Encouraging news: Most still prefer in-person preaching

Phillips Brooks

Phillips Brooks' classic definition of preaching, "truth communicated through personality," might well be lost on many of today's mega-church "pastors" who are content to grow their flocks by streaming their "sermons" via satellite to multiple locations every Sunday morning. Such "preaching" may draw attention to a personality, but the communication of truth is often sacrificed in the process.

New research from LifeWay is quite encouraging in this area. The vast majority of worshipers still prefer their sermons to be delivered in person by an actual preacher, not beamed into an auditorium (let's not kid ourselves about the architectural foibles of most of these multi-site churches) on a television screen.

NASHVILLE, Tenn.–Most Americans still prefer a real-live preacher to a video sermon, according to a survey from Nashville-based LifeWay Research.

About a third (35 percent) say they will only visit churches with a live sermon.

Three in 10 say a video sermon won’t keep them from a church, but they still prefer live peaching. The same number say live or video sermons are fine.

Less than one percent prefer to watch a video sermon.

“I don’t think anyone gets up on a Sunday morning saying, ‘Boy, I’d really like to watch a video sermon,’ ” said Scott McConnell, vice president of LifeWay Research and author of Multi-Site Churches: Guidance for the Movement’s Next Generation. “But the fact that many churches utilize video sermons means other factors such as relationships, preaching approach, music, relevance, and location can be more important.”

The sermon question was part of a telephone survey of 1,001 Americans, conducted September 6-10, 2013.

Video sermons are mostly used by multi-site churches, which hold services in more than one location, often called a campus. Those campuses frequently have live music, prayers, and a local pastor, who does everything but preach.

About half of the estimated 5,000 multi-site churches in the U.S. use video teaching, said Jim Tomberlin of the consulting firm MultiSite Solutions.

Tomberlin said larger churches are more likely to use video sermons.

Many large churches already project an image of their preacher on a big screen during the sermon. So when they open a new campus, people are already accustomed to seeing a video image of their pastor. That’s less likely to be the case at a smaller church.

“Small churches have a bias against video,” said Tomberlin. “As a church grows bigger, video gives them more options. It becomes a non-issue.”

Younger Americans are more likely to accept a video sermon. More than a third (37 percent) of those 18 to 29 say it doesn’t matter if the preaching is live or by video.

By contrast, only about a quarter of those 45 to 54 (24 percent) or those over 65 (26 percent) say they are fine with both options.

Researchers also found that that those in the Northeast also are most open to a video sermon, with 40 percent saying they are fine with either an in-person or video sermon.

Almost half of those who don’t go to church (47 percent) also say it doesn’t matter if the sermon is live or delivered by video.

Those with a college degree are more likely to prefer an in-person sermon (41 percent) as are self-identified born-again, evangelical, or fundamentalist Christians (37 percent).

Ken Langley, president of the Evangelical Homiletics Society and an adjunct professor of homiletics at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, is skeptical about sermons delivered by video.

The sermon is part of the church’s worship, he said, and it’s incomplete if the preacher isn’t there with the rest of the congregation.

“I do think that there is something missing when the preacher is not present,” he said. “And it’s hard to define. Presence is important.”

Langley, who also serves as pastor of Christ Community Church in Zion, Ill., said sometimes he makes changes to the sermon while preaching, depending on who is listening.

For example, he was preaching a sermon about finding joy in the midst of suffering, and noticed some congregation members who had been going through a difficult time.

He made some subtle changes in language to his sermon, in order to comfort them, while still making his point.

“You can’t do that when you are preaching to a camera,” he said.

But Tomberlin points to the example of Billy Graham, whose crusade sermons were sometimes filmed and later broadcast on television. People still connected with Graham’s message, even though they were watching it at home and not in person.

“God could still work, even if Graham wasn’t in the room,” he said.

The Billy Graham example is true enough, but there was a different ethos at work there. A virtual evangelist can be an effective herald of the Gospel to those who would never darken the doors of a church.

A virtual pastor, however, can never be anything but an abomination.

From the "How Much Money Did They Have to Spend to Find This Out?" Department. . .

From Anglican Mainstream (emphasis added):

GROVE CITY, Pennsylvania, January 5, 2009 (LIfeSiteNews.com) – A group of professors at Grove City College have found that there is a clear relationship between religious participation and the development of positive character traits, particularly self-control.

A interesting aspect of the research, conducted by professors of psychology Drs. Joseph J. Horton, Kevin S. Seybold, and Gary L. Welton, was the discovery that personal faith combined with belonging to a religious community (that is, an organized church) was vastly more beneficial in the development of attributes which help in dealing with stressful life events than either isolated personal belief or simply being part of a close knit community.

The professors preface their report by noting that the questioning of the value of religion, spearheaded by such authors as Richard Dawkins, who has argued that people who participate in religious activities are less moral than those who do not, is a relatively recent development.

The report quotes Paul Johnson, who wrote that, “Until the second half of the 20th century, religion was held by virtually all Americans, irrespective of their beliefs, or non-belief, to be not only desirable but an essential part of the national fabric.”

The research explored two primary theses. The first is that "based on established psychological theory, religious participation should promote character development.” The second is that the "best empirical evidence suggests that religious participation does promote character development.”

The research focused on the potential benefits of religious participation as manifested by behavior, rather than looking simply at generalized religiosity.

"Many people today report that they are spiritual or religious without demonstrating a commitment to a religious community or a belief system," the report states.

"The benefits of religion for character development, however, seem most likely to come from participation in a community and commitment to a belief system rather than a generalized spirituality. This is because a belief system and community result in expectations for, and demands upon, behavior that spirituality, or general religiosity, does not."

Horton, Seybold, and Welton studied multiple behavioral aspects of people’s lives, such as the role of religious beliefs when making decisions, rather than single behavioral items, such as frequency of church attendance.

In defining “character”, the professors simplified the complicated components usually attributed to "good character" - such as humility, engagement in healthful behaviors, academic honesty, and work ethic - stating that "there is a common cornerstone to these facets—self-control."

"It is impossible to have character without self-control, or the ability to delay gratification. Making moral choices requires that one be able to choose what is right even when it is difficult or disadvantageous to oneself. Whether one defines character as humility, work ethic, or making healthful choices, self-control is required."

The professors observe that, “when adolescents choose risky behaviors such as accepting a ride from an intoxicated friend or engaging in sexual activity, they are failing to delay gratification.”

The research also took into account parental influence, neural development in adolescence related to self-control, social capital - that is, the resources made available to people who are in social relationships - and cognitive dissonance, which is the motivation to behave according to one’s beliefs to avoid the conflict of inconsistent thoughts or attitudes.

The report concludes with a reference to the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Corinthians where he notes that many of the Christians in Corinth once lived evil lives, but that their lives were transformed by acceptance of the faith within the structure of the Church.

"Religious participation had a profound impact on people’s ability to delay gratification in the first century. Theory and empirical research point to religious participation continuing to be important for character development in the lives of Americans in the 21st century."

Amazing! I suppose, next, they'll come out with research claiming there is a natural difference between boys and girls. Oh, wait! They already did.