I've been predicting for awhile that Mars Hill Church in Seattle would try to plant a video venue here in Portland, notwithstanding the two to four (depending on how you count) Acts 29 planted churches in the metro area.
Then today, I got this Facebook invite: ""Hey guys for those of you who have enjoyed the teaching of Mark Driscol (sic) we welcome you to join this group and invite you to pray about the possibility of a Mars Hill Church Portland Campus ".
Now, truth is, this may simply be an overeager fan boy. Or it may be someone who's actually doing something "official." Who knows.
"We are deadly serious about the great commission and loading all guns to storm hell with the gospel of grace. And we need more men. Nine hundred men. Not boys—men. Real men. Men who care less about padding their resume and getting their vacation days than about seeing lives transformed and legacies altered for generations. We need men who love their wives, pastor their children, submit to Scripture, bleed the gospel, and have steel in their spine, love in their hearts, and the lost in their sights."
I'm all about men loving their wives, pastoring their children, submitting to Scripture, bleeding the Gospel, etc, etc. But truthfully, I have a feeling that when we talk about it, it tends to come out differently. And don't even get me started on the where the women are in this picture. Keeping the home fires burning while the men storm the gates, I assume.
Anyway, this invite to discuss a video venue or Mars Hill was sent to the
wrong guy. Not sure how someone could be my Facebook friend and NOT know my thoughts on this, but in case you need a refresher, check
here.
I feel badly, but I did "join" the group and posted a thought... we'll see how long it stays on the page :)
I said: "Look- not to be a jerk- but there are already three churches here in Portland started by the Acts 29 network. A video church of Mark's teaching is not only redundant (it's all vodcasted, right?) it's kind of an insult to those who have worked hard to plant the churches that this video venue would most likely draw people from.
As someone who has planted and is planting churches in PDX, I can assure you- my problem isn't thinking that there are too many churches in Portland. I'm passionate about seeing as many real churches planted as possible. But a franchised video church with elders who live in another state, 3 hours away? No- thank you."
Please understand- If you want to listen to Mark's podcast/watch his vodcast, I think you should go for it- I subscribe to his podcast for crying out loud. But where we're going with this is eventually a Mark Driscoll, Andy Stanley, Ed Young Jr, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, et al Video Franchise in every major city, the further Wal-Martization of the church and, I kid you not- the death of preaching.
Think that's hyperbole?
Stay tuned.
I don't think it's in Mars Hill Church's interest to plant a church in Portland because it seems to be off-track from anything I've ever heard from their announcements. But if they did I'm sure they would select campus pastors who have a heart for Portland (local elders) for leadership care-taking. They would take as much care with Portland as they have with Seattle to be sure.
It's more than a little negligent to assume they would raise a projector screen and have at it with no concern for hierarchy or the people of the city they're in.
Personal feelings of insult and streaming video are a non-issue and of no concern to the kingdom of God. There's a giant garbage can at the door of heaven for every Masters of Divinity, man-made doctrine and "how church should be done" manual.
If any church is planted in Portland and conducted in a way that honors the gospel then Portland would be better with it than without it.
Posted by: Justin Carroll | February 19, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Preach it, Bob! Couldn't agree more. There is a parallel in what's happening in the music business right now. No labels are willing to develop young artists and are riding on the backs of their aging stars right into shitter. Name one band other than Coldplay who has emerged in the past 10 years that will be filling arenas in for the next possible 10 years or so. Instead they sign people like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan to record deals for the quick fix. The record label business is doomed and I agree with you that the American church might be headed for the same fate with this kind of approach.
Posted by: Zach Lind | February 19, 2009 at 01:39 PM
My guess would be that it's an edgy comment in order to generate a click to his blog.
Posted by: Aaron Stewart | February 19, 2009 at 02:03 PM
What happened? Did the fact that Imago Dei is now allowing women to preach from the pulpit make Mark think that Imago is now too "mamby-pamby" and PDX now needs a "real" he-man church?
Bob, you're right about all the Acts 29 Churches in PDX already - this video Mars Hill is kind of an affront to them. It also sends the message that the whole church planting idea is now passe - we can just send video feeds all over the country. I really hope this doesn't happen. We already have too much celebrity in the Church now as it is.
I recall hearing Frank Shaeffer (Francis Shaeffer's son) interviewed by Terry Gross on NPR a while back. When asked why he left Evangelicalism for Greek Orthodox Christianity, he replied that the cult of personality is too strong in Evangelicalism. He said that in the Orthodox Church the priests face the front (away from the congregation) and they are interchangeable - not indispensable. He appreciated this in that it keeps the priests from becoming celebs. I have often thought of his reply of late - he does seem to have captured the essence of the problem in Evangelicalism.
Posted by: UncleOxidant | February 19, 2009 at 03:39 PM
Apostle Paul was not a pastor, per se. He was an Apostle - maybe we would call him a "Church planter" in today's parlance. He started things and trained local leaders to take over so he could go back on the road and start another church in the next town. Paul always raised up local leaders.
I also tend to think that in his own time he didn't really have "celebrity" status. In fact, I suspect that when churches got a letter from Paul and the noticed the return address on the envelope (or the equivalent thereof) they kind of said "Uh, oh... what did we do now?" since a lot of those letters were very, shall we say, corrective.
Posted by: UncleOxidant | February 19, 2009 at 03:48 PM
Coming from a 'simpler' mindset. The idea of a video-cast on a sunday gives me chills. Not good chills. It makes me feel isolated and lonely. Church is about being intimately involved in your community and congregation! Influencing people with brilliance and great charisma is needed, but so is follow up! How do you seek out your pastor for guidance and counsel when they are miles away and dont even know you? I know there are elders and such at these vod-cast sites, but as a 'normal' church attender, I would feel very intimidated by the whole idea. I'm all for guest preachers (like Paul in Acts), but that was personal and there was follow up.... I may be way out of line, and TOTALLY out of my league in speaking on this subject. This is merely a thought from the average church goer :)
Posted by: Lacey | February 19, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Lacey...you are NOT totally out of your league; good thoughts!
Posted by: Tina Lips | February 19, 2009 at 11:21 PM
Bob,
I don't understand how this is a "franchise" model. Driscoll and his team are passionate about church planting churches that are actually biblical. Portland is a large city, obviously, and needs MANY biblical churches. You think he wants to start a turf war with Rick McKinley at Imago Dei?
Also, I think the campus pastors do more than you or anyone else on here are giving them credit for. They aren't just Driscoll minions.
I would encourage you to email/write Driscoll and his staff and ask them what his purpose is. Maybe that would clear things up for everyone, considering we don't even know if this is TRUE.
Grace and Peace,
Ethan
Posted by: Ethan | February 20, 2009 at 03:52 AM
It's a Franchise model because it's a church in a box with pre-packaged everything.
I too am passionate about planting churches. I just don;t see this as planting churches. It's planting a worship service mainly organized around a video screen.
Nothing but love for the campus pastors- I don't see them as minions- I see them as people who love Jesus, but are engaging in a type of church planting that I think in some ways is sub-biblical,
Posted by: bobhyatt | February 20, 2009 at 07:06 AM
Ah, nothing like Video venues to feel the love and community of being with fellow... anonymous faces in the crowd.
Don't get me wrong, I think missionizing and spreading the gospel with all tools available is great. But is this really about missions? A 'church' is not a mission, yes churches can be missional but at its core a church is still supposed to be something else. It is supposed to be about a community of believers, and I have to ask when everything becomes electronic when the fellowship, intimacy, and giving of brotherly love becomes digital transmission with anonymous faces and text messaging.
I don't think it is wrong to use these tools, but I think if the Lord was okay with remote communication and respresentatives symbols of persons with indirect communication then he wouldn't have sent Jesus to show how we can commune together with the Lord as actual people.
Posted by: David | February 20, 2009 at 11:57 AM
I appreciate how one commenter mentioned "parishes"...
For all the talk over the last 5 years of "multi-site", all I see is evangelicals "rediscovering" the "diocese-parish" model, but putting a personality driven spin on it. This won't just affect preaching, my friends.
Part of the problems with ecclesiology that Bob is raising is deeply rooted in the a-historical character of many so-called "free churches".
Not all, mind you, but many.
On another note:
Making "gender" a first-order doctrinal issue is really a rhetorical strategy to give force of argument to an issue that is clearly near and dear to Driscoll's heart. I have to wonder if it will have long term, unforeseen effects--and no, they won't be good ones.
I just think of the SBC's rancorous means of "defending the Bible". I believe it was Francis Schaeffer who warned their leadership to "be careful what they learned" in the way they went about fighting their battles--For when that war was over they might turn and start tearing each other.
You know what?
That's exactly what's happening.
Finally, and then I'll stop writing...
The fact that there are A29 churches in the city already and this is being disregarded by MH really only plays into the perceptions that the man is ego driven.
Isn't he supposedly really "rigorous" about who he lets into his exclusive network of "real men church leaders"? But from what I've heard and seen the A29 guys know that they can't complain even if they wanted to. Look what the guy did to his own elders.
What a mess.
Posted by: Nathan | February 23, 2009 at 06:41 AM