God is visual.
Can anyone deny this?
He made all the beauties we see. Many of His actions and accounts involve big visuals. Mount Sinai enveloped in smoke, flame, and lightning comes to mind. The first known rainbow enhanced a big announcement. Fire straight out of the heavens burned up an altar of rocks, along with the water that had soaked it. (Let me tell you, people worshipped after seeing that display.)
There are the vivid visions of Ezekiel and Daniel. Think of the incomprehensible sights John saw on Patmos. C. S. Lewis once wrote “Images, whether on paper or in the mind, are not important for themselves. Merely links”. He made a good observation that visuals link to big things, important things. But they can also be appreciated for the fact that they have beauty. That in itself is a link to the beauty that is God and that flows generously from God.
Some people think, and have said, that visuals used in the context of a gathering for worship are “fluff”, and that we can worship fine without them. Yes, we can worship without the visuals. To really test that, I suggest gathering in a colorless cube with no windows and bare walls, and get started.
The Eye Gate
God gave us the eye gate for more than just to keep us from banging into walls and falling down stairs.
If beauty is fluff, why did God give attention to producing so much of it? God’s Word is more than letters and speech. It’s 3-D.
The Psalms are full of references to the handwork of the Lord. Here is one: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language, their voice is not heard.” No words does not mean no eloquence!
When people create (using this word in less than the absolute sense in which God creates from nothing), they reflect the very heart and image of God. That’s not exactly fluff. God is the Creator of beauty, and of the very concept of beauty.
Yes, images are links to bigger things – to reality. That reality includes the living God. If we get all enthralled with the images we use and the technology used to produce them, we are on the wrong track, toward idolatry. Maybe that is the concern of those who call it “fluff”.
If we recognize images for what they are – links to reality – they can be catalysts for powerful worship expressions to the Creator of all. (By the way, the majesty of the King should motivate us to abandon the use of cornball clip art thrown up on the screen. Talk about fluff.)
I like to think of projection technology as the stained glass of the current age – a powerful communication medium able to draw out deep heart response to God.
What examples have you seen that would cause a person to decide that the use of images in worship gatherings is merely “fluff”?
Is there some truth to that charge?
[Images via http://www.sxc.hu/photo/442242 | FreeDigitalPhotos.net]
Joanna says
I think part of the problem is what images are used. If the images are poor quality, people probably aren’t going to take them seriously. Some of the visuals I’ve seen to accompany worship music are pretty lame. I’ve seen professionally produced DVDs that look like a fairly randomly thrown together set to nature stock film set behind worship songs.
Ken Rosentrater says
I agree, Joanna. It can be a product of laziness, or of the lack of time when the person doing the design has other things in life and there’s a deadline. However, neither of those seems to be an adequate explanation for something produce professionally.
I’ve also had the personal experience of trying too hard not to be lame and boring and ended up distracting people with the medium itself, and that’s not good either.
Kayde says
So then my question would be is, “How do you find the balance to engage them, but not be distracting?” I’m constantly looking at the visuals and asking myself questions. Like, “Does this go with the theme? Is it to bright? Does it blend well from the one song to the next?” and etc. I do also ask for feedback and I do get some suggestions. However, you’re not going to please everyone. So to me, it’s a constant balancing act.
Ken says
Hi Kayde,
I’m sorry I missed this earlier. I agree that the balancing act is a regular challenge. I ask myself the same questions you do. I encourage you in that, because it shows you take things seriously, and you aren’t just in it to show off your talent! You want to edify people and help enhance the message.
I saw a quote lately that I’ve been considering in this regard: “Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to remove.” — Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (writer and poet)
I notice in me a tendency to want to add to the graphics. I’m thinking now on beautiful simplicity and minimalism. Much depends on the context of the message and the event.
As to how you find the balance, I’m still working on that myself!
Thanks for writing.
Bryan Chalker says
Agree with Joanna. I’ll also add that the images should not be the message. They should be part of the paint on the canvas. Just like on a website – just plugging beautiful graphics on the page makes the page attractive…but not useful.
Ken Rosentrater says
Yes, they should not be the message. I think that was CS Lewis’s point – they are links to reality, and not the reality itself. Although, I have to ponder a bit on it always needing to be “useful”. God is so lavish with beauty. It’s like He “wastes” acres of flowers in places where almost no one sees them. Sometimes the meaning is in the beauty itself – a link to the creative awesome power of God.
It surely is easy to become trite with it though. And in general, I think what we do should harmonize with and support what else is going on.
Paul Clifford says
I think using _only_ images of God’s creation is cheating a little. I did summer missions after college at the Grand Canyon with the aptly, but not creatively named “A Christian Ministry in the National Parks.” I preached at the south rim of the Canyon. Everyone was always inspired, but it was the Grand Canyon after all. I think my sermons could have consisted of “God made that.”
There are things that need to be illustrated using other metaphors. Notice that Jesus didn’t stick to only nature metaphors. He talked about widows and bread just like He talked about seeds and plants. Man-made things have their place, too. They help us see things that the wonder of God’s creation doesn’t.
It’s easy to use video of the Grand Tetons, or Monument Valley to show God’s greatness. To show His love, pick another metaphor and see what it unleashes.
Paul
Ken Rosentrater says
Paul, you are right! i have often thought and searched long and hard to find or come up with an appropriate metaphor. They can be so powerful and memorable, more than beauty displayed for the sake of beauty. Sometimes an ugly depiction might be an appropriate illustration.
I wonder if some of the folks who see graphics as “fluff” in a worship service didn’t get a metaphor that was used. We can be too nebulous with them, or so artsy the point is lost.
Jason D. says
God told us how he wants to be worshiped and it doesn’t include images but His word… the only “images” (in one sense) that he instituted for church worship is baptism and His supper. Further more wrong have a negative command against images in worship in the 2nd Commandment (Ex. 20)
Ken Rosentrater says
What do you think, folks. Is the 2nd Commandment a blanket banishment of all images in connection with the gatherings of the Church, or is it more specific to pagan worship and God’s abhorrence of those religions?
Jason D says
Well no doubt it is “specific to pagan worship and God’s abhorrence of those religions”,… where are the positive commands to use images of any sort for the New Testament church. Keep in mind what happened when God WASN’T worshiped how he ordained it (strange fire, etc…) It was never never good :-/
Ken says
You are right. It was never good. This gets to a larger question that’s been in debate in the Church for centuries. The statement historically used by some is: “What is not commanded is forbidden”. I take it that is your stance.
This gets into all kinds of ramifications in how we live our lives, since our lives are meant to be lived in daily worship to the Lord! Rhetorical question: how far do you take it?
I read the Bible on a iPad. Am I violating something in the mind of the Lord?
I suppose this is one issue that will be debated until the Second Advent, as will the issue of Sovereignty versus Free Will.
Jason D says
I’m not talking about all life worship, I’m talking about what the article is talking about which is corporate worship,… understanding “good and necessary consequences” (as the historic confessions say) makes it a rather easy issue.
Ken Rosentrater says
What do you think, folks? Is the 2nd Commandment a blanket banishment of all images in connection with the gatherings of the Church, or is it more specific to pagan worship and God’s abhorrence of those religions?