists of society. They will teach us two things 1. What the society is actually saying (in order for us to formulate a proper response). 2. How to tell a story that will connect with the world we want to reach. Style is incredibly important. Dr. Piper probably diminishes style because he is a Calvinist, and thus all we have to do is tell the world about Jesus and those who are predestined will respond. From a pragmatic perspective this theological assumption does not seem to be playing out too well. The world runs across our TV programs and hears the Gospel more than anywhere else on earth because of them. So simply preaching the Word does not seem to be enough. I think we need to demonstrate our love to the World so that they will know that we actually care about them.

  • Chris
    July 17, 2009

    As someone who uses media in church to help connect the meaning of the song with a visual image, I have to say I disagree with Piper’s comments.
    There is a book from 1941 called “Using Visual Aids in a Church” that addresses this specific topic fully. The book makes a statement that says “visual aids should not be used as a SUBSTITUTE for other methods” or for “entertainment purposes only” in church. This is what I hope Piper was trying to say, and I hope he will append his original blog if this is the case.
    Jesus used visual aids. He used mustard seeds because mustard grows wild all over Israel. God used fire to represent Himself. Moses used a stick that turned into a snake to demonstrate a point. God used the death of His Son as a visual representation of His love. Sure, God could have just used words, but people understand visuals. They can connect to a visual.
    Piper appears to be standing on the said of the old hard-line Christians who banned all icons, statues, pieces of art, and other forms of artistic expression from their church. Let’s hope he simply used the wrong words to express what he meant.

  • Michael Buckingham
    July 17, 2009

    And we continue to feel the effects of Gutenberg. If you look at history, you’ll see when we moved the word to the printing press things changed. Out with the old (visuals) in with then new (words)…but we don’t live in a Gutenberg world anymore and the right brain rules.
    Now that said I do think a call back to preaching as an art should be heard…but that doesn’t mean giving up visuals but embracing them along side words to build something even more powerful.

  • Brian Yamabe
    July 17, 2009

    @dean craig could you give an example in the Bible where preaching is something other than the spoken word?
    What I get from all these comments is that man has to add something to God’s word to make it effective. What you’re actually doing is taking focus away from Jesus Christ. You’re dramas and meaningful songs focus people on their experience and the production values of the media. God promises nothing in heartfelt drama. God promises salvation in the hearing of His word.

  • David Hamstra
    July 18, 2009

    What about the biblical prophets who used visual aids to present their messages? Ezekiel laid on one side for days on end, and built a miniature siege camp. Agabus tied up Paul. Are these not also valid methods for preachers?

  • Nelima
    July 18, 2009

    It would seem some commenters hear haven’t listened to what Piper said–he has no problem with drama, movie clips etc, just that he doesn’t want it in the sermon. He’s not that behind the curve.
    True, our learning methods have changed–but the power in God’s word faithfully preached remains the same. And let’s face it, some of the stuff we see in churches is plain cheesy…

  • Duncan Robinson
    July 18, 2009

    I tend to side here with JimBo on this, I fail to see how Jesus’ use of powerful storytelling and parables are any different.
    The use of Video’s and Pop culture today are just the equivalent form of contextualization for us now.
    Piper is awesome and has some useful insights. I think we fall into trouble where we assume to make the scripture fit our analogy rather than letting the words of God speak for them self.
    Often times we can be guilty of explaining everything sometimes passages are clear, and the words of God are just good enough. Balance, Preparation and Prayer for Gods Leading, seem to be the order of the day.

  • Ted
    July 19, 2009

    I’ve seen more effective ministry where those things were NOT present.
    Want to see how effective a minister/singer/musician/service is? Cut the electricity.

  • Aaron
    July 19, 2009

    Please read the entire transcript before bashing someone based on a single paragraph. These words can also be read if you follow the link above:
    “I went to a drama at our church four days ago. I believe in drama. I believe in the power of drama. But let drama be drama! And let preaching be preaching! Let’s have the arts in our churches, but don’t try to squash it all into Sunday morning. So I get worked up about these things.”

  • Rick Wilson
    July 19, 2009

    We will NEVER – repeat – NEVER reach a culture raised on cable TV, video games and the web with talking heads. With Twitter and Facebook emerging as the norm for adults 18-34 there is room for lots of interactivity that include visual media and “circles of conversation.”
    I’m not familiar with John Piper but what appears to be going on here is an implied criticism of those who substitute visual aids for substance. Not true!
    We can’t go back to the stone age!

  • Michael Holmes
    July 19, 2009

    I believe in the power of preaching but I also believe in drama and using other methods to get the point across.
    Jesus was the most effective Preacher there was and even He used PLENTY of illustrations.
    I see where he’s coming from but I think his premise is faulty.
    Be blessed

  • mick
    July 19, 2009

    i’m not a huge piper fan, but i’m gonna have to agree with him on this one. i’m a young pastor, and though i am pretty tech-oriented, and our church has all the techy bells and whistles, i very very rarely use any sort of multimedia in preaching. my basic reason is that i don’t think it works. all my techy brethren who live off sermonspice and wherever else they can find a clip to illustrate their next point seem to do so because they believe multimedia makes them more “relevant.”
    i think it makes us b-rate wannabe’s. people can get the most high-tech productions on the planet any time they want without leaving their living rooms. our relatively very low-end attempts to communicate on that level are, i believe, founded in a false belief that no message can transcend its medium. in that regard, i am with piper. The gospel is inherently powerful (Rom. 1:17), and we run the risk of diminishing the message by over-contextualizing the medium.

  • Paul Clifford
    July 20, 2009

    Describing the beauty and love of God by words alone is like describing of the Grand Canyon with words alone. Only God can do that; we need to use all means available to accomplish such an impossible task.

  • Brian
    July 20, 2009

    My respect for John Piper continues to grow. I think that few can match his passion for purity in doctrine, missions, etc. (even if I don’t always agree with him!).
    My guess is that as others have pointed out, he isn’t against using things other than the printed word on occasion, but rather against the use of them to substitute rather than enhance the message.
    But there is one thing to keep in mind: not everyone learns the same way.
    Some are auditory learners and a spoken message is just the ticket for them. Others need visual aids – whether it’s a video clip or a slide showing them what goes in the blank in their note-taking guide (if you use them, as I do).
    I think that to say preaching has to be only spoken may actually be limiting God – believing He can only work in sermons with our words rather than using things that might actually relate to and touch those who don’t learn just through hearing.

  • Darren
    July 21, 2009

    Sometimes I get the feeling that John Piper is talking directly to me. Furthermore, sometimes I wonder if John Piper hates me. Do you ever feel that way?

  • Some people connect to God through the spoken word, some through music, some through drama, some through video. There are very few “speakers” who can hold an audiences attention for 45 minutes or more. Help everyone connect…use as many relevant tools as you can…not to replace the message but to enhance it!

  • EvangelismCoach
    July 22, 2009

    I have noodled on Pipers comment since I read them a few days ago.
    Jesus preached.
    Jesus told stories / parables.
    Jesus acted with compassion and healed.
    I agree with one aspect in the imporatance of preaching, and not using anything as a crutch to avoid preaching.
    But I disagree with his conclusion that to use other media is a sign of preaching weakness.
    We have shifted to a culture of story telling — we no longer are satisfied with “Little Johnny” stories, and want real life stories to show the point. We want to feel. we want to see.
    I’m all for using whatever media helps me communicate the point.
    The skill for the preacher is helping connect the dots. A skilled preacher using media doesn’t need to connect the dots — the images, media, and sermon connect it all.
    My .02

  • Seth
    July 22, 2009

    It’s hard to really evaluate what Piper is saying without knowing the context he’s saying it in. For one thing, how does he define preaching? Not everyone preaches the same style or content. Further, what is the purpose of preaching? What is it supposed to do?
    We live in a society that is overcommunicated to and has short attention spans. Speaking words from a pulpit doesn’t guarentee communication takes place. Further, people don’t retain much of what they hear spoken just verbally. Public speaking has its limits…
    On the other hand, many people simply do not know how to use powerpoint or visual aids. Multimedia content doesn’t necessarily improve a presentation, and sometimes detracts from a presentation. In the end, it comes back to why multimedia is used. If it’s just ‘entertaining spice,’ it might be a distraction.

  • Rev. Dennis McDaniel Jr
    July 23, 2009

    In Luke 4:16 and following, Jesus is the visiting Rabbi in the Synagogue. He is given the opportunity to give the customary benediction. He reads from Isaiah, then he goes on to preach that the Scriptures have been fulfilled in front of them. He then uses references from Scriptures. When He was in the synagogues, He preached and ministered.
    With the exception of audio/video, He had at His disposal any kind of medium that we have today. He could have used an interpretive dancer, He could have had someone paint, there was drama and theatre back then… but when He was in the synagogues, He preached. We don’t have the liberty of arguing over semantics by saying “it depends on what Jesus called preaching”. Scripture interprets Scripture. The Greek for preaching is “to be a herald, to proclaim”! The biblical definition of preaching is speaking.
    What do we think Paul is talking about in Romans 10:14-16? He is speaking of a herald who is speaking the good news of the Gospel.
    Our problem today is that we have gotten away from allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. My thoughts, opinions, etc. in the pulpit are foolishness. Men, we better follow the example of Jesus. When we stand in front of a congregation, our responsibility should be to read the Word and “accurately handle” (NASB), or “correctly teaching” (HCSB), or “rightly dividing” (KJV), or “rightly handling” (RSV), or “correctly handles” (NIV) “the Word of truth” (all versions)! 2 Tim. 2:15

  • Michael Buckingham
    July 23, 2009

    “we better follow the example of Jesus”
    You’re right…but Christ didn’t rely just on words. I’m tired of preachers think it’s all about their craft. I’m tired of this us vs. them (words vs. visual). It is time we embraced creativity and allowed the designer to link arms with the preacher.
    To bring the truth of Christ with only words is to deny all the other senses…it’s not how we are wired. I find it arrogant to think your gifting is the only/most important gifting…many parts, one body, remember?

  • Andy Wittwer
    July 23, 2009

    Piper (appears to) think presenting media along with a sermon communicates inadequacy of the spoken word which will eventually lead to services wholly comprised of media. Seems like a bit of a slippery slope (a logical fallacy) to me.
    Beyond that, I would challenge the “power of preaching,” and suggest the power is on the preacher as a gift from God. Illustrations, in whatever form, aren’t necessarily good or bad, and can be used well or used poorly.
    Perhaps he’d do better to offer appropriate illustration methods than to abolish any artistic medium.

  • Daren
    July 24, 2009

    There are certainly dangers in using any form of illustration whether video, drama or even story telling.
    The dangers include telling/ showing a story that makes a strong point which is not aligned with scripture. Many movie clips illustrate multiple ideas, not all of which are bibical.
    However, Jesus was a good story teller and of course used stories to help communicate deep theological truth. Using video today can accomplish much the same thing, esp when a strong dialogue makes the point. Of course, we can also use video to make a negative point, is show the wrong way to live in some way.
    I personally think John P would be a better preacher if he told a few more stories!

  • Tommy Bowman
    July 24, 2009

    We call it the “uncross your arms” moment. When a middle-aged man enters our church, he may give a blank stare through the music and everything before the video clip. But when the clip is shown, he laughs, uncrosses his arms, relaxes, he’s now a bit more receptive to what will be communicated in the message.

  • Steve
    July 25, 2009

    I wouldn’t say that preaching has any power beyond any other form of communication, but it’s the Word that is being preached (and ultimately the God who gives the Word) that has the power.
    See, I disagree with this statement. Preaching is not one among equals. It is distinct. The Second Helvetic Confession states that “the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God.” Preaching is God’s anointed vehicle.
    Now, I would agree that our definition of preaching may need to be refined (changed?) from just a 35 minute monologue, but preaching is not just one medium for communication among many. It truly is distinct and powerful.

  • Who
    July 26, 2009

    Ezekiel. Talk about visuals and non-verbals. That book says it all.

  • Peter
    July 26, 2009

    What about those of us with diagnosed learning disabilities who are called to the ministry. I have tremendous difficulty working purely in words. I use visual aids to help me stay on track and convey the message that God is calling me to share. There is definitely a proper and improper way to use visual aids, but if I was forced to give a 20 minute message without visual aids. I would have to give up on my calling. I suppose I could keep the visual aids to myself, but used properly, they become an incredible way to reach an audience. Especially when that audience consists of many people who are just learning English. I understand the importance of quality preaching but I would hope that others understand that God created each of us with different abilities and so-called disabilities. God uses me to preach, even when I am unable to write a traditional sermon. Todays technology allows me to fulfill God’s purpose for my life. Others need to allow for different styles based on different gifts.

  • Andy Wittwer
    July 27, 2009

    “the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God.”
    Sounds dangerous – and it places God’s power in man’s hands. Just because something is (as I like to say) praught, doesn’t mean it’s God’s Word. Even though scripture applied, does not make it righteous. For examples of either, see the pharisees or the temptation of Jesus.
    Further, I’ve been witness to undistinct, uninspired preaching. I would hate to say that anyone employing this tool is therefore being used by God.

  • jake dockter
    July 29, 2009

    I like the person above who compared the parables of Jesus to movies. Yes, they are narrative but…
    Jesus’ parables were spoken by Jesus (Messiah)
    Movies are made my men.
    so lets be careful to not say since Jesus used stories all stories are good.
    I have seen some films be used to great extent. But as an artist…it is a bit like prooftexting. Pulling a scene out of a film, out of context and out of the story line can be disingenuous to the creator of the film and create a false understanding of the movie.
    A scene can be pulled out of a film that makes a statement but when viewed in whole the movie makes a very different statement.
    i.e. a scene with Robert Duvall from the film MASH. It could be showed to show him as a devout believer, following his faith in the face of persecution. But in the entirety of the film (and tv series) his character Frank Burns does not display Christ like behavior and is very selfish and hypocritical. Another Robert Duvall reference would the film The Apostle. Varying scenes could elicit very different responses and statements.
    So by us just pulling out pieces of greater wholes we may be either:
    a)making a statement the movie doesnt make.
    b) maligning the artist/film makers intent.
    c) promoting a movie that might not say what you want it to say.
    so in all those scenarios the use of the film is slightly dishonest.

  • jake dockter
    July 29, 2009

    Though I am not meaning to say we should not use media, movies, clips, etc. I am a big proponent of using current media as a tool. but it can be a double edged sword

  • Kevin Lundgren
    August 6, 2009

    There are plenty of opportunities outside of the sermon to use media, even within the service. The sermon is a golden opportunity to submit to a pastor’s role as someone who explains and shows us through words what the Word is saying to us. “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ.” Come on. We can give a pastor 20 minutes to do that. We have the rest of the service and the rest of the week to be barraged by media. Media is getting a lot of attention in the church as this miracle of miracles. “Oh, the wonders of technology. Let us harness this to do what even Jesus was not able to do. Poor Jesus could only stand on a hill and speak with quaint words.” Read I Timothy 4:13, Luke 20:1, Romans 10:17, Acts 18:5, Romans 10:14.

  • Gary Durbin
    August 17, 2009

    I’ve actually been impacted by illustrations that Piper has used. If used correctly, videos and imagery have the same purpose, even though they’re not spoken live. Hopefully, he’s referencing pastor’s who go for the entertainment factor, instead of discipling people.

  • Chad
    September 3, 2009

    my 2 cents….not that you need it.
    I’ve been “associate” minister under both extremes of minister with varying degrees of success for both. My first position was under a pastor who never used visuals, preached for an hour and a half every time and the congregation was enthralled, challenged, changed and kept coming back. My current position is with a VERY media driven church 10 times the size of the former with the same result.
    What i’ve seen is that Biblical accuracy and relevant apologetic are the keys.
    I will say though, when we “Just preached” we didn’t have the train wreck of a situation where the wrong video clip was used in Sunday service complete with expletives….yep, that happened last year.

  • Matt Norman
    September 11, 2009

    I agree with John in that visual aids should not take the place of good preaching. However, like some have pointed out, Jesus used these types of tools in his day. I think that there has to be a balance.
    The thought has recently come to me that we are competing with the world. This thought has comet o me mostly in relation to children’s ministry and the likes of Disney Channel and Nickelodeon. However, the truth is that the same is true in student and adult ministries. Certainly we should not strive to be like the world. The world has a completely different message to send. However, I think that we should strive to deliver our message as good as the world does. We have the greatest message in the world, shouldn’t we do all we can to deliver this message as well as we can?
    The other thing that I don’t think John is considering is the different learning styles of people. Some people are auditory learners. This group of people will certainly have no problem getting the message based on preaching alone. But, what about the visual learner, or tactile learner? God gave us 5 senses, to say that we should only use hearing during a sermon/worship service is short sighted in my mind.
    John Piper is a great speaker and I have a lot of respect for him, but I will have to respectfully disagree with him on this one.

  • Matt Norman
    September 11, 2009

    Ok, I know I just posted, but in reading some more of the responses a thought come to me. I think that we have forgotten the point. It is not the method that is important, but the message. We can argue all day about media versus preaching, but at the end of the day it is what we say that matters, not how we say. The power is not in preaching or in video or in any other form that we might use to communicate the Word of God. It is the Holy Spirit that gives power to any of these. I have a great deal of respect for John Piper, but he seems to be misplacing the power in this instance.
    A little over a year ago a man named Barney came to visit our church. Barney was married to a woman who had been attending our church for some time. We had been praying for Barney for months prior to this visit. Well, this man showed up a bit before the service was to start. As our pastor often does, he introduced himself to Barney and then began to show him around the campus. While they were chatting a six year old boy came up to them. This boy told pastor that he wanted to be baptized. Pastor took a few moments to discuss this with the little boy while Barney stood there listening. Once Pastor was sure that this little boy understood what baptism was about he took time to pray with the boy. When Pastor was done praying he looked back a Barney to find him crying. In the next few moments Barney accepted Christ. Barney was 61 years old at the time. As many of you may know the odds of a 61 year old man accepting Christ are very low. Would John say that this man was saved by the power of preaching? I don’t think so, because there was no preaching going on. In fact, Barney had not even entered the worship center. I don’t think that John Piper would deny that the true power lies with the Holy Spirit. I do, however, think that he may not have taken the time to thoroughly think this through.

  • J-R
    September 20, 2009

    Piper rehashes his “studies” and sells them in the temple. Has he helped people? Sure. But my bet is that Jesus would sweep him and his likes (e.g. Lucado, Maxwell) from the temple in a valiant rage. When I was a very young Christian, I didn’t understand the mega-business behind preaching/writing. So let him talk, but I can’t take him seriously- unless he starts giving his “inside information” away. Until then it’s all talk and way too much money.

  • Eugene Smith
    October 10, 2009

    Spurgeon, would not have agreed with Piper on this one. I read a bio on Spurgeon once that said Spurgeon was very animated, never used notes and would do whatever it took to make the message of hope interesting and stimulating to his listeners. Pipers preference is not bible and he fails to see that Jesus himself used every communication technique possible in communicating truth and power to His generation. Unfortunately for us we are boxed into a 4 wall buildling trying to tell the life changing story. Jesus did it in boats, on hillsides in temples and while walking on water. Talk about an illustration.

  • Dave Lyman
    December 7, 2009

    Matt 21:18-22 Jesus uses a fig tree to teach his followers about faith.

  • Religion Churches
    December 8, 2009

    I have to agree that in many cases we have gone soft in believing that media and special effects is a good way to preach. There is a reason children will still gather around for story time. I still like the old black and white shows. It’s the story (or message) that makes you want to listen.

Leave a Reply