Video Venues... The Celebrity Church must die...

Okay- thanks everyone for the comments below on video venues- thanks especially to Darrin, who provides what I think is a needed perspective (and tone) on the matter.

My response to the whole thing...

I understand Darrin's concern that there just don't seem to be enough called, gifted people to plant and pastor churches.

I'm just not sure that I agree.

He sites the 70% failure rate in church plants as evidence of this.

I'm just not sure that one (70% failure rate) equates to the other (not enough qualified/gifted/called people).

And while I appreciate Darrin's tone (video venues CLEARLY are not the way he would prefer to go), I think more can be said, even if a church finds itself in the position of HAVING to plant a video venue.

Look, it's not like at different times we haven't needed to do different things to make sure that local communities were taught and were being cared for. Circuit riding preachers have a long and storied history in the church.

But no one has ever suggested we pursue that as a model. It was always a necessary compromise, a "good" until "better" came along.

My concerns about video venues are copious. I have extreme issues with people who are being eldered and taught by people they do not regularly come into contact with, whose lives they cannot see, know and inform as well as be informed by. This is bad in the case of a mega church, where most do not know who their elders are, much less "know" them. I think it's even worse in the case of video venues, where elders from the mother ship are given oversight of communities in outlying areas of their city (or even 100 or more miles away), church communities they are not functionally a part of.

The thing I fail to hear time and time again in this discussion is sufficient thought given to those who will be pastored by video. What I do hear is, "It's no different than in our main service when parishoner number 3254 has to sit in the 50th row and watch the whole thing on the big screen anyway. It's not like they can raise their hand and ask a question and it's not like I'm ever going to have them over for dinner anyway, so..."

Exactly. (The only problem is, what some see as a justification for video venues I see as an indictment of mega-churches.)

The answer is not to come up with new and creative ways to put space between those teaching and those being taught. The answer is to shrink that space as much as is humanly possible for the sake of those being taught. If the problem is not enough qualified teachers, you do whatever you can to find, call, equip and send teachers. You don't install a video screen and beam teaching from 200 miles away (as is the case with some video venues). And if you do have to install that video venue, you call it what it is- a necessary and temporary compromise until your prayers for more workers for that particular field are answered.

What I want to hear from those who plant these is what they are doing to raise up indigenous elders for these new communities, including teaching elders. I see the bootcamps and the trainings and I think they are great. Seriously. But I'm fairly sure that the problem is that the bar is being set at "Can he (natch) pastor a church of thousands?" Perhaps if the question was "Can he or she, along with a team of others, lead a Christ-centered community that starts with 50 and grows from there, reproducing itself before becoming unmanageable and growing past the gifting of it's leadership?" I think with a little tweaking of the question, you might find more gifted/qualified people than you realize. Do 70% of church plants fail because of the planter? Or do 70% of church plants fail because of the unreasonable expectations placed on the planter, the unsustainable "big launch" methods where thousands of dollars are pumped into new churches in an effort to make them big, fast and the consumer mindset of many Christians who have been conditioned to want it all now who look at the big churches down the street with not a small amount of envy?

And, honestly, the argument that "my teaching is what reaches people" only goes so far.

Okay- so you have a "ten talent" gift for preaching and people come to know Jesus through your messages. First, I'd say that it's a bit reductionistic to leave the rest of your community out of that equation- you don't do this thing alone. People come to Christ in community, and the teaching they hear when and if they visit the Sunday gathering is only a small part of the equation. Better to give credit to the love your community shows people as one of the main conrtibuting factors.

And let's not forget the Holy Spirit.

I think that making the argument that for the sake of the lost we have to beam the best preachers to the most locations so that their teaching talent can be used strikes me as a bit out-of-balance, not to mention curious coming from Reformed folk who lean heavily on the prevenient grace of God, and the drawing power of the Holy Spirit when speaking of why people come to Christ.

It's true that "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?" But it seems like the underlying message of video venues is "We need to ensure that the BEST preachers gain the BIGGEST audience so that the Holy Spirit will have the most opportunity to work."

And I'm sorry, but that seems somewhat counter to Scripture.

It's not the preacher that brings people to Jesus. Not his or her eloquence, not his or her powers of pursuasion.

It's the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit who sent Paul, and "not with clever speech, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power." The same Holy Spirit who says "My grace is all you need. My power works best in weakness." The same Holy Spirit that gives the gift of pastors and teachers where new communities of Christ followers spring up. At least, I'm pretty certain he's still giving pastors and teachers and evangelists and so on to local communities...

So while it may make sense in some ways to say that a church with a "ten talent" preacher might bring more people to Jesus, I say that the evidence and the Scriptures say: a community that loves people, that faithfully with words and deeds proclaims the Gospel will be used by God to bring people to Him. And it seems as though that happens (according to statistics) mostly in smaller communities, between 100 and 200 (see the Finch quote here)

So- are video venues where the best preaching is beamed to insta-congregations of more than 200 people really the BEST way to reach people?

And be careful- your answer, I think, says a lot about your eccelsiology, your soteriology and pnuematology.

Okay, a whole lot of people love your preaching and want to hear it. Let them get saved and discipled there at your community, or spend a season there, and then point them to your pod/vodcast and send them as missionaries, part of a church plant tasked to reach their local communities. But don't say, "Well, people just want to hear me, so we have to make a way for them all to physically sit in a room and either watch me or my video representation." It simply makes no sense when we're talking about maturing Christ followers who will live self-sacrificially in communities centered around Jesus, not centered around a preaching personality.

Ultimately, Video Venues strike me as a poor compromise, maybe a necessary one in some places, but not the best, and certainly not a strategy to be pursued even along side traditional church plants. They focus entirely too much on the preaching gifts of one person, a trend even we small "emerging" types need to work to counter (I write that last sentence with some amount of feeling convicted).

I'm not the first and I won't be the last to say it, but the celebrity church must die. And doing anything that prolongs its life (like video venues), even in the name of the lost, I believe, runs counter to the best interests of the Church in all its expressions, big and mall, and all its hopes and dream to see more people not only reached, but gifted, trained and sent.

More on this later...

Comments

[Jon]

Bob,

Not defend Darrin or Mark or others looking at the VV option, but what about this:

Ignore the preacher/teacher, ignore the elders and just look at the over arching trend. Say there's a church growing by hundreds or thousands a year. Say that they are training elders to be part of the that church's leadership AND to plant other churches. Say that because of zoning and other issues that can't have one big meeting but are being pushed toward multiple smaller meetings. And say that after much prayer the elders of that church feel that the Holy Spirit is saying to them, "I'm going to keep bring people to you, you need to persue VV's, maybe for a season, maybe permanently, either way, you need to do it."

What do you do with that? I understand your frustration and concerns with VV's and megachurches in general, but it seems like you're assuming that the elders of these churches aren't talking to God and aren't listening to the Spirit. How do you know that the Spirit isn't asking them to launch VVs and still planning to bless the VV's despite thier possible pitfalls?

What about God's soveriengty? Don't you think that ultimately God'll get his way?

[Kipp Wilson]

Bob:
I have been tracking the VV debate here and I have to say I fully agree with your position. I also have to say that, like you, I am convicted in the importance I place on MY preaching at our church plant (averaging 15-20 attendance). You're right: celebrity churches can come in any size. Do I trust God enough to allow less experienced preaching-elders-in-training to take the pulpit? Do I love them enough to train them to be competent preachers and leaders when our congregation gets too big for one church? Or is my pride really that big?

Man, that hurts to say. I don't wanna read your blog no more. Make it stop! Make it stop!

[bob]

jon- I do... And I don't doubt that they are praying as they do this. I also don't doubt that the pastors of churches with 10000+ members, spending multiple tens of millions are praying and fel led by God.
That doesn't mean I can't express my critique of the model and my prayer for something different.

If God keeps growing a church, and they have to spin out into smaller communities, I think a biblical model of church demands that those communties have elders. That's my first problem with video venues.

If they keep planting venues, I believe that God is sovereign enough to call and gift people to pastor them.

Maybe we aren't looking hard enough, or maybe we are setting the standards too high because we expect these churches to get massive and need leadership that can handle "massive."

[billmelone]

Something i was struck by with Darrin's comments was what he said about how people prefer his teaching, and that that is just raw reality. My experience in a Sovereign Grace church (the second largest one, with one of the SGM leadership members as senior pastor) is that there is a way to preach to make it not about the style or how well it is put together that it doesn't matter who preaches. Dave (senior pastor) is obviously the most gifted to preach, but he organizes the sermons series and has laid a foundation into the church that sees preaching as a constant retelling of the gospel, and that no preacher will ever bring anything new to the table. Josh Harris quoted Spurgeon's grandfather speaking about Spurgeon when he took over from CJ Mahaney, saying that 'he may preach the gospel better than I can, but he can't preach a better gospel'. If a congregation says they prefer a certain preacher, it sounds like an indictment that they care more about the way the gospel is preached than the fact that they are hearing the gospel. The gospel is not something to be cast off or devalued in any way. It should affect us every time we hear it, we should love to hear it, and anyone can preach it.

[Chris]

Like I said in the previous post, this is a leadership issue, right?

Maybe the reason it's a leadership issue, is the fact that the staff is so overwhelmed by growth issues and the lead pastor is so far removed from his/her church, and the growth of the church happens because of great preaching/teaching/worship but the breakdown seems to be raising up leaders who can take a core group of folks and plant a church instead of having to fall back on VV.

Think about it, if a church that has the funds to start a VV, therefore, they also have the funds to start a plant, yet they can't plant because they can't get 50-100 folks out of the thousands, to sacrifice and accept the role of leadership, I see a big issue with this.

Maybe we should re-think what is successful and what's not...Maybe a church of 2000, that has to go VV because they do not have any leaders to plant, should question how they are doing church. Why can't they raise up 1 leader to pioneer one church?

Although, I'm not totally against VV, I think some key issues are coming to light.

Also, I really appreciate the conversation that is taking place. I'm glad Darrin jumped chimed in. Good stuff.

[JACK]

I think there is something of merit in both Darrin's and billmelone's comments.

And I think it really is all about ecclesiology. Leadership yes, but the way the leadership is reacting is affected by their ecclesiology.

To Darrin's, I think he is right that people may prefer his preaching. I think, as Christians, we too often rule out the concept of preference as a valid part of the Christian life. But I think it is unavoidable. Different things resonate for different people, and consequently, we find ourselves often attracted to certain people over others. Why I am good friends with "Joe" and not "Sue". I don't think there's anything wrong with this and recognizing it and embracing it can often be a good thing in our lives (and open us up to God if you think that these preferences are not arbitrary but with purpose).

And preference is ultimately why we belong to a church. We feel called by God and we desire to have the life that Christ promises so we follow him. Thus, preference forms are adherence to the church.

But that's where the interaction between preference and ecclesiology can produce adverse results. And I think that's what rests behind billmelone's comments: i.e., a pastor should do his best to foster among his flock an attachment to the church that is not entirely rooted in that pastor being "the" epitomy and experience of church for those people. And one key way, where sermon is the core of the worship experience, is to try and shape the sermon experience in a way that gives recognition to that greater reality of church.

Even in churches where the worship experience is far more sacramental, these challenges can exist. I remember, for example, when the original founding priest of my parent's parish was reassigned to another church. (He had served an unusually long time as our pastor, well over the usual 2 terms of six years.) A lot of people had a tough time with it because he was the church to them. On the one hand, you can appreciate and respect that. On the other hand, you cry a bit that they never saw beyond him, the bigger picture. (I suspect many would have the same reaction now if his replacement were to be reassigned.) But in the end, the congregation remained because there were many other factors that helped instill in them that their loyalty was to Christ and His Church and that another man might lead them well.

I think many of those things don't exist in a lot of protestant church circles. (Although some do.) The liturgical calendar. The sacraments. Rubrics. Instead, I think a protestant pastor has a greater need to actively foster this attachment to the church and not himself. And that's a challenge. How does one do that? In particular, how does one do that if I'm the only preacher or if I only choose to do that through my speaking of words? Frankly, I'm not sure if that's possible.

[Kipp Wilson]

It seems like the problem centers on the unfortunate reality that people like a particular preacher. When they are given the choice of branching off under a new one or staying behind with the one that they like, they will stay at the "mother church."

In the scenario we are working with here, people want to hear Driscoll preach. If that church plants a congregation with someone else preaching, the people won't go. If the congregation splits into 100 smaller congregations, and only one of them has Driscoll preaching, that congregation will (rather quickly I suppose) "reverse plant" the others--people will try the church plants, but then migrate back to Driscoll.

It seems to me the only solution is for a guy like Driscoll to step down from preaching at any congregation, to force them out of the nest. Become a "pastor of the pastors" or "pastor-trainer." Otherwise, is he making disciples of Christ or disciples of Mark?

I honestly believe that this is not a pride issue on Driscoll's part. I don't think he's any more excited over tens of thousands of people hearing him preach than he would be over his church birthing 100 other congregations with 100 other gifted preachers that are birthing their own granddaughter congregations. I just think this is the sort of accommodation mentality that Driscoll himself castigates the seeker-sensitive movement over.

People are coming, not to hear the Word of God preached, but to hear "Mark Driscoll and Mark Driscoll alone" preach the Word of God. At what point does that become idolatry?

Personal side note: When my wife and I lived in Dallas, one Sunday we went to Tony Evans's church to hear him preach. By God's ironic providence, Pastor Evans wasn't there that Sunday.

And yeah, we were disappointed. In the middle of a God-honoring, Bible-based, Spirit-filled sermon, we were disappointed. Shame on us.

[Rick]

Can this boil into personal preference somehow, Bob? You've opened this up before, and it doesn't seem to get past the thought that you just don't like it. For your scriptural and doctrinal points, I think there are valid counter-points. As small group director for our video venue, I can say that people will still connect only as much as they want to, that having a campus pastor will fill a very real void )that you're brought up) in a meaningful way.

It just seems to be more personal preference for you. Am I wrong?

Some many thoughts, so little time. I'll throw a couple things out and try to come back latter

Isn't the truth that every pastor is a celebrity? For instance, don't you think that if both a pastor and some people in the church have a blog that the pastor's blog would get more traffic? Don't you think that people would rather talk to the pastor than a lay person? The "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos" realiy will always be with us. I agree that we aren't to reinforce that reality in people, but couldn't we harness it (someone with a teaching gift that draws non-Christians) and use it for God's glory?

Bob, I share your concerns about doing vv's hundreds of miles away totally disconnected geographically from the eldership. That is not what The Journey or even Mars Hill is doing. In fact most of the literature that is out does not talk about the long distance thing.

Along those lines I find that many people who critic vv's have never read the primary books and articles on the subject. Some would say, "I don't have to read it, I know it is wrong". Wow, that sounds strangely familiar to some of our lady friends from other blogs who love to put up false antithesis and straw men and then critic. I think it would be wise for all of us who want to engage the matter to read the seminal texts and possibly have conversations with some of the pioneers and practioners as we come with our strong opinions.

Lastly, for now. No offense to anyone who has commented, but until you are in the situation (rapidly growing church, exhausted eldership and staff) I think it is hard to understand the complexities involved. It is very easy to say "plant another church", or
examine your ecclesiology" when you are not in the situation. I hate to pull the "you don't know until your in it card" out, but it is worth pondering. We will continue to plant and continue to struggle with our ecclesiology. What I am saying is that when you are faced with a ton of people that you are trying to connect and a big city that you are trying to reach the answers are not quite as cut and dry.

I keep forgetting to put my name
last comment from darrin p

[bob]

Kipp- I don't think Mark needs to step down from preaching.

It seems like in the case of an ever-growing church, one needs to preach, teach and pound home the idea that "we are going to plant churches. If you love it here, good- but we are probably, at some point, going to send you out on mission. Start praying about your role in a new plant."

Make the expectation clear from the beginning.

And if the issue is that these people love the main church preacher so much, well... the same technology that makes video venues possible also makes pod/vodcasting possible.

Why would it be wrong to call mature Christians who love pastor so-and-so to plant a church and subscribe to pastor so-and-so's vodcast?

[bob]

Rick-

Honestly, I don't think it's personal preference. I LOVE technology. I'm addicted to the point of sin (seriously... gotta work on it). That part of me makes any use of technology within the church context a slam dunk positive.

My problem with video venues are problems of eccesiology- problems with what it does to the biblical roles of elder, what I fear it does to those who are part of it, what it means for the future of the church and the next generation of teachers.

[bob]

Darrin-

Thanks for continuing the dialogue...

"Isn't the truth that every pastor is a celebrity? For instance, don't you think that if both a pastor and some people in the church have a blog that the pastor's blog would get more traffic? Don't you think that people would rather talk to the pastor than a lay person? The "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos" realiy will always be with us. I agree that we aren't to reinforce that reality in people, but couldn't we harness it (someone with a teaching gift that draws non-Christians) and use it for God's glory?"

Are we celebrities? If we are, the last thing we need to do is make capitulations to it. Would people rather talk to me as the pastor? Honestly- I don't see it. At least not in our community. Seriously. But even if it were so- there's a big gap between people wanting to talk to the one who just taught them something and video venues. I guess I would like to think that if someone actually wanted to discuss the semon with me afterwards, they could :)

And, I don't know how you harness something without at the same time re-inforcing it...

As for the hundreds of miles thing? The biggest names in this thing are doing exactly that. And my prediction? As more people learn that Willow Creek is able to charge upwards of 50k to license their video content (as reported by Drew Goodmanson), the video venue will begin to be seen as something else- a way for a large church to have a presence in every major city.

I recognize that's not your heart for this thing... but I see it coming.

And I hear your concerns about objectivity and being "in it." I know it must feel crappy to have a bunch of people who don't have exploding churches seemingly telling you what your legitimate and illigitimate options are.

My feeling on this as I have watched people who were formerly violently against this option (right?) change their minds about it, not without much prayer and study, but apparently in response to present pressures, is that I want to have the discussion NOW. I want to help us all think through this. Other church that are just starting out are laying crucial DNA now, and what they say and do will determine their options when they are faced with pressure created by growth. My hope is that we can have a dialogue that will inform those future choices.

[bob]

And by the way- good thoughts Chris Marlow!

[Derrick bohn]

Speaking of celebrity pastors--did you see this http://www.willowcreek.com/southhaven/

That is thousands of bucks to hang out with Bill Hybles. Something amiss here.

[JACK]

Darrin:

That there is a literature on VV is quite strange to me. And I'm not sure what that could tell me that I can't judge based on talking with folks like you and getting your explanations for why you are pursuing VV and examining and judging the experience and structure of it. But now I have to read the "established" literature on the subject first before I can judge it? I'm sorry, but we still are talking about television screens, right?

I don't mean to mock. Seriously, I recognize the struggle you must feel, Darrin. And I don't doubt, because of your sincerity, you've poured a lot of energy into trying to shape VVs into something that doesn't offend your own sensibilities of what the church is. I can recognize in your comments that you know exactly what the drawbacks are. You press ahead anyway, but I don't sense you don't know what bob and others are talking about. But I doubt that this "required canon of literature" is really that critical to this discussion. Sure, people should investigate, inquire and be thoughtful before speaking, that goes without saying.

I realize I speak as one who is seemingly way outside of your background and so it would be easy to dismiss my concerns as someone "who doesn't get it" because I don't walk in your shoes. But the questions above were serious and not without some sense of your context. Besides, stepping outside of your typical circle may prove useful. Every church I have ever belong to, frankly, would qualify as a "megachurch" in the evangelical world. Every last one. For many decades have they been at that size. They know the problems you are describing. I may not be a pastor, but I've been friends with a number of mine. And for all the problems their churches have, I can tell you, a video venue would be the last option they would consider. Actually, it would be an impossible one, as sacraments require presence, a physicality that one cannot just brush to the side. (That's also part of what I was alluding to above when I mentioned ecclesiology being part of the issue. What your understanding of the roles of presence and physicality in worship and koinonia (i.e., church) will shape your answer to this struggle.)

Their churches are different, yes, and maybe yours faces unique problems. But maybe not.

[Rick]

Thanks, Bob - you posted:

"Honestly, I don't think it's personal preference. I LOVE technology. I'm addicted to the point of sin (seriously... gotta work on it). That part of me makes any use of technology within the church context a slam dunk positive. "
And I see this in what you share and post, and it shows at your church...

"My problem with video venues are problems of eccesiology- problems with what it does to the biblical roles of elder, what I fear it does to those who are part of it, what it means for the future of the church and the next generation of teachers."
... where many folks would maybe have this same type of concern over what you're doing in your context with the tech available to do what you do. If what you deduce about this comes from mental pictures of elder problems, for the future generations - does that make it wrong? I mean, there are concerns about eldership and athority and speaking into folks' lives in every church. Could it be that the VV's are just picking their battles differently? That doesn't make this approach wrong, does it?

If the math doesn't add up, is the only response "F for failing" - or is there room for "B for trying with what you've got"?

Bob, I'll try to address some of your thoughts a little later.

Jack, you just prove my point. It is not just television screens. That would be like trying to sum up the emerging church by saying, "it's just candles." There is a well-thought out theology, methodology and ecclesiology for those who care to look.

To me, it is better to read and understand so that the critic is specific and well-informed. Isn't that what we desire and request from emerging church police?

[bob]

Darrin- I hear what Jack is saying. He's coming from a Catholic perspective, so the physicality of the sacraments and the priest being physically present to administer them are crucial, I think.

For me, I would put the same weight on the connection between the teaching pastor and those being taught. I think something crucial, something vital is being lost in video venues.

Rick- I'm not saying it's wrong to have a video venue. It's not a sin. It's not failing. I would say that certain failures of the church both broad and local are to blame. If the issue is we don't have enough teaching pastors, enough people who can shepherd a community, the answer is not, I think, to come up with a work around, but rather to fix the problem.
Video venues cure a symptom, but they don't address the problem.
I give Darrin a lot of credit for openly admitting that he would rather do something different and feels like this is his only option. I have a ton of respect for that
Less so for those who are pursuing this as a strategy, for those who are selling it to others, for churches that are starting with the strategy of planting video venues, before they even have their first community gathering. Something is wrong there.

I know you have a lot invested in this, and I'm sorry for when and how I step on your toes. I feel this is a critical time to be having this discussion as these venues are gaining traction.
I honestly wish we'd had a discussion like this about mega church 20 or more years ago- I think the landscape might be different now.
I'm just doing what I can to raise issues and questions and to pushback appropriately. I hope I'm not crossing the line into something else.

Bob, I don't think you are crossing any lines. This is an important discussion and I laud you for bringing it up. I would have argued the same way a few years ago.

I honestly believe the multi-site model (which doesn't necessarily mean video venue) is a viable model that must be pursued. Check out Doug Swaggerty's talk at http://www.churchbootcamp.com/sessions/

I would like to continue this discussion if (more likely when) evergreen grows rapidly in a short period of time.

peace, brother
dp

[Nathan Colquhoun]

Hey Bob, great great great post, i'm linking to you tonight.

btw. you've been quoting david fitch, but spelling it finch.....just thought you'd want to change it.

[Eugene]

we end up doing things that we might not necessarily be thrilled to do. how many of us are doing things now that didn't necessarily envision months or years ago. i'm not fond that we're meeting at three services and entertaining having to go to multi-site in the upcoming year (while simultaneouly planting another church).

we can debate it and technology has allowed us to discuss it online but who amongst us know intimately the process through which the MH elders have come to that decision? my conviction: as long as they preach christ, the crucified and resurrected christ, i rejoice. i wouldn't join that church, per se, but i rejoice...

and for any of you that choose to go VV, or MS (multi site), or multiple services, go for it if you feel led and i'll rejoice. when i was pastoring in korea, we had 7 services of 3000 people each beginning from 7am to 7pm. the've grown from 20K to nearly 75K the last time i asked and to nearly 40 different services. when i speak of my experience there, i find myself foremost, speaking of their love for the city, country, and global rather than numbers and that's says a lot. it also says a lot that the senior pastor preaches only a handful of times/year now...

i sometimes chuckle at how seriously the western church (and especially myself) take ourselves. if we can all take a broader view of what God's doing around the world, we'll be absolutely humbled. this in itself is another long post which i'll write later but it's kind of a joke that we refer ourselves as the 'emerging church' but when the 'emerging church' has been taking place in 2/3's of the world for the past 50 years...

more power and grace to everyone.

Eugene,
Thanks for the rebuke. I repent for my arrogance and pride. Bless you
dp

[ec]

dp
sorry man. the post wasn't meant to be a rebuke. and i repent to all for not proofreading my post.

[JACK]

Darrin,

Clearly, I needed to type "I don't mean to mock." in bold and all caps. The sarcasm and humor of my "its just television screens, right?" comment fell flat like a lead balloon. The only thing I proved, Darrin, is that jokes are a hard thing to pull off in text.

I've read a good chunk of the stuff out there on VV and I know it exists. You and I might disagree on how well the "well-thought out" label applies to it -- or where to draw the line between the quality of the theology and ecclesiology and its application using these specific technological means -- but I know it is out there and recognize it. My only point is that sometimes in evangelical culture (and I was in that culture for a time, though not as an evangelical, so I don't speak solely as a Catholic outsider) there's a tendency to stack a whole series of newly published books in the way of a dialogue. I agree one should be informed, Darrin. My point only is that we need to recognize that sometimes there's a tendency to "credentialize" the questions too much when, by our human nature, we are given the gifts to make good judgments on what is set before us. That was my only concern with your comment, Darrin. I should have made my response better reflect the modest nature of my concern.

Bob, you understood exactly the point I was making, which was just to highlight an aspect of worship and church that one could argue is not adequately accounted for in a VV approach. Obviously, the physicality example is driven a great deal by the nature of Catholic sacramental theology (which comes from the physicality of Jesus' ministry and Incarnational emphases). But it's one that I find, personally, quite important for the understanding of communio. And I gathered some analogous concern is part of what was behind some of your comments about the locus of the teacher to the faithful.

I'll dare to throw out another Catholic thought to see if it sheds any light on the conversation. Because I might be able to say I've lived a variation of the VV model, actually. While I said that I wouldn't expect a Catholic church to ever adopt a VV model (or that that would be possible), certain parts of Catholic life can and do. For example, I'm a member of a lay movement, and part of that movement has an annual set of Exercises (which you can think of as a combo retreat/spiritual talk or lesson). It would simply be impossible for all of us to go to Italy and participate in the single event (although many do from around the world). So it is simulcasted to many countries and then even more meet later in local groups with local leaders to watch it on DVD and work through the lesson together. It's not the same as being there live, but it works well. We do that because all of us in the movement follow a charism and there is a way in which our unity in that charism depends on our shared instruction from the one entrusted with leading the movement. Now, that doesn't represent the vast majority of life within the movement itself. Most things occur locally, led by local leaders, and there are then regional and national and international events, plus visits to the local communities by leaders from other regions and communities of the movement.

I mention all of that just to say that I see where VV can have its place. But yet all of that (my entire movement, for example) is ultimately under an umbrella of the larger Catholic Church which insists on the importance of local churches (albeit not necessarily parishes) and the physicality aspect to worship. VV works fine for instruction in this context and one example of "church" life, but not Sunday worship (i.e., the Mass or Divine Liturgy).

Now in protestant circles, the instruction (i.e., sermon) aspect of Sunday worship predominates and it is less easy to see a separation between the two. In that case, I understand why VV is easier to adopt and poses less questions, but (like Bob) I do think the proximity/physicality question about the nature of worship remains. (Not saying you are ignoring it, Darrin, just that it does exist for you, even if it is not so sharply an issue as it would be for me.)