Nobody cared about the superiority of our product; they cared about the kind of emotional empowerment they would experience. And so, regardless of whether they had the money to buy what we wanted them to buy, we could find ways to manipulate their emotions against their better judgment, because emotions are not things you argue with. They're simply an experience that you have. Whereas if you try and go through reason, people will argue with it. So that's the thing I'd be concerned about in terms of how we use video and multimedia in church. We need to understand that we're dealing with an incredibly powerful medium that all too easily leans towards manipulation—a subtle form of coercion. It's not at all something that people who work and create this medium are necessarily doing on purpose. I know that. It's just a matter of helping us become aware of how immensely powerful images are.

Shane's point is clearly aimed at the use of visual media (use of videos in a worship setting, for example), but I wonder if there is something lurking about for those of us who preach. Even in an increasingly visual society, words are still a powerful medium in their own right. If you preach on a regular basis, you know far too well the sway you have with a handful of nouns, verbs, and adjectives. A cute proposition can have folks lining up for a parade of response. Spinning a weepy yarn can have the audience eating out of your hand. As you watch it all unfold before your very eyes, you may be tempted to think the flurry of movement and the tears themselves are the results by which you could measure sermonic success. But follow the results as far as they may or may not go. You may have watched someone answer the invitation, but did you honestly help him painstakingly navigate the implications waiting on the other side? You may have gotten someone to cry, but does she yet know from your measured words the necessity of truly conforming?

Hear me: I'm not at all advocating for stale, dusty preaching. The absence of emotion in the elevation of God's Word – which includes emotive psalms and not a few passages of righteous anger – would be a shame. In the Garden, God wove emotions into the core of humanity, allowing the presence of loneliness, happiness, fear, guilt, and shame. Jesus was known to tell a story or two. The very stories he told were quite emotional (the Prodigal Son, anyone?). Evoking emotional impressions isn't all bad – let's just not ignore the "nuts and bolts" along the way (i.e. those stubborn implications and the steady sea of life change that's deeper than tears and called for by God). Emotions that feel the partnered pull of reason and logic are the best option of the many (and add a dash of mystery to boot). You want the hearer to arrive with you on the other side with heart, mind, body, and soul in concert.

Making folks delightfully shift in their seats isn't a terrible thing – let's just be weary of any hint of manipulation that will eventually collapse under its own weight. Or let me close in the same manner as Hipps, but with an emphasis on preaching: It's not at all something that people who work and create this medium are necessarily doing on purpose. I know that. It's just a matter of helping us become aware of how immensely powerful words are.