Lutheran Homiletics, Video Preaching and AC VII - 33rd Theological Symposium Essay
Lucas André Albrecht[1]
Introduction
Form and content are recurring topics in the life of the Lutheran Church, especially in the 21st century. Divergences tend to be greater when it comes to forms compared to content issues. In the context of a secularized society of the 21st Century, one of the biggest fears is the 'loss of unity', and of Lutheran 'identity' if abdicating from certain forms and traditions. When it comes to the use of video preaching this tension is magnified. A form that works primarily with the image demands constant growth in the occupation of its space. A Lutheran initiative that works with image, therefore, impacts the way messages are produced and proclaimed, compared to the Lutheran homiletic tradition being almost in its entirety face-to-face preaching, especially during the congregational worship.
While established traditions and forms of expression have been recognized as valuable to the Church, none of these are part of Her essence, rather, an outgrowth of it. Forms matter, but they are not necessary for the true unity of the Church. Therefore, working with forms is a never and unchanging task. As Helmut Thielecke pointed out, the Gospel needs to be preached in different, renewed ways, since unique issues arise in each generation. “The Gospel constantly needs to be forwarded to a new address because the recipient has been constantly moving.”[2] While a specific field of teaching and practice of Lutheran Video Preaching is still in the making, the concepts, and contents of preaching in the face-to-face context help to shed light on Lutheran communication via video.
This essay explores possibilities for Lutheran Preaching in the video environment. First, utilizing concepts of traditional Lutheran Homiletics, I will offer a working definition of video preaching. Next, I will reflect on true unity of the Church, identity and the tension that arises in the use of forms on the grounds of AC VII. Then, I will offer some practical recommendations on form and content of video preaching based on my lived experience as a TV presenter and producer and web video preacher. Finally, I address some challenges in the context of Video Preaching. I hope to bring some subsidies to the field of Lutheran Video Preaching, as well as supporting it as a meaningful way to share our Christ-centered message in a secular age in need of Hope.
1. Lutheran Homiletics and Video Preaching
Some say the sermon should simply “do the text again to the people.” Others speak about preaching in the context of new Christians and how the sermon should be a teaching sermon, more like a Bible study. Others hold on to the thread of evangelical proclamation and state that when the preacher gets into the pulpit he simply needs to “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted” or “to kill people with the law and raise them to life with the gospel.” Others speak about the use of stories from contemporary life and how telling stories is the way to relate to people.[3]
Schmitt concludes that one hears several voices, however without having a general and more complete view. Each pastor has a piece of the tapestry, but none brings a consistent outlook of at the whole.[4] Therefore, seeking a broader view, or at least establishing a consistent outlook at the whole helps in understanding the task of preaching. This is what Schmitt seeks by offering the following definition: “Faithful preaching is an art: the pastor weaves together four threads of discourse to form a sermon that is based on a text of Scripture, centered in the death and resurrection of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, for the benefit of the hearers in faith and life”. [5] The four threads are: Textual exposition, Theological Confession, Evangelical proclamation, and Hearer perception.
In this essay I seek to do the same – offering a broader view of the task of preaching – and this implies making choices and seeking convergent patterns of the practice of preaching in the Lutheran Church.
1.1.The Lutheran Sermon
In my academic research I have used different authors in Lutheran homiletics,[6] and from that one is able to perceive core characteristics that overlap in Lutheran writings on Preaching. Here are some of them: The center is Christ and His work; it contains Law and Gospel; it has only one objective; it is bible-based, brings theological teaching of the Church; it announces forgiveness and salvation; it is connected to the context and reality of the receivers. In a concise way, Luther would say: “wherever there’s this kind of preaching that assures hearts of how they stand with God, I can conclude that such a sermon is true and presents the pure Word of Christ.”[7] Most Lutheran preachers and writers would agree about these fundamental aspects of a sermon.
In my homiletical practice I have summarized this content in a three-worded definition which I saw for the first time in my first year of ministry, in Dr. William Thompson’s “The Pastor as leader” STM Class. My sermons and messages are built to be Bible-based, Christ-centered, and life-directed.[8] These three concepts encapsulate the objective I have in every message I deliver. They seem to work also as a condensed version of The Concordia Seminary’s Homiletic Faculty’s definition of preaching: “an authoritative public discourse, based on a text of Scripture, centered in the death and resurrection of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, for the benefit of the hearers in faith and life.” This definition connects well to task of video preaching, for it is a public discourse (form - through a video platform) centered in Christ for the forgiveness of sins (content) for the benefit of hearers in faith and life (application).
The condensed - “Bible-based, Christ-centered, Life-directed”-, and the extended – CSL’s Homiletic Faculty - definitions presented here serve as the base for my reflection about ways in which they can serve as a guideline in the environment where the preacher preaches to a camera, with no presence of people and with an ideal public in mind. The video preaching environment.
1.2.Video Preaching
Before bringing my definition of video preaching for this essay, I will make a short reference to my lived experience as a campus pastor at The Lutheran University of Brazil (Ulbra). It included writing, presenting, producing, and directing the “Toque de Vida” (Touch of Life) daily TV program. It was a seven-minute program aired on UlbraTV twice a day for a potential public of at least 2.5 million people. I’ve recorded over 1,500 original messages in a 12-year span. Since working at Mount Olive Lutheran in Regina, Canada, I’ve started the online 7 Minute devotions. At the end of season three, over original 100 messages have been either livestreamed or pre-recorded.
Video preaching can assume a vast field of meanings. Therefore, we need limits. For this essay, drawing on my lived experience as producer and presenter, I will circumscribe “video preaching” to short videos for TV and internet as opposed to, for example, 15-to-20-minute sermons or longer podcast videos. This delimitation brings the following definition: a short bible-based, Christ-centered and life-directed message in which the preacher talks to a camera, making use of video and audio resources, aiming to connect it to people outside of the Church in their situations of daily life. Here I am excluding also what many Churches have been doing during and after the 2020-2022 pandemic, where in-person services and sermons are livestreamed. The double fold reason for that is: 1) those messages were written for in-person settings and 2) They are in-person-oriented Services that happen to be captured on a video system and broadcast to the world. The logic of the setting and of the means is different from the video/audio arrangement and delivery.
This definition works with form flowing from content, prioritizing direction over speed. In this case speed is not the main goal as it is in the context of 15-second videos and where options of 2.0 speed audio are available. I understand that choosing speed and shape over content may bring the risk of becoming just one more youtuber competing on the wild ocean of the virtual attention-seeking environment.
After defining video preaching, I make the case that it is not only a good tool for the Church, but it is an environment where Lutherans should actually feel at home. The reason is that working with video is highly associated with routine[9] – which we would call liturgy. Working with TV taught me that viewers like routine, they expect it. It was the case for UlbraTV and for most if not all TV stations and YouTube channels. They work their programming to have predictability, seeking to get people into a habit watching it. Routine and liturgy are one of the Lutheran sweet spots. They are not essential, but they are useful and helpful. When a preacher starts to make use of video, liturgy and routine will set in, with vignettes, opening, message, song, and variations. That is especially relevant when we think of connecting with secular culture. People are not only expecting some quality (more below) but also a certain degree of predictability. This should encourage Lutheran preachers to make use of video preaching at its best, bringing the immutable content that, paradoxically, will bring a fresh new product every day/week/month.
2. Article VII of the AC – form and content
Tensions between form and content arise in the use of video preaching. Therefore, for a Lutheran Homiletician, preaching on video represents taking on some risks. This environment is significantly different from the pulpit experience, and the requirements involve other needs in addition to traditional homiletic practice. The video environment involves visual forms other than traditional ones, especially when one thinks about connecting with the secular world and contemporary culture. Here the preacher deals not only with production and emission, but also with reception by an idealized viewer – he preaches to everyone and to no one. Tensions may arise about loss of confessionalism and unity since, historically, not everyone agrees with the same way of presenting the Christian Lutheran content to different audiences in different settings using different resources. That can be observed from traditional and alternative liturgical services to the Pastor’s attire, and to sanctuary settings. It wouldn’t be different when a camera is on.
But what is the essence of this tension? I would formulate it this way: forms matter, but they are not necessary for the true unity of the Church. Forms are not necessary for the true unity of the Church, but they matter.
I address this tension, without any pretension of solving but rather exploring it, utilizing Article VII of the Augsburg Confession. As the Reformers wrote it, together with its Apology - insisting that what is necessary for the true unity the Church is found in Word and Sacraments -, they contributed, five centuries in advance, to a solid and healthy base for theology and practice of video preaching of the 20th and 21st centuries. “And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. It is not necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike.” The word “necessary” is key here. Rites and traditions are not discarded, and Article XXIV will go on to show the reasons why Lutherans are willing to preserve them. Forms matter. However, they make it clear that it is not necessary for them to be the same everywhere. They are means/resources and as such can be adapted, diversified, and changed when needed. As an example, worship in the Church had one type of dynamics in the first eight centuries of the Church, when musical instruments were forbidden by the clergy.[10] These dynamics would change in many ways in the following twelve centuries when instruments started to be increasingly adopted in the sanctuary.
Video preaching falls in the category of rites and ceremonies, which are resources instituted by men, as opposed to essence – the teaching of the Scriptures. As video preaching is faithful to the true and clear teachings of the Word of God in content, it will make use of adequate forms to convey it, just as the Church has done along the centuries in other areas. For example, ways in which She used The Scriptures (scrolls, printing, screens); the Divine Service (houses, churches, cathedrals, shadow of trees); music (chanting, instruments, choirs, organ, electronic instruments, diversity); and administrative structures (local churches, bishoprics, church hierarchy, Synod). Video preaching is a rite/ceremony/resource that doesn’t need to be similar everywhere. Forms matter, but they are not necessary for the true unity of the Church.
In the Apology the confessors explored this topic in more length. They mention Rome’s condemnation of this article and allude to their distinction between universal and particular rites. The Holy See would approve changes in the latter, not giving up, however, the former. With certain irony the confessors say that they do not clearly understand what the theologians of Rome want here, for the concern with true unity is already evident: “and we are speaking, therefore, of spiritual unity, without which faith in the heart, or righteousness of heart before God, cannot exist.”[11] Therefore,
For this we say that similarity of human rites, whether universal or particular, is not necessary, because the righteousness of faith is not a righteousness bound to certain traditions…to this quickening, human traditions, whether they be universal or particular, contribute nothing; neither are they effects of the Holy Ghost, as are chastity, patience, the fear of God, love to one’s neighbor, and the works, of love.[12]
One could point out that this distinction is made in relation to the justification by faith, as excluding good works (rites and forms) from the equation. However, the exact same holds true for video preaching. It is a means and a vehicle to proclaim justification by faith and forgiveness of sins, and not a means to make justification by faith work better or more effectively.
This conversation connects to the question of identity, namely, Lutheran Identity. Here we learn that our identity is not in external matters, but those are an expression of who we are: Word and the Sacraments. This identity is found for example in Paul: “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified”.[13] This same core identity is found elsewhere in the Confessions, as for example, in Article XIV. There we see that no one should minister Word and Sacraments without a regular Call. The main point here of course is the rite vocatus. (regularly called). However, a secondary point can be made. Nothing but Word and Sacraments are identified in the task of the Church delegated to a regular called minister. The reason is that everything else flows from this perspective, in different Church and Ministry Settings. Moreover, the History of the Church is rich in examples of different ways in which the Church has expressed its identity, and ways in which she moved away from forms of expression not aligned with content. Forms matter, but they are not the identity; they are an expression of it. Video preaching as a form/ resource will be committed to be an adequate way to express and reflect the Church’s identity.
This is solid ground for the video preacher. The commitment to the Kingdom of God, the work of Christ and the Lutheran confessions means to be faithful in Word and Sacraments. Adhesion to previously or currently established forms/rites/ resources, even if consolidated by the Church's tradition are not required for true unity, that is, spiritual unity.[14] The reformers are clear in asserting that different rites/resources do not threaten the unity of the Church, even though they believe that the maintenance of universal rites can be good for the Church. While the use of video needs to be seasoned with adequacy and appropriateness, as with any other means the Church has at hand, there is no reason to dismiss, avoid or condemn it when used in right and adequate ways.
The AC and the Apology move away from the Roman Church because of the ingrained notion that the observance of rites, whether universal or particular, would somehow contribute to justification by faith – something that had already been extensively refuted on Apology IV. They emphasize that the discussion at this point is about whether human traditions are necessary for justice before God or not. Having resolved this question, it would then be possible to work on the secondary question, that is, human traditions as necessary for the unity of the Church. The Confessors also react to their opponents' assertion that the universal rites should be observed because they are handed down by the apostles themselves. They ironize, then, this argument, showing that there is concern with the rites, but not with the apostolic doctrine. They indicate that this is to be judged just as the apostles do in their writings, when they show that they do not want to impose a burden on consciences that such rites would be necessary for justice with God. They would not put righteousness and sin in the observance of food, days, and the like. On the contrary, opinions such as this one Paul called the "doctrine of demons" The use of different resources to share the Gospel do not threaten the unity of the Church when they are not added to the article of Justification by Faith nor deny or move away from the Church’s identity and unity.
Video preaching does not belong to the article of justification, for in a Lutheran perspective, it is not a way to make God’s Word and Salvation more powerful, effective, and relevant. For that reason, it doesn’t cause or harm the true unity of the Church when used properly. Forms matter, but they are not necessary for the true unity of the Church. Video preaching constitutes a resource for the Church to work with adequate forms to share with the world the unchanging, effective, and relevant message of the Gospel of Hope.
3. Recommendations on Video Preaching
Thinking about reaching out to our culture with the Gospel of hope makes me remember theologian and journalist Astomiro Romais saying that communication is the red carpet between the Word and the World.[15] I think also of Bosch, who acknowledges the tension between universality and particularity that arises when attempting to communicate timeless truths to specific cultural groups.[16] Establishing communication with our culture therefore requires hard work. I offer now some thoughts and suggestions based on my lived experience as theologian, preacher, and social communicator. I will divide my suggestions and recommendations into two areas: content recommendations and form/technical recommendations.
3.1. Content
Our working definition for video preaching is a short bible-based, Christ-centered, and life-directed message in which the preacher talks to a camera, making use of video and audio resources, aiming to connect it to people outside of the Church in their situations of daily life. This leads us to think of the following aspects of the content:
-It is simple, and at the same time creative, dynamic.
-It is committed to our confessionalism, responsible with its doctrine.
-It has the same language as Jesus’, that is, love for people we are reaching out.
-The content is relevant for today, grounded in the Bible.
-It is visually and rhetorically pleasing to viewers' eyes and ears.
-It speaks in a simple way and addresses the times in which we live.
Adding to that, I mention:
-You are preaching to everyone and to no one.
Have in mind non-Lutherans watching it;
-Think about the long term, establishing relationships; one doesn’t not need to
cram all the theological content in each message;
-Focus on clear and consistent arguments, without the need for appeals or
impositions.[17]
The content of the video preaching will challenge the age in which we live. As Ely Prieto states, “as preachers, we must confront them [the postmodernists] with the metanarrative of Scripture. Through the narrative story of the Gospel, the Holy Spirit can make history their story. Bible truth, their truth.”[18] Video preaching works with content designed to reach our postmodern age to both confront and comfort them with the Gospel of Hope.
One more aspect to consider is that when one verifies the video production is based largely on the search for constant novelty and on the rapid disposal of content already shown, the impression may remain that the great effort undertaken in its use, in the comparison of time invested in preparation versus audience reached/result obtained, the work renders fruitless. Robert Rosin, however, assists us here: “Luther understands that what is proclaimed is the viva vox Dei, the voice of God. The preacher and the words he uses are transient, but the message conveyed brought life.”[19] There will be constant hard work on the preacher’s side for sure. But the Work of the Holy Spirit is never limited by time, space, or duration.
Now, in the light of sharing the Gospel of Hope in a secular age I want to explore a little further the life-directed aspect of a Lutheran video message, thinking especially of illustrative language and resources in video preaching.
Justin Rossow, citing Hughes and Kysard, observes that the predominant use of illustrations and metaphors is not just at the edges, but also right at the center of Christian theology and discourse. “The Gospel itself may be proclaimed in terms of birth, life, salvation, light, food, ransom, redemption, inheritance, reconciliation, marriage, atonement, cleansing, salvation, deliverance, victory, payment of debt, or a verdict of not guilty, to name a few. just a few.”[20] Video preaching itself is already heavily anchored in visual perception, and visual and illustrative language add to the clarity and precision of the communicational process. The life-directed aspect of Lutheran preaching is also within Robert Kolb's concerns. Describing the beginning of the conversation between Christians and people who do not yet have the Christian faith, he points out that “they realize that the initial agenda of this dialogue is set by life experiences that have posed questions that need answering.”[21] Further on, Kolb points out:
These questions and answers, of course, do not conclude Christian witness. They don't even simplify it. Rather, they lay the groundwork for effective application of God's messages to those who were not listening.[22]
Life-directed visuals, illustrations and connections serve the connection of the Gospel to people’s daily lives.
Back to my lived experience with the “Toque de Vida”, the producers of the program indicated that its good reception among viewers lied in large part in the fact that it addressed real and obvious everyday situations. A simple and brief communication, indicating that the message reached both those who are Christians and had the potential to win over those who are not.[23] Publicist and producer Fernanda Bordinhão mentioned that the program achieved its objective by focusing on people who are open to new information, with faith and with a more contemporary profile. “These are people who set aside a small amount of time each day to receive words of comfort and motivation.”[24] Journalist and producer Fabiano Silva pointed out that a good part of the effectiveness of the program lied in the fact that it addressed real and obvious everyday situations. “The effectiveness [is] in its simple and brief communication”.[25] For Tatiana Nucci, publicist, producer and director, the program was able to quickly attain its goal of reaching those who watch it with a positive message, in an attractive way, with easy access to the whole family. Being a program that reached different audiences, it had to have a comprehensive and dynamic format.[26] To illustrate this point further, these producers were non-Lutherans getting in contact with Lutheran Video preaching as defined in this essay. Back to Bordinhão:
I'm not a Lutheran, but I learned many things editing, participating in the recordings of Toque de Vida, in a less formal way, without the obligation to join the religion. Toque de Vida was like that, for the public that wants to do good, receive messages of motivation and pass on a message of life, for people's lives.[27]
This is a small but significant sample of testimonials of non-Lutherans in contact with video preaching, in a message that was not a part of their story, but that established communication to make the content clear to their reality in life.
In this effort to establish communication for daily life, the Toque de Vida worked primarily with binomial illustration/story and application. The idea in almost all recorded messages was to use a biblical illustration, everyday life, historical facts, objects, and others, to make a connection with the Word of God, both in the aspect of justification and sanctification. Bible-based, Christ-centered, and life-directed. Over time it also sought to work language in a journalistic perspective, avoiding for example unnecessary repetitions, buzzwords, commonplaces, and cliché fillers.
The life-directed, illustrative character of video preaching connects to another important aspect: context. The tension I am exploring in this essay receives an extra ingredient when we think about context of preaching and video preaching. Context impacts the content chosen to be delivered in a funeral, a wedding ceremony, and talking to a camera in the recess of one’s office. It is different to speak to a congregation, to Sunday school kids or to a camera out to the world. Context influences content in many ways, perhaps more than the preacher is even aware of. Video preaching has its context, and the more the preacher is aware of it, the more he will be developing content that is adequate for that means. Form, shape and objective a preacher may have it is anchored in the content to be transmitted; context, however, cannot be overlooked. Historical Churches like the Lutheran Church have centuries of development of preaching in in-person settings. However, the video environment adds a new context bringing novelty and disruption to the articulation of content. Form and content matter, but context matters with them.
Context may refer only to external things, such as self-grooming and framing. However, it goes to the heart of preaching as well – law and Gospel applied to the receiver that is in front of the preacher. Video preaching has its context, and the more the preacher is aware of it, the more he will be developing content that is adequate for that means. Context impacts content, form, and delivery. These are some of the ways it can be verified: the preacher can be seen in an up-close camera angle, as opposed to a distant face in the pulpit. The voice is amplified, the possibilities of edition and addition are present. The in-person sermon is usually preached once, and it is gone. The video preaching stays forever. And perhaps the most important context feature of video preaching is the fact that there is no receiver right in front of the preacher. He must speak looking into the lens of a camera and imagine the people watching it. It may even be that no one is watching it, in the case of live streams. How much more at ease, or how much more tense the preacher feels in this context will affect the forms in which he delivers, and the content he chooses to deliver in that ambient. Therefore, being aware of context helps to prepare content and form with an adequate delivery.
The importance of context receives extra insights from the theory of Relevance proposed by Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson. The fundamental premise is that we rarely say exactly what we want to communicate. On some occasions, we can be more succinct, using less content, and even so, we make ourselves understood. The authors illustrate:
If I shout "Fire!" in a crowded room, it will be understood by everyone to mean, "The house is on fire. Leave the building immediately”. I could say exactly what I mean, but it would be not so relevant because it would take too long for the listeners to process and might not gain their attention in the first place. Similarly, few in the room would interpret my utterance to mean, 'Squeeze the triggers of your guns/' although in another context that might be the precisely relevant meaning. No conceivable code system distinguishes these two meanings of "Fire!" Context does that.” [28]
The authors demonstrate the importance not only of the linguistic code, but also of the context of speakers and listeners as vehicles of meaning.
This indicates that we can be relevant even not using all the words that, supposedly, would be necessary to make sense. When we use the linguistic code in our favor together with the adequate context, viewers can understand the meaning of what is being communicated. Pattermore indicates that context, in Relevance Theory, is a cognitive concept – a set of propositions that we consider to be true, or likely to be true. The summary of all these ideas is our cognitive environment. By evoking a context, the speaker both compels and constrains the listener towards a specific interpretation.[29] This helps the preacher who sometimes will skate on the edge of video preaching using simple, daily life language. If the code system doesn’t provide sufficient grounds to distinguish the meaning of a word of phrase, context does. For example, when one uses constructions like “there we find strength, care and love” or “Love changes everything”. While the sentence could point to more than one meaning, the context of a Lutheran Preaching makes it clear that Jesus is the subject of the sentence.
My suggestion to video preachers would then be that they should develop content using their style and choice of words, not being afraid to be edgy in their text compositions. If context matters, it will be on the communicator’s side to point to Christ. And if Lutherans or people in more advanced stages of Theological knowledge deem it to be somewhat shallow or not that close to common theological usage, that might be something positive – depending, again, on context; that might indicate that one is establishing good communication with non-Lutherans and people less used to the deep theological language.[30]
As we work with content, meaning, and context we need the perspective of awareness about the means. They are not neutral, as one may think, but they shape and affect the message. Robert Rosin helps us here observing that there are many types of communication vehicles - media - and the role of Christians, especially communicators, is to learn what they do and how they affect the message. And recommends: “Use them as best you can to contact those God wants to be his again. Be sober and then, from whatever direction you come with the message, conveyed by the media of the moment, go towards the cross.”[31] He reinforces the need to prepare and adapt to the medium in which the message is communicated, since the medium affects the message and helps shaping it. If we don’t do so, we will get hurt.[32] Without preparation, preaching can be mere repetition, an ex opere operato act. When intentional and worked thoughtfully, they may lead to results and testimonials such as that of the TV producers:
It was years of learning through messages and explanations. Many times, the messages seemed to be written directly to me. The simple and direct format, the colloquial language used, are certainly determining factors for the success and long life of the program.[33]
Good content and good use of forms go a long way in establishing communication with people outside of a congregational realm. Content and form matter. Context matters as well. Awareness of the context of video preaching impacts content and form and they will work together as one prepares to share Hope with the secular world mediated by a screen.
As a summary, I would recommend that a Lutheran video message seeking to engage with culture sharing the Gospel of Hope should be: Bible-based, Christ-centered, life directed, working with illustration/story and application to daily life, exploring the video and audio forms/resources to the best possible in the context, using direct, objective, and relevant language seeking to establish communication with the real life of the secular world.
3.1. Forms
People don’t always have the technical skills to say what is right or what is wrong with a video. But somehow, they can sense it. If you are presented with an A and a C quality movie, you notice the difference between them, even if you don’t have the technical skills and vocabulary to analyze photography, camera angles, lighting, and other technical aspects. It goes beyond analogical or digital quality or good and bad acting. The same holds true for video preaching. Therefore, if we can tackle some basic aspects of it, even when we are not professionals in the area, it will certainly improve its quality, and form will serve better the content we are communicating.
There are many websites with tips and recommendations for video making.[34] My take on practical aspects will not be recommendations on how to make successful videos that attract thousands of viewers. I don’t know how to do that to be honest. Rather, I focus on aspects that help Lutheran Preaching to be clear and well presented as it established connection with the secular world. Here are some practical video recommendations that deserve a closer look:
- Personal appearance and scenario – if you are using video, everything counts. From your hair to things in the background. Make sure as best as possible to have a framing in which only what is helpful is presented, and whatever may distract or divert from the focus on the message may be removed or set out of frame.
- Lighting – Video and lighting go hand in hand. In natural or electric light is not sufficient, make use of a direct light to help with the appearance of the video. Connected to this, you can make use of makeup when you go on video with a focused light on your face. It doesn’t need to be elaborate, but it can be very helpful.
- Form of the text - If you are speaking freely, practice avoiding fillers, cliches. For example, constructions that I call “phrases announcing you are landing”. They may have the benefit of routine, but overall, they may cause the “now he is finishing the message, so I don’t need to pay attention anymore” effect. Another aspect of the delivery would develop different ways of saying the same thing, which is basically what we do every time we preach.
- Use the best quality Equipment possible: Invest in good-quality camera, microphone, and lighting equipment. Consider using external microphones for better audio quality and reduced background noise.
- Edit Videos Thoughtfully: If your video preaching is pre-recorded, edition matters. Polishing the final product, for example, adding relevant subtitles or captions to improve accessibility and reach a broader audience enhances its potential of establishing the desired communication with potential viewers.
- Don’t forget the audio: Even though video is heavily dependent on image, audio cannot be overlooked. The voice carries the content we want to share, which points to the need of having it well received. The addition of subtitles and/or captions are helpful for this priority as well.
- Be prepared to interact: One of the basic features of the digital environment is interaction. People want to express themselves and bring their perspective about what they have watched or are watching. Now this one may become a challenge for video preachers is the possibility of interaction, even in real time. It may even become an issue when one agrees with Robert Schaibley, who says Lutheran messages and sermons are meant to be “proclaimed”, not “communicated”, as we are to speak the truth, not exchange information with listeners[35] In this case, the comments section may be intimidating if one compares it to the pulpit sermon setting. Especially if it clashes against a topic present in the cultural setting, and if contrary opinions pop up in the comments section. However, I understand that this may be seen not as a challenge to the truth of the Gospel, but as a possibility to establish connections and relationships. In that case, encourage viewers to leave comments and questions to engage in the conversation.
Finally, if I could give just one suggestion on both areas, content, and form, they would be:
Content: preach boldly. Develop your style and choice of words, don’t be afraid to be authentic. Skate on the edge when possible; be on the safe side when needed. Context matters, and it will be on your side to share the hope of a Christ-centered message.
Form: frame it well. There is huge visual impact in just adjusting the framing of your video to make form work well for your content.
Now, video preaching may sometimes face the objection that we shouldn't be too much worried about forms and ways of delivery for it is the Holy Spirit that owns the action. However, if that was the way Lutherans thought of using well different forms of communicating God’s truth, the confessors wouldn't have bothered delivering and entire Apology of the AC. They would have assumed that what they stated in the Confession would have been material enough through which the Holy Spirit would act. Form matters. Especially when we realize that the way we present something says a lot about importance given to content. My lived experience led me to reflect on the importance of tending to formal aspects of video delivery. When one uses the radio, voice is all he has. Therefore, a monotone or unexpressive voice will not help. There, preachers make the best use possible of their voice, and of silence too, to communicate. The same happens with visual communication. One does not make a banner or a poster as if only what he is writing is the important part. Resources and principles of graphic arts enter at play to make the piece desirable to be read. Adapting to the logic of the means enhances the communicational process and the delivery of the message. When we want to connect to culture, well worked forms are a gateway inviting people into the excellent content we want to share.
Form matters, but they are not essential. Forms are not essential, but they matter. The tension is present in video preaching, and I think this is a good thing. Lutherans like theological tensions, as Law and Gospel, iustus et peccator, already and not yet may attest. When tension in Theology is well managed, it generates great content, forms, ideas, and practices as the preacher shares the Gospel of Hope with the world. It does not imply loss of unity and Lutheran identity, but it rather strengthens it. Word and Sacraments correctly taught and administered means that the forms we are employing point to a Bible-based, Christ-centered, and life-directed video ministry.
4. Challenges in Video Preaching
Engaging in the digital world may sometimes not be perceived as an opportunity but only as a challenge for the Church. That might lead to total avoidance or to an excessively critical posture. These are some challenges that may arise connected to the use of the virtual environment are Digital Wellbeing and the use of Artificial intelligence.
I have addressed the topic of “Digital wellbeing” in an earlier essay.[36] What I would share in this essay is that, on the one hand, we shouldn’t ignore the challenges of the digital world, especially mobile technology. On the other hand, what needs to be underlined is the reality of digital technologies in daily life, the way they have changed our life and the way it becomes almost impossible to avoid them. Maryanne Wolf, brain researcher specialist, as concerned as she is with the brain and its abilities facing a digital era, is very clear in stating:
I have little doubt that the next generation will go beyond us in ways we cannot imagine at this moment. As Alec Ross, the author of The Industries of the Future, wrote, 65 percent of the jobs our present preschoolers will hold in the future haven’t even been invented yet. Their lives will be extended much beyond ours. They may well think very different thoughts. They will need the most sophisticated armamentarium of abilities that humans have ever acquired to date: vastly elaborated deep-reading processes that are shared with and expanded through coding, designing, and programming skills, all of which will be transformed by a future that none of us—from Stewart Brand, Sundar Pichai, Susan Wojcicki, Juan Enriquez, and Steve Gullans to Craig Venter and Jeff Bezos—can now predict.[37]
The digital world and mobile technology are not shrinking but will continue to expand in ways we can hardly figure out by now.
Here a broader look into the social history of the media and their assimilation is helpful. Burke and Briggs for example, offer an extensive overview of technologies from Gutenberg to the digital era. Their rise, the controversies, the research and the final acceptance and assimilation by society.[38] However, the Church and the digital world do not need to be antagonistic. Neither should be inferred that the Church would be condoning a problematic or even destructive digital culture and behavior by engaging in it. The fact mostly every technology suffered similar criticism before being accepted and adopted by the Church indicates that engagement and discernment could two sides of the same screen as we touch the topic from a Christian perspective.
On the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), there are many concerns about recent developments in the area in the 2020’s. Drawing on Wolf’s comments about the digital world, we can say that AI is here to stay. We have been actually using it for quite a while now, like when we grab pictures for a Power Point presentation, use emojis, do online banking or shop online. Another example of daily life includes self-services. For example, in Canada some people are against the AI technology of self-check outs because they close job posts, but many do use self-gas-pumps and self-banking, among other self-services. It would be contradictory to be against technology while making profitable use of it at the same time. The way ahead is not dismissal, but discernment.
In this context, the opportunity should not be missed. People are immersed in the digital world whether we deem it to be in a proper or not so proper manner. To make use of technology then is to engage in digital education and literacy and foster conversation, perhaps even helping with the difficult issues. Does it come with challenges and risks? It certainly does. However, the Church is used to challenge and risk, as she dealt with it through the ages. The Ecumenical Councils and their times; Reformation challenges; The development of the Enlightenment, and the rise of the Historical Critical Method illustrate it well. And the same holds true for our age. As Bernard Bull puts it, his readers “should realize the fact that one cannot choose the age in which to live, but one can decide how to respond to that age”.[39] Our approach as Lutherans to these and other challenging topics will be similar as we do with every new resource. [40] We use the tension between content and forms to craft ways of serving the Content of the Gospel to a world in need of Hope. We can respond to our age by making faithful use of content and form in rites/ceremonies/resources working together to share Christ in the World.
CONCLUSION
Video preaching is risky. As forms matter, they are not necessary to the true unity of the Church. Being creative and investing in a variety of ways means taking on risks and embracing tension. But it is worth taking. While established traditions and forms of expression have been recognized as valuable to the Church, none of them are part of the essence of the Church, rather, an outgrowth of it. For video preaching this adventure is even richer due to the challenge of communicating with a wide and 'invisible' audience. Traditional Lutheran homiletics has a vast production and, as Schmitt points out, it is a tapestry where, probably, no one has the whole piece, but everyone can contribute as a part. Video preaching, however, is still a piece in the making, a field that can be widely explored and to which this essay sought to make a small contribution. Utilizing the fundamentals of Lutheran homiletics gives solid basis for the task of the video preacher. AC VII gives the security and certainty of the existing possibilities and alternatives so that the Word and Sacraments, the essence of the Church, reach people in the forms and rites that best suit the context in which it is inserted.
Form and content then work together to share the Gospel of Hope in our secular age whenever and wherever a screen is at hand.
[1] Pastor at Mount Olive Lutheran Church, Regina relocating to Hope Lutheran in Port Coquitlam, BC - Canada. Theology Graduate from Seminario Concordia, Brazil (class of 1998) and The Lutheran University of Brazil [Ulbra] (class of 2015). Social Communications Bachelor (class of 2011), Ulbra, Brazil. STM graduate from Seminario Concordia, Brazil (2015). Doctor of Ministry Student at The Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. Served as producer, presenter, and director of the TV program “Toque de Vida”(Touch of Life) from 2004-2017. www.connectandreconnect.blogspot.com
[2] THIELECKE, Helmuth. How Modern Should Theology be? London, Fontana, 1970, p.10
[3] SCHMITT, David R. “The Tapestry of Preaching”. Available at: http://concordiatheology.org/2011/09/the-tapestry-of-preaching/ Accessed: August, 2023
[4] SCHMITT, “The Tapestry of Preaching”. Available at: http://concordiatheology.org/2011/09/the-tapestry-of-preaching/
[5] SCHMITT, “The Tapestry of Preaching”. Available at: http://concordiatheology.org/2011/09/the-tapestry-of-preaching/
[6] The detailed research can be accessed at: ALBRECHT, Lucas André. Preaching to everyone and to no one. Master's Dissertation, 2015. English version available at: https://connectandreconnect.blogspot.com/2023/05/preaching-for-everyone-and-for-no-one.html
[8] “The pastor as a leader”. Winter Class by Dr. William Thompson at the Concordia Seminary Sao Leopoldo, Brazil, 1999.
[9] For example: https://www.natcom.org/communication-currents/media-routines-shape-our-days. “Generally, television viewing was most strongly associated with routines.”
[14]Apology of the AC, VII.
[15] Romais, Astomiro. In: “Igrejas neopentecostais nascem com a midiatização” Available at: https://guiame.com.br/gospel/mundo-cristao/igrejas-neopentecostais-nascem-com-a-midiatizacao Access: August, 2023
[16] Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1991, chapter 6
[17] ALBRECHT, Lucas André. Preaching to everyone and anyone . Master's Dissertation, 2015. Available at the Concordia Seminary Library.
[18]PRIETO, Ely. Communication skills for postmodern challenges . San Antonio; 2003, Work presented in the classroom for a graduate course. p.39
[19] ROSIN, Robert. The medium shapes the message. In: “Luther and Communication: The Use of the Media in Proclaiming the Gospel.” Organized by Paulo W. Buss. Nilo Waccholz, ed. Porto Alegre, Concordia, 2015, p.42
[20] ROSSOW, Justin P. “Preaching the Story behind the Image: A Narrative Approach to Metaphor for Preaching.” Ph.D. diss., Concordia Seminary, 2008., p.5
[21]KOLB, Robert. “Communicating the Gospel Today”. Translated by Dieter Joel Jagnow. Porto Alegre, Concordia, 2009, p.10.
[23]SILVA, Fabiano Ribeiro da. In: ALBRECHT, Lucas André. Preaching to everyone and anyone . Master's Dissertation, 2015. Available at the Concordia Seminar Library.
[24]BORDINHAO, Fernanda Chacon. In: ALBRECHT, Lucas André. “Preaching to everyone and anyone”. Master's Dissertation, 2015. Available at the Seminario Concordia Library.
[25]SILVA, Fabiano Ribeiro da. In: ALBRECHT, Lucas André. “Preaching to everyone and anyone” Master's Dissertation, 2015. Available at the Seminario Concordia Library.
[26]NUCCI, Tatiana In: ALBRECHT, Lucas André. “Preaching to everyone and anyone”. Master's Dissertation, 2015. Available at the Seminario Concordia Library).
[27]BORDINHAO, “Preaching to everyone and anyone”. Master's Dissertation, 2015. Available at the Concordia Seminar Library.
[28] PATTEMORE, Stephen. On The Relevance of Translation Theory. In: “Review and Exhibitor” . No.: 108, Spring 2011. P.266.
[29]PATTEMORE, Stephen. On The Relevance of Translation Theory. In: “Review and Exhibitor”. No.: 108, Spring 2011. P.267.
[30] Another challenge may emerge here, that is, as the video preacher establishes communication, he needs both to confirm and to challenge the listener views. The listener has already some pre-formed ideas about what should or should not be preached, normally waiting for the pastor to confirm his convictions. If this expectation is frustrated, he will be considered a non-preacher, which ends up breaking communication. On the other hand, the preacher cannot only confirm what the listeners expect, under penalty of not taking the listeners beyond where they are (KIRST, “Rudiments in Homiletics”, 1985). It points us back to the necessity of good management of Law and Gospel in preaching.
[33]NUCCI, Tatiana In: ALBRECHT, Lucas André. Preaching to everyone and anyone . Master's Dissertation, 2015. Available at the Concordia Seminar Library.
[34] For example:
1.
"How to Make Short Videos for Social Media" by HubSpot - https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/how-to-make-short-videos-for-social-media
2. "10 Tips for Creating Short Videos People Will Watch" by Sprout
Social - https://sproutsocial.com/insights/short-videos/
3. "7 Tips for Making Short Videos That Will Captivate Your Audience"
by Animoto - https://animoto.com/blog/business/short-video-tips/
[35] Schaibley, Robert.
[36] “Digital Well Being”. https://connectandreconnect.blogspot.com/2023/02/digital-well-being.html. Essay written for the Doctor of Ministry Program.
[37] Wolf, Maryanne. “Reader, Come Home; the Reading Brain in a Digital World.” First Harper paperbacks edition. New York: Harper, 2019, p.169
[38] BRIGGS, Asa; BURKE, Peter. A social history of media: from Gutenberg to the Internet. Rio de Janeiro, Jorge Zahar Ed., 2006. 2nd ed., p.19 Briggs and Burke notice that the idea of the social spectacle – public rituals, for example – can be traced back to as far back as, at least, the 17th century. “The word “spectacle”, commonly used in the 17th century, was resurrected in the 20th century”. Video preaching, despite its distinctive characteristics, does not seem to be a pioneer in its appeal to emotion and its tendency towards massification. The assertion that “the spectacle has become the world”, derived from The Society of the Spectacle (1967), must be contrasted with the comment of Richard Adler, American television writer: “The small screen seriously limits the effectiveness of the spectacle”. Another point highlighted by Burke and Briggs is the fact that most of the criticisms leveled at television in the 1960s and 1970s are outdated. However, "some seem curiously persistent." Television continues to be criticized for being an agency of reduction and trivialization of issues and news, as well as a negative force, distorting content, and facts. However, McLuhan, in the 1980s, was already much less cited than 20 years earlier. The debates went further, especially addressing the role of the family. Many said that children needed protection from television, but there was little consensus on how to do this. It appears, therefore, that, having received fierce criticism, especially between the 1960s and 1980s, television has also been seen, more recently, with less prejudice and from positive angles, as an example, its use as a vehicle of information and information.
[39] Bull, Bernard Dean, “Digitized: Spiritual Implications of Technology”, Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House. 2018.
[40] A third criticism that could be addressed here about theology surrendering to the logic of the means, losing power of its content, being oversimplistic, and turning the content into merchandise and making it impossible to separate form and content (Farias, 1999). I understand that this criticism has in mind the fact that form and content are used in video by many companies, institutions, and people to manipulate people. However, Lutherans are in a good position to push back against it, first because why “using the logic of the means” would be a problem is still to be proved. Then, by noting that simple messages are at the essence of Lutheran preaching. For example, parables, stories illustrations. That doesn’t imply that the content will necessarily be simplistic, as short affirmations with and ocean of meaning such as “Jesus is Lord” and “God is Love” can attest. Further to that, Lutheran Homiletics does not leave room for manipulation, but for proclamation. A Lutheran Communicator can never have in mind the use of form to manipulate his hearers even because he knows about the action of the Holy Spirit. Preachers deliver, and the Lord directs. Form and content being undistinguishable from each other is not a problem in this content but an asset since both are used by the Holy Spirit to carry the Word of Salvation.
Comments
Post a Comment