Ever since the Iconoclastic controversy arose in the 8th century, Christian preachers have been worried about using images in church. Now I will be the first to admit that the icons St. John of Damascus defended in On the Divine Images are far removed from the kind of images produced by Hollywood, but one of the reasons given by iconoclasts for not using images -- that all images are idols -- is the same reason I would like to advance for using them. People in the West idolize Hollywood. That is why preachers should follow Paul's example on Mars Hill by taking what people worship, and using it to lead them to Christ.

In examining the use of movie clips for sermon illustrations in preaching, I recognize that some objections will need to be addressed, particularly the fear that images are supplanting ideas in the pulpit. I want to argue for the advantage of speaking and seeing, as opposed to speaking alone or seeing alone. Images are not only a point of connection with the secular world (and the entertainment-oriented Christian one as well); they can be outstanding visual aids, vividly supporting truth claims in the text. But clips must be used well to be effective, so in the second part of this article I'll make some recommendations for clip placement and the logistics of video or DVD usage.

Images, Idols, and Incorporation

For anyone wanting to reject the use of images in preaching, there are plenty of writers willing to support them. In a previous article in Preaching, David Larsen laments the lowered status of the text, arguing that when the text of Scripture is in decline, preaching loses its "edge." He writes: "The contemporary preference for images over ideas must be challenged at its root: images without ideas are vapid and vacuous impressions to be wrecked on the shoals of subjectivity." (In fairness, Larsen only rejects what he calls "images without ideas." I would argue that no such images exist -- all images inherently represent some idea.) Cultural critic Neil Postman, in Amusing Ourselves to Death comments on how the ascendancy of visual imagery is responsible for the decline in linear, typographic thinking. In The Image, historian Daniel Boorstin presents the Eeyore-like assessment that there is no cure for our image-soaked culture.

When Paul walked through Athens, the Scriptures leave little doubt about his attitude toward the Athenians' images: "Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols" (Acts 17: 16). Paul did not like the idols. The idols angered him. But when he was given an opportunity to preach to the Athenians at the Areopagus he did not rail against the idols; he found a way to take the images and the art prized by Athenians and incorporate them -- turning them into touchstones from which to present the Gospel of Christ. We walk through a culture awash in images, many as idolatrous as the Athenians. But if we care for the people who produce and consume these images, can we do less than Paul? If there is a way to turn these images to good use, can we neglect this great storehouse of cultural consciousness? I think not, but we must take care.

Speaking and Seeing

I do not think that focusing on the text is incompatible with the careful use of images. Robert Webber, in Ancient-Future Faith claims that "An art form speaks to us and acts upon us as it serves the text of worship." The key to the use of media images in preaching is not exclusion but hierarchy. Images must serve the text or they are of no value.

Some preachers use images as a substitute for content. Beautiful PowerPoint slides and captivating video may leave congregations in awe of your technical prowess, but scratching their heads as to the meaning of the message. Images cannot rescue a poorly prepared sermon, but they can certainly make a good one better.

The best preaching is already visual. The purpose of parable or allegory is to create an image. When people can imagine the outworking of a story -- if they can see how the biblical principle works or applies to them -- the preaching leaves the realm of the abstract and finds a place in their lives. Unfortunately, not all preachers are gifted storytellers. Even those that are would be hard-pressed to find examples and illustrations as powerfully envisioned as those produced in Hollywood. Carefully reasoned expository preaching that incorporates the emotional impact of professionally crafted drama can create a lasting impression.

I once heard an interview with Donald Williams in which he discussed Sir Philip Sidney's work, "The Defence of Poesie." Sidney wrote it in 1580 -- and what he had to say about literature then is just as true of movies today.

Sidney argued that stories were better at communicating the truth than either philosophy or history. Philosophy was great at providing abstract moral and ethical thought, but it was powerless to point to concrete examples of people who lived them out. History was shackled by what actually happened, so it could lead people to real world examples, but few of them were truly exemplary.

Stories have the strengths of both philosophy and history, and none of the drawbacks. Screenwriters and directors are free to take any ideal and create a character to embody it. In film, ideals and examples can come together to inspire people to become better, or to warn them about the consequences of doing wrong. These illustrations cannot supplant good expository preaching, but they can and should support it.

Look next week for Part II in which Dr. Newman will explore the nuts and bolts practice of using film clips in sermons.