The fusion of image and sound as multisensory perception

As discussed above, we need both image and sound as multisensory perceptions173 for the delivery of a sermon, as well as for hearing God’s words (cf. 5.1.2.2 above). Van Harn (1992:47-48) comments on the fusion of sound and image in terms of listening to a sermon as follows:

We listen to sermons to see the Story. Our ears and eyes work together when we listen. When we have heard the good news Story in a sermon, we can say, ‘I see! I see!’ ... When we listen to sermons, we should be able to see the drama, the good news Story of what God has done for us. That Story lives behind the Bible texts (some more visibly than others). If the Story shines in and through the text, it will also be visible in and through the sermon itself, and then in and through the lives of those who listen.

172 _{According to Sweazey (1976:53), preachers need empathy with the Holy Spirit, as “The Receiver needs}

empathy with the way the Source thinks and feels in order to interpret rightly what he says.”

173 _{Cilliers (2012:136, 147) comments on the “aesthetical hearing” and “theological aesthetics” in terms of}

Hearers need both ears and eyes to listen to a sermon. Preachers also need both images and sound for preaching.174 Many Reformers also used multisensory perception for preaching, as Humanism influenced them during the Renaissance.175 Humanists had a “multifaceted phenomenon” (Estep 1986:20) in terms of their way of communication, for example, “a scholarly movement devoted to the study of the classical period” (McGrath 1988:30), arts, music, etc.

Moreover, we can find Reformers’ multisensory perception in terms of the printing press. As noted, the Reformers’ new way of communication was through printing. However, in those days, the hearers were not familiar with the new printing culture.176 Then, Reformers printed spoken words (Eisenstein 1994:129-131), cartoons and character posters (cf. Dyrness 2004:90-103; Eisenstein 2000:37, 39). At that time, the Reformers used both image and sound to communicate with people.

According to Peterson (2006:92), the contemporary print culture has exclusive literary tools. On the other hand, Eisenstein (1994:129-131; 2000:38)177 claims that the early print culture had multisensory tools, like image, sound, etc., because the hearers of early-modern Europe lived in the oral culture rather than in the print culture. Thus, in the late 15th century, the print culture - especially the Reformation’s print culture - seems to differ from the current print culture.

174 _{According to Sweazey (1976:52), every preacher needs to be a multisensory communicator: “The Preacher}

has to put his thoughts into containers that can convey them from his mind into the minds of the Hearers … A preacher, chiefly, counts on words to deliver what he wants to say. Communication specialists have brought some surprising insights into the effects of the words we use. Words have ‘denotative’ and ‘connotative’ meanings which speakers commonly confuse … Words are not the only signals a preacher uses. His facial expression, body, and manner communicate. He may use symbols, banners, pictures, song, or drama to transmit his message. Every sermon is a multimedia communication. The preacher is by sound and sight transmitting over multiple channels.”

175 _{Concerning this, McGrath (1987:65) argues as follows: “Without humanism, there would have been no}

Reformation – because the Reformers needed the scholarly and political support of humanism until it had developed sufficiently to take care of itself.” Scholarly support of humanism can be summarized by the words of “back to the original sources” as follows: “The literary and cultural programme of humanism can be summa- rized in the slogan ad fonts – back to the original sources. The squalor of the medieval period is bypassed in order to recover the intellectual and artistic glories of the classical period. The ‘filter’ of medieval commentaries – whether on legal texts or on the Bible – is abandoned in order to engage directly with the original texts ” (McGrath 1988:32).

Moreover, Troeger (2003:29) regards the Reformation as a transformation of the sensorium: “The Protestant movements transformed the sensorium of the church. Champions of the new culture arose to vaunt its superior values. For example, the Christian humanist scholar Erasmus (probably 1469-1536) writes in The manual of the

Christian knight: ‘You honour the image of the bodily countenance of Christ formed in stone or wood or else

portrayed with colours. With much greater reverence is to be honoured the image of his mind, which by workmanship of the Holy Ghost is figured and expressed in the Gospel.’”

176

According to Kreitzer (2003:59), there were many illiterate hearers in those days, as the following remark exemplifies: “From its roots in the late medieval preaching revival, the Reformation’s messages were spread through the largely illiterate population of the early modern Empire as much by actual preaching as by the written word, and many of the early books and pamphlets were sermons.”

177

Eisenstein (1994:129-131) insists on the printed spoken words as follows: “In many cases, for example, spoken words would be conveyed by printed messages without being replaced by them. While often transposed into print, sermons and public orations thus continued to be delivered orally … A literary culture created by typography was conveyed to the ear not the eye by classroom lectures, repertory companies, and poetry readings.” On the other hand, Eisenstein (2000:38) also remarks that the early print culture had a tendency which strengthened the faculty of sight. For example, “In the late fifteenth century, print was not the ‘printed word’ but the ‘printed image’ as a ‘saviour for Western science.’”

It has become known commonly that the Reformers abandoned images because of the emphasis on the importance of the Word. However, the Reformers, especially Calvinists, made new images for the Reformation,178 as Troeger (2003:28)179 observes:

Calvinistic reformers did not abandon the eye altogether. That would have required worshiping with blinders on! Instead, they reduced the amount of visual stimulation. Anyone who has ever worshiped in a New England meeting house will remember the clear glass windows, the white walls, the minimal use of symbols: usually a high pulpit, a baptismal front, a table, and possibly a simple empty cross. The effect of light and simplicity in a well-proportioned room can itself be a stunning visual experience, and it can powerfully symbolize the light and clarity of God and God’s Word. It is a way of employing the eye, but it is very different from late medieval visual culture.

Thus, Reformers used their multisensory perception to preach the Gospel; contemporary preachers also need to use this because of the similarity between the contemporary and Reformation contexts.180 According to Van Harn (1992:76-77), preachers need to remake some biblical images for preaching:

When we listen to a sermon, we can watch for pictures that the text and sermon bring to us. The Bible is filled with images and stories that can be pictured on the mental screen of the listener. Some sermons transport biblical images directly into our world with enough familiarity that they do not need to be retouched ... We need to have some biblical images retouched or remade if they are to communicate faithfully.

Van Harn’s comment highlights the close link between listening and watching in respect of preaching. Preachers need to create some images that may help hearers in their listening to sermons.

According to Calder (2003:160), contemporary preachers need to voice biblical visions: “The way we preach will cause some who hear us to ask some new questions, listen a little more willingly, imagine pictures, smells or tastes that may conjure up a memory of another alternative.”181

Moreover, Troeger

178 _{According to Dyrness (2004:50, 83, 86), the removal of images as iconoclasm “was not an end in itself, but}

was part of a larger project: reconstructing the Church and society after a new blueprint provided by Scripture.” A new aesthetic seems to be inward images which are shaped by God’s Word and Spirit.

179 _{In order to quote Troeger’s comments, it is necessary to define his terminology. There is the following}

ambiguity in the definition of the difference between hearing and reading: “Nowadays the growing use of PowerPoint and video images in the ‘contemporary worship’ of many Protestant churches may be a form of returning to late medieval visual culture. One way to understand the phenomenon is to see it as an attempt to rebalance the lopsided piety of Protestant worship that resulted when the ear displaced the eye, when hearing and reading ascended to the dominant position that public images had once commanded” (Troeger 2003:28-29). According to the above-mentioned, there is no distinction between the eye for reading and the ear for hearing. However, as we have maintained, there is a big difference between reading and hearing. If we consider this point, the ear, about which Troeger remarks, seems to be connected with the plugged ear in 5.1.2.2.

180 _{Cf. 3.2.1.} 181

In connection with the use of multisensory perception, Roncace & Gray (2007:2-3) observe, “In addition to providing analogies for various approaches to the study of the Bible, using comparative texts from popular culture and the arts, broadly defined, helps students to become critical and creative readers and thinkers.”

(2003:39) observes, “The Church’s historical use of images as an expression of the gospel filled a gap in the hearts and minds of people that words alone could never reach.”

The need for a fusion between image and sound is more urgent than before.182 That is because contemporary hearers, especially young people of the secondary orality era, have a multisensory way of thinking by combining hearing and seeing.183