I found the two powerpoint arguments (powerpoint yes and no) to be a little bland. The writer against powerpoint uses the extreme worst case scenarios. The "anti-powerpoint" argument poses the worst case presenter. A presenter who stands in front of the screen with his back to the congregation is obviously not going to get the message across. Especially with their back turned away from the congregation. If Mr. Quanbeck (Powerpoint No) really believes that is the norm, then he is showing his age. However, he does make a good point that some people will do that if they don't have experience doing this.
Andrew Root (Powerpoint Yes) makes the other extreme argument. He agrees that that the message should be the focus. He also understands that a bad message is amplified in its quality by the use of media. He (Root) believes that the focus should be on writing a good sermon and then think about media that would support it. this is well and good, but the bottom line comes down to space and modernity. Is the worship space conducive to introducing media and is the congregation open to seeing a new form of proclamation? Some congregations are requesting pastors to preach outside the pulpit but the concept has been around for quite some time. So, how long will it take for congregations to initiate this form of proclamation?
Both articles spend too much time writing about powerpoint as an operating system and a brand name. That particular issue is moot. They do acknowledge the use of powerpoint can easily draw attention away from the message.
Tim Stafford's article Face-to-Face Gospel and the Death of Distance in Christianity today brings very interesting thought to the conversation of proclamation. He raises the issue through an interview of how sermons can still reach other people. I found insightful in that this form of sermon does serve a very good purpose. There are many people out there who cannot get to a church. I had a relative who was not mobile yet she was able to watch sermons on television and view a worship service and that was her church. This use of media does create distance but for those who already feel separated, it may bring them closer to God emotionally and spiritually when they cannot be physically present in a brick and mortar church.
I agree with you about the many challenges that technology can present within a congregation when not used effectively. Often the ineffective use of technology completely turns people away from ever wanting to use it again! And sadly it only takes one time of ineffectiveness to create this outlook. I think that we as future pastors and preachers need to be cautious but formative in the way we approach our proclamation of the Gospel. The use of technology can help those who learn differently as well as those who cannot physically be present within our buildings.
ReplyDeleteChris, I agree with you that the PowerPoint article was a bit too black and white. It is all too easy to argue purely yes or no, but hard to find a middle ground that appeases more people that it alienates.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed reading the Face-to-Face article and like how Stafford described a blend of technology with interaction. I feel that watching a service on TV would be a last case scenario for a connection to church. For me the physical experience of being with a group for worship is very important. I suppose that as long as a preacher or lay person visits with those who are stuck at home to discuss the service or a biblical passage I would feel more ok with simply watching a service.