Video Venues... follow up 1

Dave asked:
what if church plants had pastors but used videos of other preachers because:
1. they decided the sermon is just one element of their time together and not the premier thing.

To be honest, I think this is the right reason and the wrong answer. That is, it's good for us to become less sermo-centric (critics: please don't read as less bibliocentric). I tend to think that Video Venues push us in exactly the opposite direction.

Now, I'm not saying that with using Video Venues, you couldn't allow everything in your gathering to preach, but you are by definition adding more focus to the sermon event monologue, not less.

I think the way to do what you are talking about, Dave, is not to watch the sermon on the screen, but rather to cease allowing it to be the climax of the morning. Cease the monological style of communication that doesn't make room for dialogue or hearing God's voice through other speakers or even follow up and clarification questions.

What we've tried to do (and we need to try harder...) is to diffuse the teaching and experiencing and hearing from God throughout the whole morning. You can read about Sunday mornings at evergreen here, but what we've done, in short, is try to do away with the "worship" time and the "sermon" time, diffusing the "point" of the morning rather than distilling it into three points delivered monologically.

Now, I could see the use of something like a Rob Bell Nooma video, where it's short, to the point, and allows plenty of room after for discussion by the people (in fact, I think we need to use one of those occasionally, now that I think about it). But when we are by definition locking our communities into passively watching a 30-40 monologue with someone they can never, ever speak back to...

I know that much of what is shown on Video Venues is top quality, very creative and inspiring preaching. It has to be! :) But if we want to make preaching not the "main point" of what we do, perhaps this is a step in the wrong direction.

But I may have a flawed understanding of this. My experience has been a Video Venue at North Coast and some stabs at it at the mega church I worked at for awhile. Tell me how they can be used, positively, to make preaching not the main event. And tell me if I'm making any sense here at all... been up since 3:30 again, dangit. :)

Comments/follow up/pushback?

Comments

[rick]

"but you are by definition adding more focus to the sermon event monologue, not less." - i think the definition's too narrow, and that's where the disconnect might be.

here's my sunday morning: in a theater (our campus meets in a huge multiplex - no matter what you say, highback seats and cupholders are godly!!), we gather for live praise and worship. the campus pastor says HI and there's a meet & greet time between the set and the video sermon. for me, i didn't think the video would work - but it just does. i feel that we lose anything, since this is a sermon and there's no real "feedback" anyway (kinda like "speaching" to doug padgitt). but when there's a laugh, it's there and us in the seats. maybe it's the theater setting - we're sharing an experience. the person touch of the campus pastor makes it unique to our group/gathering.

i think it's centered more on the entire event than on one particulat piece. if you go to a movie, there will be promos and ads and "turn off your cell", and when it's over you've shared a movie with the people you've come with. the next time you go to see a flick, take 400 of your closest friends, and after it's over stand at the bottom and say "well, what did you think?"

there are drawbacks - we're very transient as one of the campuses without a building. but small groups and service opportunities work towards connecting us corporately in the direction we're taking. there's more to the relationships and connections than simply seeing the pastor on the stage.

pushing back a bit :)

[rick]

"... i DON'T feel that we lose anything..." in sentence above. doh.

[bob hyatt]

Thanks for the push back.. it's good to talk about this stuff.
But I think you have argued against yourself, too...

The movie analogy doesn't do you any favors! We don't buy tickets to see previews (unless you are uber-geeky!). That's all prelude. The main event is the movie. The lights dim, the crowd hushes, and...

And those conversations after, on the way out of the lobby? Never really satisfying. You have to go somewhere else to have a good one.

I'm gonna stand firm on this one :)
I think that doing sermons via video actually accentuates rather than diminishes the sermon as "main event." I hear that you guys are doing more than watching a video- that you are worshipping God together and sharing life... but I'd contend that the non-dialogical nature of sermonizing (which Pagitt does a great job of critiqueing) is only accentuated by the video venue and that this is not a step in a positive direction for the local church.

But that's just me :)

I want to make sure anyone reading this knows- this is firends talking here, not competing ideologies or dualing churches. We're just having a 3rd space kind of friendly debate where we put issues out and poke at each other a bit... in the best sense.

[rick]

what the -!!!!?!?!?!?

:)

just kidding. you're right - and like i said, i didn't think it would work and it just does. the whole is greater than the sum of parts is the best way i can put it.

and as a dad to elementary age kids, every movie i go to i think, "at least the previews better be good". when you leave a service, are you struck more by one part, or by the whole? that's maybe where it hits for me. for some, i won't doubt that the video is the thing. but for me, it's a part of the whole and the whole works. you may be right, i may be crazy, but it just may be a lunatic that's drawn this kind of thing :)

[david]

i'm with rick on this. i don't pay to see the previews, but i hate to miss them when i'm late...

my wife and i were talking about the whole movie experience the other day and how it is like our churches. the previews, the announcements, the food, the sermon/movie... it breaks down, though, because you're sitting in the dark with people you don't know and don't care to know. (unfortunately this is one of the great problems with semon-centric church)

my question, bob. is there a great difference between showing a nooma video for 12 minutes, and showing a mark driscoll sermon for...bad example, too long... showing a 30 minute bill hybels sermon? is it just a matter of degree?

or. is what bothers you not the video, but the idea of one sermon presented one way being appropriate for several churches at one time?