Good article for discussion here. I don't agree with much of it (the we vs. them approach, utilitarianism, etc.).

BUT, let's discuss it...

Of what he's written so far, I don't take much issue. I think more could be said of the value of both hearing and seeing, and the way people have become more visually oriented (although I'm not sure I've seen any real scientific data on that.)

QUOTE

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.

An important point. Visuals are not what makes the sermon. Whatever visuals are used need to be the servant of the message, not make the message the servant of the visual.

OK, but I remember a story from the Reagan Administration about a TV journalist who did a real scathingpiece on the Rejkjavik Talks or something. The next morning Micheal Deever called the guy up to compliment the piece. When the journalist pointed out the thrust of the piece, Deever explained that it didn't matter as the images were great and what was said would be lost in the images that the report presented.

Most creators of political ads have been working from this assumption for quite a while. I wonder if this has been further substantiated in studies. If so, would this not have bearing on use of various media to augment one's sermon point(s)?

Sorta like this?

The continuation of the Newman article