Effective Church Visuals

Not too long ago, "Should a church use projectors?" was a hot topic. It seems to have cooled off a bit, perhaps because enough churches are using them that the question is fast becoming moot. Not trying to start a new arguescussion, but in my opinion, the ability to have high-quality visuals is the most important tool for churches since the invention of the sound system. The more senses you can engage, the better the message gets across - why do you think Jesus pointed to the fields, the flowers and the birds when He preached? But be sure that you are making the best use of this tool that you possibly can!

It's really easy to get excited about what we can do instead of what's most effective. Many sound systems will allow you to add an echo effect to the speaker's voice. It might sound cool, but you would never do it because it would be really distracting. On the other hand, it could be very useful at times - during a Christmas play or other drama, perhaps. In the same way, just because you can place a really cool motion background behind song lyrics or the Scripture text doesn't mean you should. Depending on the church and the setting, background graphics can be appropriate or distracting. And never use a great-looking background if it makes the content hard to read. If you are unsure, err on the side of simplicity. There's nothing wrong with white text on a black background.

While you are at it, you should probably learn some basics of creating slides for projection, such as when to use serif fonts or the 1-6-6 rule. (If you don't know what these are, find out before you prepare any more visuals.)

We understand that PowerPoint is a very effective tool for the classroom, and the teacher is expected to use it well. But if our goal (or one of our goals) is to enable people to understand Scripture, then use the church projector for that end. Having a way of presenting quality visuals is one of the most powerful tools I know of for teaching Scripture. 

Clarifying the meaning of "redeeming" in Ephesians 5:15-17. It's much
more effective than just saying, "in this verse, redeeming means
 'making the best use of.'"

There's no limit on how to do that. Many preachers list their points on the screen, but why not diagram the text? Or color-code it to correspond to your points? (You do draw your points directly from the text, don't you??) 

How would you explain what "redeeming the time" means in Ephesians 5:16? Or ever noticed the connection between "redeeming the time" and understanding God's will? Having seen it visualized, I guarantee that the next time you read the passage you'll notice it.

Laying out the text visually helps people (and you!) see the flow of the passage as well as connections between
concepts and terms. Here, "redeeming the time" is tied to both wisdom and understanding God's will.

You should be using every tool you have available - especially the projector - to make Scripture more understandable and memorable. So what do you do to use your church projector effectively?

Fearful Trust

Ahab was a very wicked king of Israel. He and Jezebel his wife worshipped Ba'al, a Canaanite god, and killed all the prophets of God that they could find.

Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, worshipped God, and destroyed the pagan idols and shrines. But he became an ally of wicked king Ahab. Ahab tried to trick Jehoshaphat to save himself, but trick failed and Ahab was killed in battle. That story is in 2 Chronicles 18, if you want to read it.

Jehoshaphat returned home in defeat, and the Lord sent a prophet to rebuke him for becoming the ally of a king that hated God. Soon after, Jehoshaphat got news that three enemy nations had joined forces and were sending a huge army to wipe him out. Instead of trying to find a new ally, he did what he should have done in the first place, and immediately went to prayer. 2 Chronicles 20 verse 3 says that Jehoshaphat "feared and set his face to seek the Lord." "Set his face" is an old phrase that means he decided and stuck to his decision. He would seek God's help. When terrified, he steeled himself to wait on God.

Then Jehoshaphat prayed a beautiful prayer: "O Lord, God of our fathers, are you not God in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. In Your hand are power and might, so that none is able to withstand You."

In his prayer, Jehoshaphat recounted God's promise of protection, saying, "We will cry out to you in our affliction, and You will hear and save." He also told the Lord the huge challenge that they were facing: "We are powerless against this great horde that is coming against us."

Then he prayed this incredible ending: "We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on You.” This is the same man that had, not long before, gone and sought military protection from God's enemy. He'd been rebuked and repented of that decision, and here he simply throws himself, his family, and his nation on God's mercy. "Our eyes are on You" - we are waiting for You, trusting You, and will obey You.

And God stepped in and saved them. The enemy armies started fighting among themselves, and God's people watched as their enemies wiped themselves out.

I don't know what you are facing today. Maybe you are overwhelmed, maybe you don't know what to do, maybe you've failed before and are afraid that you will just fail over and over. Even if you are scared to death and not feeling very trusting, you can still do what Jehoshaphat did - dedicate yourself to seek God, take your situation to Him, then wait on Him. And He will take over for you. It may not be as spectacular as He did for Jehoshaphat, it may not be immediate, it may not be what you expect. But keep your eyes on Him, and He will come and save you.

The Impossible Question

In John 9, Jesus and His disciples were walking along the road and saw a blind beggar sitting there. Now, in that day they thought that an affliction like blindness was a punishment for sinning. But this man had been blind since birth, so the disciples wanted to know whether he had sinned before he was born, or if he was suffering because his parents had sinned.

The problem is, Jesus could not answer that question. It had no answer. That's not the way suffering works.

•  Sometimes you suffer because of your own bad choices. Addiction usually occurs because someone has chosen to consistently use drugs or alcohol.
• Sometimes you suffer because of someone else's sinful choices that affect you. If you were abused as a child, it's not because you deserved it. It's because someone else chose to sin, and you took the brunt of it.
• And sometimes you suffer just because we live in a fallen world, full of hurt and injustice and pain. If you have cancer, it's not a punishment. It's just part of the effect of sin on this world.

The disciples thought the beggar was being punished for sin, and wanted to know who to blame. But Jesus answered, "No, it's not that this man or his parents sinned. Instead, this is a chance to do God's work." Then He healed the blind man. He understood that damage caused by sin is an opportunity for grace.

The disciples saw a beggar; Jesus saw a person. The disciples saw the effect of sin; Jesus saw an opportunity for grace. The disciples asked who to blame; Jesus showed them how to help. 

The horror and glory of the cross

Today, the cross is recognized as a beautiful symbol of Christianity, and the Red Cross is recognized around the world for helping people in need. But in New Testament time, the cross was something horrible. In fact, the word "cross" was so offensive that even well-bred pagan Romans tried not to use it, substituting some other phrase that sounded better, like "lifted up” or “hanged on the unlucky tree.” The cross was an instrument of torture and terror, designed to execute a person in a way that would strike fear into the heart of everyone who saw it. It was also a symbol of racism. A Roman would never be crucified - the cross was reserved for slaves or traitors. In the 1950s and 60s, the KKK used burning crosses to spread fear and intimidation through the American South; in much the same way, first-century Romans used crucifixion to remind the Jews of what would happen should they try to resist Rome.

So in Galatians 6, when Paul says that he would never brag about anything except for the cross, it was absolutely shocking. How could he take pride in a symbol of terror and oppression?

It's because Jesus changed the meaning of the cross forever. Paul recognized that the crucifixion of Christ was a life-changing death. It represents a total break from "the world" - that is, the warped value system and self-centered way of life that is everywhere around us. The cross changes our perspective, and we see that people are more important than money and character is more important than success. We see the horror of sin and the beauty of holiness.

Along with our perspective, the cross changes our heart. It actually enables us to follow Christ, to have a life that reflects God's value system, to have a soul that responds to the Spirit. Accepting Christ's death on the cross as your own is the single most powerful moment of your life - and it's a moment that will last for eternity.

Tempted, just like us

The first three Gospels all record Jesus' being led by the Spirit into the wilderness for 40 days of temptation (Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, Luke 4:1-13). Matthew and Luke include much more detail about the final three temptations that Christ endured:

• to turn the nearby stones into bread (He had been fasting for the 40 days and seriously needed food)
• to throw Himself down from the "pinnacle of the Temple," (a high corner of the Temple overlooking the city where the priests would blow the trumpet to announce the beginning of Sabbath or a feast day), in the expectation that God would miraculously save Him
• to give allegiance to Satan in return for authority over all the kingdoms of the world

These three temptations have a remarkable similarity to the three aspects of the first temptation, of Eve in the Garden of Eden. In Genesis 3:6, Eve saw that the forbidden fruit:

• Was good for food
• Looked attractive
• Would make her wise (or so she thought, based on the serpent's lie)

 Now, the similarity between the two temptations might not be immediately obvious, but let's look a bit deeper.

• The first temptation was to fulfill a physical need in a way that God had not ordained. The fact that Satan suggested turning the stones into bread lets us know immediately that this idea did not come from God. Even though the act may not have been immoral in itself, to do so would have strayed from God's revealed will, thus Christ would not do it. So for both Eve and Jesus, there was a temptation to fulfill a physical need in a wrong way.
• Eve looked on the outward appearance of the forbidden fruit and found it attractive,  and her decision to disobey God was based (at least partly) on what the fruit looked like. Similarly, Satan tempted Jesus by showing Him the kingdoms of the world and their glory, trying to get Jesus to respond based on their beauty and attractiveness. Both of these were temptations to make an appearance-based decision, a shallow, selfish approach to judgment rather than considering the situation from God's perspective.  Numerous Scripture passages refer to this danger - for example, Isaiah 11:3 and John 7:24.
• The underlying principle of Eve's third temptation is self-exaltation - Eve became dissatisfied with what God had revealed to her and wanted to be wise in her own right. Likewise, had Jesus cast Himself down in the sight of the entire city of Jerusalem and been miraculously rescued, this would have brought Him instant fame and popularity. In both cases, then, the temptation was to shortcut God's method of being acclaimed - "humble yourselves before the Lord and He will exalt you" (James 4:10).

 So the principles underlying these temptations are the same - physical desires, appearance-based desires, and self-exaltation.* In fact, Luke rearranges the order in which he lists Jesus' temptations, apparently to reflect the order of the original temptation that resulted in the Fall.**

There are two glaring differences between the two episodes, however. First, Eve was tempted at a time when she had no pressing needs like hunger or pain, no fear of coming distress, no other real impetus to do wrong. Jesus, on the other hand, was extremely weak and hungry at the time, and knew what His future held - no doubt part of the temptation for Him was the possibility of avoiding the pain of rejection and the cross.

The other glaring difference is this: while Eve and Adam fell, Jesus Christ was victorious. He triumphed over a much more intense form of the same temptations that our first parents faced - and that we face. Every temptation is based on one or a combination of these three principles: physical desires, appearance-based desires, and self-exaltation. Jesus overcame every temptation, and He invites us to share in His victory as well. His Spirit enables us to overcome the temptations that we face in our lives every day.

* These are the same three principles that John listed as comprising "worldliness" in 1 John 2:16 - "For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world."

** Compare the narratives in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 - Matthew uses "time connectors" like "then" & "again," while Luke uses a simple "and" to connect the episodes.

The Child in the Temple

We know very little about Jesus' boyhood. The only insight we get is found in the end of Luke chapter 2. Jesus is 12 years old, and He has accompanied His parents to Jerusalem for the Feast of Passover. When the feast is over, Mary and Joseph join a caravan and head back to Nazareth, thinking that Jesus is still with them. As they make camp after the day's travel, they discover that Jesus is nowhere in the group. Frightened, they head back to Jerusalem and begin searching for Jesus. They finally find Him in the Temple, talking with the Rabbis and experts in the Scripture, who are amazed at His knowledge and the quality of His questions.

Image from freebibleimages.org. 

Mary rebukes Him: “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.”

Apparently Jesus did not know that Mary and Joseph had left for Nazareth, and had returned and were searching for Him. He's genuinely surprised and a bit perplexed. "But why were you searching for Me? Didn't you know where I would be - in My Father's house, learning about My Father?"

In fact, these are the earliest recorded words of Jesus, His first statement that has been passed down to us in Scripture. And what words they are! They sum up what Jesus' entire life was about. Even at 12 years old, Jesus knew exactly who He was - the Son of God. The average Israelite did not refer to God as "My Father" - in fact, this could be considered blasphemy. But Jesus knew that it was true. This is especially clear when you note that in Mary's rebuke, she referred to Joseph as "your father." Of course, she knew that Joseph was not Jesus physical father, but Joseph had raised Jesus from birth, cared for and provided for Him. No doubt "father" was Jesus' common title for Joseph.

But Jesus' response shows that His focus was shifting from His earthly parents to His real Father in Heaven. Jesus was in His Father's house, learning about His Father. Question and answer was the usual format for learning in first-century Judaism, and we here glimpse Jesus fully engaged in the process. There is no suggestion of debating in the text, no picture of Jesus trying to teach the teachers. No, He is soaking in everything He can learn about His Father, His Father's Word, His Father's will and character and commands. Jesus knows who He is, and as a result, He is 100% God-focused.

If you had to answer the question "who are you," what would you say? I'm a welder, a business man, a teacher, a student, a mother or grandfather? Those are all jobs, roles or relationships. But who are you, in the deepest part of your soul? Are you a child of God? If so, do you really understand that you are a child of God? That's the foundation to be the best accountant, officer, nurse, father, wife - whatever your role, you fulfill it best by being, first of all, God's beloved child.

Reconstructing Christmas

It's time for the Christmas story once again, how Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem to pay their taxes and couldn't find any room in the local inn so they had to suffer the indignity of spending the night with the animals - and that's why the Messiah was literally born in a barn.

But that's not really the way it happened. In some ways the reality wasn't as bad as we think; in other, more important ways, it was worse; and in all ways, it is a more human tale that we usually realize.

First, let's be clear - we are trying to piece together the details of what happened long ago by reconstructing life in first-century Judea and using that to fill in the gaps in the biblical record. Our knowledge is fragmentary, there are lots of gaps, and at times we must simply make our best guess. But we can certainly get closer to the truth than the usual sanitized nativity story bathed in the rosy glow of tradition.

First, Joseph did not go to Bethlehem just to pay his taxes, but to register for a census. Scripture says that everyone went to his own town to be registered as part of a Rome-ordered census. But while history records a number of times that the Romans took a census, there is no record of anyone having to travel to their ancestral homes to be counted. It is possible that Joseph still owned property in Bethlehem and so had to be counted there. Or perhaps because of the Jewish pride in ancestry, this was a local Jewish custom. Especially the descendants of David would want to go to David's hometown to be counted for the census.

Second, why did Mary accompany Joseph? She was certainly not required to do so by law, and it seems unlikely that even local custom would have required a woman to accompany her almost-husband for a Roman census. Again, we are left to make our best guess as to the reason that Mary went to Bethlehem with Joseph, and there are two possibilities. First, she almost certainly knew the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, and perhaps she insisted on going with Joseph in order to fulfill this prophecy. Or there is a darker possibility - Joseph was her betrothed, not her husband. A betrothed woman remained a member of her father's household until the wedding. Once she was "found to be with child," the natural assumption would have been that it was Joseph's child, and the fact that Joseph chose to marry her anyway made this certain - at least in the eyes of her family and neighbors. Might Mary have been banished from her father's home and chosen to accompany Joseph because there was no other real option for her? At least going with Joseph would have provided an escape from the local gossip surrounding the pregnancy.

Once they arrived in Bethlehem - whether they traveled by foot, donkey, or cart, we just don't know - we run into the next big question. What was the "inn"? Several factors suggest that it wasn't actually an inn at all. First, the word traditionally translated "inn" has a variety of uses ranging from "inn" to "guest quarters" or even "dining room," but it's definitely not the usual word for "inn." Second, as far as we know, Bethlehem at the time was an unimportant village of just a few families - not the sort of place that would need an inn. Third, Joseph had relatives in Bethlehem - that's the reason that he went there. Given the strong cultural emphasis on family and hospitality, there's no way that Joseph and Mary were left to fend for themselves at the local inn. So, putting all the pieces together, it's likely that Joseph and Mary were staying with Joseph's relatives, and since there was no room for them in the living quarters, they had to spend the night at the home's stable.

Actually, staying with the animals was probably not that big a deal, especially when away from home. The poor of that day lived as best they could, their houses were generally strong but simple shelters, and they spent most of their time outside anyway. In many houses, the animals lived on the ground floor, with the living quarters above. So rather than being alone in a secluded stable, Mary likely gave birth in or very near a house, with relatives to assist her.

But that brings up another question. It's easy to understand a harried innkeeper turning Joseph and Mary away from his door, but relatives? Especially in light of that culture's hospitality expectations, it's almost inconceivable that Joseph's relatives would not make room for them in the living quarters of the house, even if it meant the owners sleeping with the animals. The situation only makes sense when we understand the stigma that was on Mary as an unwed mother. No doubt in the minds of many, she (and Joseph) should have been stoned for adultery. After bringing such a blight on the family name - David's family! - being granted any lodging at all was more than should be expected.

If this reconstruction is correct, then when newborn Jesus was laid in the manger, it was not because He was ignored, but because, along with Mary and Joseph, He was rejected, deemed unfit to be with the family. The first Christmas, then, was not heartwarming or peaceful, but cruel and cutting. No wonder that Mary "treasured up" the shepherd's visit as the single shining moment of that bitter night, the one reminder that God still remembered her and her Child.

So this year as you celebrate the coming of the Savior, remember the reality of the first Christmas: in the midst of darkness, pain and confusion, Christ enters, faith endures, and God is still in control.