Video is a great tool for getting the message across. I wanted to try a few of the popular sermon video sites out. So like all great tech articles, I did a lab test.
The Lab Test
Its the beginning of another week. Here I am wanting to teach on the story of Jonah this Sunday in an all-age setting. Type Jonah into the search box on each site and lets see what I find…
- SermonSpice has a nice very short animation of the story just 40 seconds long. $7 though!
- BlueFishTV has a very cute retelling of the story by children. Its 1min 44s long and is just $1.99.
- SermonVideos.com – not a lot really. Just a couple of videos that are also on SermonSpice and nothing to do with Jonah.
- Highway Video – nothing.
- YouTube - OK, I confess I had to type Jonah and the whale, but sift through the rubbish you’ll find this simple animated version of the story
The Verdict
For me BlueFishTV comes out top. It is easy to navigate, has lots of good quality videos to download and is so much less expensive than the other paying sites. In second I’ll put YouTube and I guess if you lump in all those other video sharing sites you have a huge resource available. So huge it does make finding the decent stuff much harder. The main drawback with YouTube is the video format can mean that some videos are not of sufficient quality for playback in church.
So here’s how they rank based on my lab test:
- BluefishTV.com – great videos and nearly free ($1.99 a download). (Lab Score: 4.5)
- YouTube – where else do go for FREE video? Quality of video for playback in church is not great. (Lab Score: 4)
- SermonSpice.com – lots of good video, but expensive. (Lab Score: 3.5)
- SermonVideos.com – very similar to sermonspice but not as easy to navigate (Lab Score: 2)
- Highway Video – judging from their home page, they seem to think its still Christmas! (Lab Score: 0)
Of course YouTube lets you embedd videos in your own blog:
Afterthought…
Does anybody know of a free site like YouTube dedicated to church/christian use or are all the Christians with video cameras too busy trying to make money?
Why would you want a video for your sermon? Is it for children?
Why not? Your question suggests you think there is something not quite right about using video along side your sermon on Sunday. Perhaps you would like to elaborate. I certainly don’t think video it is just for children, though my example above was for an all-age setting.
Video is a powerful form of communication. If we are to communicate effectively today, why not use video? It is one form of communication that is available to us. Use pictures and images. Use stories and modern day parables. Use the movies that everybody is watching – communicate in ways that people can relate to.
I refuse to debate it, but I’ll just state that the God ordained method isn’t merely to communicate in whatever way we please, but in the setting of an audience we are to “preach the word…reprove, rebuke, exhort will all longsuffering and doctrine” Such actions cannot be done by machines, they must be carried out by God’s desired instrument – man himself.
Rom 10:17 also declares that, “faith cometh by hearing” not by watching. Although you may think you’ll get your point across better with a visual, God says his way is by the ‘hearing’ of the Word.
Maybe you’ve never thought of your duties to God in this light before?
If you don’t want a debate, why are you spending all day posting these crazy comments on my blog?
Blogging is about having a conversation not a debate. Having a conversation means you have to listen too.
Does Romans 10:17 really say videos are bad? If faith only comes to those who can hear, then my deaf friends are lost for ever. Fortunately Jesus went round helping people see and hear. He even showed them what love looked like.
Tim, I really think you’re overreacting.
“Spending all day” I made one comment and then I replied, how is that “all day”?
“crazy comments” I think this is a little harsh, especially as I was quoting scripture. Do you not like scripture Tim?
Romans 10:17 is stating a rule. There are exceptions to the rule, such as what you have mentioned, deaf people. But like I say, these are exceptions, the general rule is “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God” You can’t rewrite the rule just because of a few exceptions you can think of. God can (and has) use any means to draw people to Christ, but the general rule is that by the foolishness of preaching, He will save souls.
I love the bible, but I guess my approach to it is very different from yours. I don’t think the bible is a book of rules for starters and to create new rules by proof texting from Romans in order to dismiss the use of video illustrations is in my humble opinion just a little bit crazy.
I just cannot get on board with your comments Armen. I would go as far as to say that I am puzzled by them.
First, Jesus was into stories in a big way. When he wanted to make a point he told a story, we know them as parables. Having told the story he would then often back this up with some words to illustrate the meaning. This seems to me to be no different from showing a video clip as part of a sermon.
Second, obviously the bible does not mention the use of video clips, because they were not invented. The bible also does not mention the discussion of the practice of preaching on the internet. However, it seems that none of us considers it to be sinful or wrong! If I understand you correctly, the principle that you propose is that only methods of communication used and understood by 1st century people can be used, since this is all they would have been able to write about. The issue that I have with this approach is that it would lead us to some clearly unhelpful and misguided conclusions elsewhere.
Third, don’t think that just becuase you are quoting scripture you cannot be crazy. The devil quotes scripture to Jesus in the wilderness. In the past many people have used scripture to abuse and mislead many. It really comes down to interpretation. The question that I would like to ask of Romans 10:17 is this: What was the point Paul was trying to make here? Do we honestly beleive that he was wanting to make the point that faith can only come as the result of hearing and not some other medium? If we do beleive that then naturally all deaf people are consigned to hell, since they can never hear the message. However, maybe we could see sign language as a valied way of communicating the good news to a deaf person. In that case, we recognise the validity of a visual medium. Reading the context of that passage it is clear that what is in view is the communication and reception of the message and not the audio nature of that meeage.
Thanks for your post, Tim. Is there anyway to download videos from Youtube to use them in church?
As far as Armen, sorry, but you are using a text say something that is not meant to say.
Jesus used visuals as well. Jesus said, “Do you not say, ‘Four months more and then the harvest’? I tell you, open your EYES and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest.” Also, why did Jesus perform miracles? That was communication through visual means.
Finally, it is proven that video+audio is a much more effective way of communicating than hearing alone. I think it’s great to use video for illustrations in a sermon.
Thanks for your coments guys.
To download YouTube videos and FLVs on other sites, you can use one of the video download plugins for Firefox (e.g. video downloader) and playback locally using the Riva player (the package also has an encoder).
Thanks a lot!
Are you reading the same chapter? It’s all about verbal testifying and preaching.
v9 “confess with thy mouth”
v10 “with the mouth confession is made”
v14 “how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
v14 “how shall they hear without a preacher”
v15 “how shall they preach” “preach the gospel of peace”
v16 “who hath believed our report?”
v17 “so then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”
v18 “have they not heard?…and their words unto the ends of the world”
Do you still think I’m using the text to say something it doesn’t say?
Again I say, there are exceptions to the rule (such as the deaf), but they enforce the fact that verbal preaching is a God ordained rule.
This does not rule out other methods, but when God calls a man to preach, that is what he should do.
Your argument that Jesus used ‘visuals’ is completely twisted. He used nature to make deeper truths, easier to understand, he wasn’t just painting pictures. Oh, and how would deaf people in Jesus’ day have known what he meant by pointing to the harvest fields when they couldn’t hear him?
As far as his miracles, they were to prove his divinty and authority. Do your visuals do that?
Bryan – it has been proven that preaching (without visual aids) with the anointing of the Holy Spirit is a much more effective method than all the miracles and visuals in the world. If people aren’t listening, then the preacher ought to plead to God to fill him with power, and then he ought to get into the pulpit and preach the gospel like he really believes what he is saying. Preach with God given authority!
Other methods of communication have their place, but not in the pulpit.
Armen,
We are reading the same chapter and it speaks of the power of the gospel and the need to communicate it. But we read the whole bible where there are loads of examples of visual communication. God himself uses fire and clouds in the OT to indicate his presence. He even uses silence to speak to Elijah. Every week we are reminded of all God’s promises through visual symbols of invisible grace. God has not communicated in history exclusively by spoken word only. People have even “cometh” to faith simply by reading the bible in their own language too, without any preacher.
Nobody is saying that we don’t believe in preaching anymore. I think our main problem Armen, is how you construct your arguments reading the bible this way. To read the text in black and white without thought for historical or contemporary context, ignoring common experience and the rest of the bible gets you in all sorts of trouble.
Since Jesus did “use nature to make deeper truths, easier to understand”. This is precisely what we are saying. Our task is to make things understandable and in our modern culture showing the odd video clip can be one way in which we make a point clearer. Admittedly our illustrations spoken or visual actually sometimes can do the opposite.
The need is for clear communication of the message and it is the Holy Spirit that makes your people listen and induces faith, not the preacher, anoitned or otherwise, whether you are “in the pulpit” or not ( if I use your way of reading the bible I shouldn’t be in a pulpit because nowhere in my bible does it tell me that the place to preach is in a pulpit).
And while we are on the subject of communication. It helps to use the language of the people too and not seventeenth century English. People died for the right to use the common language of the people to communicate the message of the bible. “Cometh” is not a word in the vocabulary of people who live here and probably isn’t where you live either. My google spell checker even underlines words like that.
How will they hear if they don’t understand what you are saying?
If you can reveal the glory of Christ and His cross work with Power Point or something else, without creating an idolitrous and popish image of Christ that God condemns, and can defend such practices in the word of God then that’s up to you.
If you can’t see God’s desire for His instruments just to preach Christ, then I’m at a loss. Did Peter have images on the day of Pentecost? Did Paul have them when preaching to the Athenians? Do people with images see people understanding the gospel more than they did?
I think you’ll find Ezra preaching in a “pulpit” by the way.
And until a Bible comes out that is as accurate (I’m not saying it’s perfect) as the Authorised Version, then I’ll continue to use it, and continue to see people saved when it’s preached. I don’t know what your intelligence level is, but the children I teach from ungodly homes understand the vocabulary of the Authorised Version as much as they would any other version.
As I side note, I recommend you tune into the Ligonier National Conference Live Webcast on at the moment, featuring John Piper, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul and others.
Yes Peter did have images too didn’t he. Tongues of fire is quite an impressive display really. Healing people was also quite cool. As for idols, you seem to have your own set of them so please don’t start bashing the pope in this debate.
Oh, and according to my Hebrew bible Ezra stood on a high platform or tower of wood. If you are so interested in accuracy in your translation, it is highly presumptuous to read into this text the later contemporary word “pulpit”. But heh, I don’t think Peter needed one when thousands came to Christ upon seeing his firework display.
If you are going start bashing the catholics and questioning my intelligence then this conversation is finished and I’ll shake the dust off my feet (I wonder if there is an emoticon for that one).
Ah! Your last comment explains everything. I see why we’re never going to see eye-to-eye.
If you’re going to defend a ‘system’ which is the ruination of millions of souls, then I know that further dialogue is pointless.
(P.S. I’m not bashing individual catholic people and the tongues of fire were not seen by those that were converted that day)
Jesus told stories, parables, to illustrate the truth. Using videos can be a culturally relevant way to illustrate the truth. By the way, a good source for movie clips that can be used in a sermon or teaching is WingClips.com.
Speak the truth (Gods Word) in love. When you have too, use words.
People like our man Armen make me sad.
The saddest part is he feels the need to have these “debates” because he feels the need to validate his “righteousness”. If he didn’t he would simply have moved on after the first post.
Anyway, cool little test Tim, I’ve found all four of those sites [not so much YouTube] useful for illustrations. Although I do find it ridiculous that they want $20 per video!
I like Armen’s second post:
“I refuse to debate it, but…”
If you refuse to debate… why finish this sentence?
…Just kidding Armen.
How can we really debate the effective use of video illustrations using biblical references when such methods were not even thought of?
I think videos are an effective way to grasp people’s attention before you deliver the word. I don’t know about you guys, but I preach to a room full of people who are easily distracted. Perhaps in a room full of mature Christians, such coercions are not necessary… But show me a room full of mature Christians. I say that lovingly… being the affable smart-alec that I am!
Peace out…
I came across this blog while looking for good comparisons of places that sell Sermon Video Illustrations. I’d say I agree with your rankings. I’ve used all of them except SermonVideos.com
Most of the time the videos on Youtube are not high enough quality. I’ve noticed that some sites have started putting their previews on youtube, which I think is helpful.
http://www.Bluefishtv.com has the best value by far. We’ve used the most videos from them.
I don’t really agree with the debate either. I think videos are great in sermons.
To Armen: I think you’re an idiot and you make me that much more resolved to not be a Christian. Thank you for being so anal as to shove me away from whatever religion you’re trying to promote with your narrow and egotistical views. And just for the record… do people not speak in videos? Are those not words being said? Oh sorry, I must have been mistaken… that would’ve made your argument silly.
To Tim: “If faith only comes to those who can hear, then my deaf friends are lost for ever.” – ha! I laughed out loud on this one. Props to you for the witty humour found in this pointless debate.
And now I quote the words of Yeshua as written by Mattityahu: “Woe to you, hypocritical Torah-teachers and P’rushim! For you are shutting the Kingdom of heaven in people’s faces, neither entering yourselves nor allowing those who wish to enter do so. Woe to you hypocritical Torah-teachers and P’rushim! You go about over land and sea to make one proselyte; and when you succeed, you make him twice as fit for Gey-Hinnom as you are! Woe to you hypocritical Torah-teachers and P’rushim! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look fine on the outside but inside are full of dead people’s bones and all kinds of rottenness. Likewise, you appear to people from the outside to be good and honest, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and far from Torah.”
Congratulations to all the idiotic “Christians” out there who sit and debate over stupid things like whether or not to play a video as part of a sermon.
And congratulations on being just like the Torah-teachers and P’rushim (you might know them as Pharisees and Sadducees)… parading about trying to make “intelligent” arguments and debate the “law” and point out everyone else’s faults. I want nothing to do with you.