Interestingly, I thought the pro- and anti-Powerpoint articles were lean on facts and big on talk. They very much seemed to develop the sense of a battle between irreconcilable ideologies, as the Yurs article from yesterday suggested. I was especially surprised by the anti-PowerPoint article and its generally weak supply of facts. Throughout the article, it seemed to me as if Quanbeck was ranting about one or two really poorly conceived tech sermons and not considering the possibility that it could be done well. Being a career computer guy, I sympathize with his position that computers are always apt to fail, but I think he goes a bit overboard in dismissing reliability of present-day presentation software.
I thought the plagiarism article was interesting. It is a novel thought to suggest that pastors may secure more time during the week for evangelism and mission ministries by "borrowing" sermons. While I don't think it's something people should do often, I do think it is occasionally good to bring in another preacher's perspective as long as you credit the other person. For example, my internship supervisor once preached a sermon by Barbara Brown Taylor on the Prodigal Son. She was impressed by Taylor's work and wanted to share this great homiletical find with her congregation. Thus, I think some use of others' work can be enlightening for people as long as pastors craft sermons uniquely suited to their congregations most of the time.
Witte's paper was interesting in its many references to scriptural inerrancy, a denominational tenet that doesn't strike me as particularly relevant to using video and multimedia techniques in preaching. The second half of the paper, in my estimation, could stand quite well on its own and would have a greater interdenominational appeal. It echoes many sentiments of the other readings from this class, and seems very consistent in the idea that technology isn't always called for and should be well thought-out when it is used.
You hit it on the mark, with you summation statement:
ReplyDeleteTech isn't always called for & should be well thought-out when it is used.
Good points, Micah. I have heard Quanbeck's same arguments applied to battle between those who contend for contemporary worship vs those who contend for traditional worship. For some reasons those who think power point is evil associate it with being shallow or tacky. Indeed much of what I have seen is shallow and tacky but I would no more give up on seeking ways to improve its use than I would give up on cooking because I have eaten other people's lousy cooking. If anything it should inspire us to keep working at it until we are consistently producing high quality, spiritually healthy, appetizing sermon productions that feed our listeners the word of God in language that resonates with them.
ReplyDelete