Darrin Responds...

Darrin Patrick of A29 posted a response to my last thoughts on Video Venues (I think this happened before- I need to look it up...) Good thoughts and a perspective worthy of being taken into account. Thanks Darrin!

And by the way, I think the approach of "we recognize that this isn't ideal but until we can come up with a better solution..." is vastly preferable to the approach of "You got a problem with this? You must not want people to come to Jesus!"

For what it's worth...

:)

Darrin's comments below...

I posted something similar to this a few months ago on another blog. I updated my current work and our community’s situation and some other thoughts as an offering to further the discussion. Forgive me ahead of time for the length, Bob.

I love small, neighborhood churches and have given my life (my other full-time job) to assessing, training and coaching guys who will plant smaller, missional churches that will rock their part of the world with the gospel. I work formally with 2 denominations as well as Acts 29. My heart bleeds for church planting! I believe that the key to city-wide cultural, physical and spiritual renewal is through the planting of new, indigenous, neighborhood churches. Period.

But, I would like to throw out our situation as a church that is staring down the barrel of the whole video venue deal. And, I only lay the numbers out to help you understand the tension of our situation. I am not trying to be super-planter and convince you guys that I am great. I firmly believe our church plant was in the right place at the right time. Glory to God, not to me or the elders of The Journey, St Louis.

Our church is almost 4 years old and 1300 people are attending the services. Me and my wife Amie’s plan when we parachuted into our city was to plant a neighborhood church and then plant other neighborhood churches. We would get to 250 or so and then give 50 people to a planter (that we hopefully raised up) and “rinse repeat step one.” This was a great plan except it didn't work.

One reason it didn’t work was that we couldn’t find enough planters with a heart for our area who could plant a self-governing, self-supporting self-reproducing church. I have participated in assessing hundreds of guys over the last few years and have seen many that we recommended to plant and a few that we didn’t (hey Bob!) succeed in pioneering some incredible churches. But, I have also watched painfully as church plant after church plant ceased to exist and what happens to the planter, the family of the planter and the community of the failed church is devastating to say the least. The biggest reason why churches fail (check with the experts to confirm) is the planter.

I believe that there are few guys with the calling and requisite skill set to plant a reproducing incarnational/attractional church. This is evidenced by the 70% failure rate in church plants. I saw this in our own context as we simply couldn’t find the guys with the calling and skill- set to give people to. Now, this has not stopped us from planting locally as we just sent out an elder and people to plant about 45 minutes out in the burbs. We have another intern who hopefully will plant in the next two years. My point is that if your church is experiencing growth like ours, you cannot plant fast enough, chiefly because of the lack of called, qualified, church planters.

Now, if you are talking about planting a house church, that is an entirely different matter. Mark D and I worked with Neal Cole in a group with Leadership Network who published Jonathan Stewart Campbell’s dissertation on his baton network of house churches. We are not against house churches who are reaching people who are far from God. We just feel called to plant churches that are not just incarnational, but also attractional as we see people coming to Christ and being equipped in large groups as well as smaller ones. I love Neil and rejoice with what he and others are doing, but we just have a different eccesiology as we work in same kingdom.

Another issue that hinders church-planting is a difficult, but true reality. Whether we like it or not believers and un-believers are attracted to those with " 5 or 10 talent" teaching gifts and are drawn to attend churches with that level of teaching. I am not implying that pastors who only have "2 talent" teaching gifts aren't as important or godly. I am saying what is the obvious: The larger the church the more "talents" the pastor is likely to have in the area of teaching.

I am absolutely committed to church planting as is Mark (we serve together on the board of Acts 29 that has planted a ton of churches in the U.S. and beyond). The problem in a growing church is that as soon as you give 50 or 100 away, the seats are filled back up in a month. The truth is that certain churches grow because God blesses them so that they can be a blessing. I think this is the "right" reason for mega-churches who can be a resource center (training, funding, etc) to the city, region and perhaps the world. There are a lot of jacked up mega-churches that function more like a mall for consumers rather than a mission and resource center. But, that is another discussion.

We have three guys on our teaching team, although I preach about 70 percent of the time. Truthfully, I most enjoy personal evangelism and shepherding our great staff and leaders, but I teach the vast majority of the time because it is my best gift to the church.

We were at three services in a smaller building so we moved our morning service to a high school with twice as many seats and moved back to two services. Then only 4 months later we had to go back to 3 services. We bought a cool, old Catholic church complex but have maxed it out. We are moving to five services this fall (one of those is a Spanish speaking service). We just planted a church and hope to send people to another church that is launching in early 07.

The elders believe that a large majority of people who attend come to hear me preach. I hear it all the time from unbelievers who prefer it when I preach. I hate it, but it is the truth. I don't want to set myself up as master teacher and I loathe the reality of the whole situation. It reeks of celebrity-worship, plays into consumerism and messes with my already far-too-large head. But, it also reeks of reality. Down through church history God has seemed pleased to use the teaching gift to draw large crowds and many of those people to himself. This is not a new thing, though it is weird for me to be in this position. I was a godless rebellious teen whom God saved from small rural town in Illinois. Nobody who knew me “then” can believe that I am the pastor of this church. Our elders and wife know my heart and how uncomfortable I am with all of this.

We have a great church and my teaching gift is certainly not our only "draw". But, I am coming to grips with the reality that this gift is significant and I don't need to apologize for it. Stay accountable to God, my wife and elders for it... not think of myself too highly for it... not think that gifting equals character for it...but also not apologize for it.

I hate the thought of my ugly mug on some video screen and I share the ALL the concerns that were posted here. But, I gotta tell you that the thought of preaching 4 and 5 times a Sunday doesn't look very appealing either. Some of you would say, "Just let the other guys teach more." The problem is that they are both working 50-60 hours a week on other important matters for our community. When they preach they have to take 15-20 or so hours away from their important work. We are a young church (26 is average age) and so we don't have a ton of money to hire staff. You get my drift? Right now, and maybe for a while, the elders say I need to be in the pulpit the majority of the time using the gift God has given me.

Here are the questions our elders are wrestling with:
Do I just burn out to stay authentic with the people? Or, is this video thing a way to maximize my gift? Which is more authentic, using video or slipping out of the service early to drive to the other location we meet at in order to be with them live? Can I physically and emotionally handle preaching 4 and 5 times a Sunday? Will we be able to afford to hire more staff so I can teach less? What happens if I get in a car wreck? How can we lead our people to value other teaching gifts, even if it is not as edifying to them?
How can we train more and better church planters?

Sorry this got so long. Thanks for reading.
I’ll check back in periodically to see if I can further the discussion
Peace, brothers and sisters,
Darrin patrick

Comments

[Chris]

Nice comments Darrin.

I see two problems, 1) Driscoll tends to always use his blog to demeanor the "small emerging types." 2) I don't think their is a "right way" or a "wrong way." If God calls you to do VV fine, or if God calls you to plant a small missional church, fine. Both have positive and negative ramifications, right?

I'm cool with video venues, although, I think their are certain fears that come to mind. Stuff like celebrity preachers, lack of quality preachers for the future, lack of accountability of the masses who attend these mega churches.

The small missional church tends to be critical, inward focus, and lacks overall resources. (I know I’m generalizing here, forgive me)

The mega church is a good thing if done right, the small missional church is a good thing if done right.

However, the bigger issues that Darrin spoke of was leadership. Why are we lacking church planters? Why is it, that we can get thousands to come to our gatherings to hear the A-list preachers, but we do not have 4-5 qualified church planters?

Are we so focused on reaching the lost, that we are not spending enough time helping the lost become leaders and disciples?

I respect the A-list preachers, but man they are not going to make a huge cultural impact that needs to be made. I think we can see that from the 90's mega church movement.

Just my quick thoughts.

[ryan]

I do not see how Driscoll "alawys" uses his blog to attack small emergent churches. It could be he uses his blog for the same purpose other people use theirs; to voice their opinions.

Bob I liked your post but really felt like you were putting words into his mouth and manipulating them. No where in the post did he say that if you do not like video churches than you do not want to see people come to Jesus, I think it is wrong to even imply that. Obviously you have strong opinions about the topic, and so does he. It might be best to not take his words as a personal attack on what you think about the topic and what your church is doing and just realize that he is in an entirely different situation than any of us really are.

[Chris]

Ryan,
Ya, maybe your right, always was not the best word choice, but all I did was quote him from his blog post :)

[bob]

nowhere?
"It is as if the thought of thousands of people getting saved is a bad thing because it results in a megachurch without enough seats for all the people, as if the goal of ministry was to connect fewer people to Jesus."

I don't know how else to read this... but maybe I'm mistaken.

[ryan]

Bob,
I did not mean to come off as harsh in my comment. But I would say there are other ways to read that, then saying he is saying that emergent house church people do not want to see people saved.

The truth of the matter is that there are groups of people who put their preference or style of church before mission. Fundies do that all the time and we rail on them because they want to keep up with outdated church practices just because that is what they like. Like it or not there are those within the emergent community who do like to throw rocks at guys like Driscoll and do so because they are just as dogmatic about church being the way they think it should be as fundementalists are. I would offer this as another way to read it.

[Aj]

Ah, it's good (and hard) to share about where God has planted us without feeling threatened sometimes, eh?

My one thought, random though it may be: regarding not finding enough guys to plant thriving incarnational/attractional churches, maybe it's appropriate for gals to step up to the plate, or for the genders to better partner together. Just a leading I have . . .

“However, the bigger issues that Darrin spoke of was leadership. Why are we lacking church planters? Why is it, that we can get thousands to come to our gatherings to hear the A-list preachers, but we do not have 4-5 qualified church planters?”
Chris, I could not agree more. I think a big part of the problem is that we are not throwing the challenge out to the masses to consider planting. Bob has done a great job of this with his articles and blog. We need more of that kind of challenge. We also need more denoms and networks who are willing to do the hard work of assessing, coaching and training. But really what we need is these networks and denoms to come alongside the church plants and planters who are bringing the gospel in their context. Denoms and networks do not mainly produce great planters, local churches do.

[Scott]

I truly believe the issue is leadership and the vast majority of churches do not facilitate disciples but rather audiences. If reproduction is not written into the DNA of The Church, upcoming leaders will be perceived as threats not assets. I just returned from India where a planting network has planted over 2000 churches in the last 17 years, with over 100k attending regularly. The model is set to double in the next 2 years.
The reason I say this is that this organization had to break all the traditional rules in order to make this happen. They found that "Super Pastors" however gifted were actually a deterrent to multiplication because they set a bar of proficiency far outside the average pastor. Instead, in these larger churches they used the pulpit as a place for younger less experienced pastors to practice and learn.
The entire issue surrounding VV came as somewhat of a shock to me when I attended Resurgence last year. There was a distinct sense that no one can do it as well as Mark so we will just use video. Is that really true? If so it is an indictment on the core value of the great commission to make disciples not students. How different would the church look if we did it like Jesus not Hybels.

[Kseymore]

I gotta say the idea of video venues has always really bothered me, but then again, when Paul couldn't physically be at every church he resorted to venues in which he could, in some sense, be there:

“I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things...” (1Tim 3:14).

“And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea” (Col 4:16).

“I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers” (1Th 5:27).

We've been replaying these old taped videos of Paul's for years every Sunday and that never bothered me. But I must say video venues still bother me, maybe just a little less than they did before.

[John]

"Fundies do that all the time" Really? All the time? That's a bit broad. But maybe that's not what you meant.

Maybe you meant they do it about as often as "[Driscoll] uses his blog to attack small emergent churches"

Sorry, couldn't resist. We now resume our regularly scheduled blogging. ;)

What is interesting about the multi-site video venue deal for large churches is that you actually empower more power to use their gifts (worship teams, group leaders, etc) than if you just rely on the A band, A small group leaders etc. What we are seeing as we study it is that these sites are functionally very similiar to planting an autonymous church because they force the pastors equip more laity to use their gifts because you are speading out the opportunities.

Scott, not sure what you meant by the "distinct sense" comment but I know for a fact that Acts 29 is continuing to plant churches in Seattle with Mars Hill leading the way in funding, coaching and training.

I am not sure why we have to choose. Why can't large churches with growth issues plant and do the multi-site deal?

sorry, that last one was from darrin p

[ryan]

John,
Not sure I got your point, or if you really had one. Mine was that we all have prefrences and sometimes we are blinded by them.

[Justin Buzzard]

Thank you Darrin for a very honest, humble, and thoughtful post. My church is beginning to face the VV issue and this post helps articulate some of our current thinking.

[Scott Davison]

Darrin,
My reaction was to the feedback I had gotten directly from young staff involved at Marrs Hill. They were prety specific in saying people were coming to hear Mark. I do think Marrs Hill has some amazing things going on but could you concede that often times in a growing church discpleship and reproduction are much harder than just leading and growing from the pulpit?
Darrin I appreciate your thoughts and honest analysis of your own body it is refreshing.

[Scott Davison]

Darrin,
My reaction was to the feedback I had gotten directly from young staff involved at Marrs Hill. They were prety specific in saying people were coming to hear Mark. I do think Marrs Hill has some amazing things going on but could you concede that often times in a growing church discpleship and reproduction are much harder than just leading and growing from the pulpit?
Darrin I appreciate your thoughts and honest analysis of your own body it is refreshing.

[Jon]

Regarding Mark's comment about house churches wanting to connect only a few people with Jesus (or however you want to read it). I'm perfectly willing to concede that not all house churches are like that, but I am suprised to actually find that sentiment at a number of house churches.

For example, there is a reasonably well known pastor of a house church in Seattle who is also a professor at Mars Hill Graduate School. My wife and I have friends who started to attend his house church. After a few weeks, the pastor pulled them aside and asked them not to come anymore because he didn't want the church to get any bigger than it was... he thought it would interfere with authentic community. I'm surprised, how often I hear that sentitment...

[bob]

A question, Jon... Were these friends of your Christians already? Because if that's the case, I can understand Dwight's (?) comment to them.
There have been times when people who were plugged in already at a church have considered evergreen. We told the not to (it's rare, but it has happened). Why? Because we didn't necessarily build the church to pull christians from other communities.

Now, if your friends are non-Christians, that's another matter entirely...

Scott,
No question that it is much easier to preach and rally around a 10 talent teacher than to raise up and empower leaders who then build ministries to connect and disciple people.

As a church grows you have to move from the informal to formal (commmunication, systems, leadership structure, etc). It is at this point that churches can go bad in two different ways.
1. Refuse to do the hard, painful, tedious work to raise up leaders and stay too informal (lack of clear structure) and thus stunt their potential growth (numerical, discipleship, people on mission) THis is the main problem with most house churches who fail to multiply according to their stated mission
2. Refuse to do the hard, painful, tedious work to raise up leaders and get too formal (rigid structure) and thus stunt their missional impact on members and the city and become consumeristic and programmatic.
This is the problem of the mega-church who ends up mainly producing people who see the gospel individually instead of missionally.

The third option of course, is to have enough structure to organize and empower the church for mission, to have good structure that submits to the Spirit (McManus).

[JACK]

Darrin's response was thoughtful and sincere. I appreciate his honesty.

I think VV are an inevitable conclusion to the model of church that MH and others have. When the sermon is the reason for coming, the tensions and demands Darrin highlights are going to be there.

I must ask, not to put Darrin on the spot, or to question his motives, why are the options that are considered always about figuring out how to making Darrin (or whomever the celebrity preacher is) more ubiquitous? I understand it as a stop-gap effort and a desire not to turn people away from Jesus, but it always strikes me as a tad egoist, in the sense that there isn't any other way or person whom these people will encounter who will show them Christ. More than that, though, it just seems likely to exacerbate the problem.

The problem is the church model. Sounds strange to say that a successful church may be structured wrongly, but I truly think that is it. And that can be a tough thing for someone to admit -- that this thing they've been praised for, made famous for, that is doing good, nonetheless, is not sustainable except by the preacher's complete sacrifice of himself to the point of burnout or corporatizing.

[Jon]

Bob,

Yes they were Christians, and yes it was Dwight, but to put it in perspective, they had no current community. They were MHGS students new to the area.

I understand not wanting to take members from another local body, but saying "sorry we're full unless you're not a believer" seems like the wrong attitude.

[bob]

Ahh.. something in between...

Yeah- that sounds like a need to plant another community...

[Drew Caperton]

Good thoughts all around.

In my community, we're experiencing a need for adding structure, and I've always been very wary of the whole thing without knowing why.

This string helped me understand the throes of adding/changing structure and the benefits of good, Spirit-submitting structures.

Nice job so far, everyone.