Movie Clips for Illustration in Worship

I've been reflecting on the use of clips from popular films in worship as part of the sermon. Some of you have probably seen them and seen them used effectively during worship. Perhaps a pastor is speaking about how love in Christ overcomes differences in race and socio-economic background, and they then play a powerful scene from The Blindside to illustrate their point. Is this a wise and Biblical practice?

God has certainly not forbidden the use of screens and/or movies in church. God has given us much freedom in the forms we may use in worship, so I don't see this as a simple "movies in church are forbidden" issue. However, I personally don't think that the use of popular movies in worship is wise. I'll give two reasons--one my own and one from John Piper.

First, for a great many Christians movies are a stumbling stone. It is very difficult to sit through 115 minutes of attractively presented worldliness without having your heart drawn toward the materialism, sensuality, amorality, cynicism and God-absent world view that are prevalent in most popular movies. By playing clips from those movies during our central act of corporate worship are we not implicitly encouraging already struggling folks to go back to those "broken cisterns" which are causing such destruction in so many lives?

Second, from John Piper: "I believe profoundly in the power and the till-Jesus-comes-validity of preaching. And by that I mean the spirit-anointed exposition of the Scripture through clear explanations and applications of what's there. There's something God-appointed about that.

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.

It's going to communicate that preaching is weak, preaching doesn't save, preaching doesn't hold, but entertainment does. And we'll just go further and further. So we don't do video clips during the sermon. We don't do skits.

Of course, it would probably help if we all could preach like Piper.

Bottom line: Are the gains from playing movie clips--strong emotional impact and cultural relevancy--worth the potential losses? My fear is that many in the name of pragmatism are not even asking the question.

Segregated Worship--a Gospel Issue?

I continue my Quixotic quest against dividing a church into a contemporary and traditional worship service. I just can't help but believe this is a GOSPEL issue and not just one of preference. This time I turn to David Wells and his book Above All Earthly Powers:

"The church is not only to declare the gospel, but to model its truth, and if it does not model the truth it will undermine what it declares as truth. . . . The gospel declares that there is no natural merit, no human standing, which advances a person toward God and his salvation, or makes one person more acceptable to God than another. All of the ways in life in which people seek importance and seek preeminence over one another are irrelevant to their standing before God. This is true of ethnicity, wealth, class, power, privileged birth, connections, profession, generation and religion. If this is the truth upon which the gospel rests, then it is the truth which the Church is obliged to model. So it is that Paul declares that there 'is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus' (Gal. 3:28). And by extension, should we not also say that because we are all one in Jesus Christ, there is neither Builder nor Boomer, neither Xer nor child of the Millennium, city dweller or suburbanite, Westerner or Third Worlder? Exploiting generational distinctions in the pursuit of success, which is what is at the heart of the seeker church movement, should be as offensive as exploiting racial differences for personal advantage . . . .

The gospel calls for the Church to exhibit in itself the fact that what typically divides people has been overcome in Christ; marketing frequently leads the Church to capitalize on what divides people in order to exploit the niches of class and generation.

What is at stake here, as Paul argued, is nothing less than the gospel. What is at stake is also nothing less than the work of the Trinity. To the Ephesians, Paul argued that there "is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of us all who is above all and through all and in all' (Eph. 4:4-6).

Paul's argument is compelling for its simplicity. There is only one body because there is only one Spirit; there is only one faith because there is only one Lord; there is only one family because there is only one Father. The unity of the people of God is as secure as the unity of the trinity. The Church's responsibility, therefore, is not to create unity, as the ecumenical movement proposed, but to preserve the unity that God himself has already created in Christ..." (pg. 294-295).