The Death of Preaching

It's a pretty bold statement to say that video venues will eventually mean the death of preaching... but I think I can make the case. 

In his new book, Flickering Pixels (which I encourage you to check out!), Shane Hipps makes this point:

"Every medium, when pushed to an extreme, will reverse on itself, revealing unintended consequences. For example, the car was invented to increase the speed of our transportation, but having too many cars on the highway at once results in traffic jams or even injury or death.
The internet was designed to make information more easily accessible, thereby reducing ignorance. But too much information or the wrong kind of information reverses into overwhelming the seeker, leading to greater confusion than clarity. It breeds misunderstanding rather than wisdom...
In the same way, surveillance cameras, when there are too many that see too far, reverse into an invasion of privacy."

In other words, what was originally meant to make us go fast now slows us down, what was meant to make us smart now increases our ignorance (well, never our ignorance... just other peoples', right?) and what was meant to make us feel safe now makes us feel exposed. 

This is the rule: Technology, taken too far, creates the opposite of what it was intended to create. 

Still doubt it? Ask yourself- Email was meant to keep you in touch and ease communication, right? But when you are trying to process 100 emails a day, you don't feel in touch, you feel crushed. You're not communicating- you are wading through spam, forwards, fyi's... Your emails get shorter and shorter, more and more terse, and mis-communication happens more often than not. 

Reversal.  

So, what about technology in preaching? 

First came architectural improvements to increase the range of a speaker's voice. Then microphones to throw the voice even further. Then radio, television, tape and CD ministries, podcasts, vodcasts... and the seed of the video venue, the "overflow room."  All with the goal of taking the gift of preaching and extending its reach and impact. 

So far, so good, right?

But now, we have all this technology. We're not only recording the sermon, we're video taping it and we have discovered we can send that video, not just to the next room, but to a building across the campus, across town, across the state, around the world...

Now, the preaching gift of one person has the ability not simply to reach the back row, but the next town, state, continent. And we're not just talking about Spurgeon publishing his sermons or Schuller putting his on TV or Driscoll putting his on iTunes... 

NOW we're talking about not just influencing local preachers by making the "best" communicators' sermons available... we're talking about replacing those local teaching elders. 

Talk about pushing something to an extreme. 

The technology that once enhanced the preaching of others, influenced and enriched it? It's making it superfluous. Start up churches and smaller churches that used to have a team of three or four elders (or in our case, seven) who would be called on to teach on a regular basis now have a video screen and a "campus pastor" that gets to preach at most once a month. 

The technology reverses on itself. What once extended and enhanced the gift of preaching now effectively begins to strangle it, as fewer and fewer actually get the chance to ever do it. 

If we're not more thoughtful about this, soon, every city and town will have the Driscoll franchise... maybe even two or three. And the Andy Stanley, Ed Young Jr franchise as well. Is Joel Osteen too far behind? Hybels, Warren, Groeschel... the market is going to get crowded. 

Sure, smaller churches will still exist, but in fewer and fewer numbers as dying churches are replaced not by vibrant church plants full of people forced to build a community from the ground up and so learn all the lessons along the way, but by video venue franchises- prepackaged church-in-a-box. And I'm telling you- there will be fewer and fewer men and women (most certainly fewer women) who ever learn to preach, who ever get the experience of working with others to discern what God is saying to their local body through Spirit and Word and prayerfully struggle through how they can creatively communicate that as well over the course of weeks, months and years of life together. 

We're talking about the death of preaching in evangelicalism by all but a small handful of Celebrity Communicators who have little knowledge about those they teach from such far distances.

Sound like a bleak vision of the future?  Yes, it does. But we don't have to go there...

If the Church will just learn to pay its taxes. 

Stay tuned to see what I mean by that...

to be cont'd.

(And since I know it will come up in the comments, let me just address it now: No, I don't think preaching is the end-all, be-all of ministry. I don't think it's even the most important piece of ministry. But I do think it's vital and necessary for the continued health of the Church.) 

Comments

[Shane Hart]

I guess Paul's letters shouldn't have been read in multiple local churches as it took "face time" away from the local leaders.

I'm a "local" pastor without video venues, yet I could not disagree with you more. Preaching is not the biblical mandate of the pastor. Ephesians 4 says that it is "to prepare God's people for works of service." However the local pastor or campus pastor chooses to do that is between him/her and God. Just because something is working for many, doesn't mean you are going to be forced to participate. If you don't like the video venue of preaching, then don't participate. Otherwise, be careful how self-righteous and judgmental you become about your opinion. That is all this is, it is not theology by any stretch. Remember the "for with the same measure you use, it will be measured to you," is talking about judgment.

[bobhyatt]

Give me a break- Reading the letters of the Apostles that would later be recognized as Scripture and commenting on them/discussing them is exactly where local preaching came from.

Preaching is absolutely one (among many) of the mandates of the local elders. 1 Tim 4:13- "Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching."
Also "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach"

And yes- it's theology- ecclesiology to be exact.

I'll excuse you calling me self-righteous and judgmental under the old 12 Step maxim "If you spot it, you got it". :)

[Robin]

Bob, brilliant! that's all I can say at this point. Keep posting on this!

Robin

[Jen W]

I don't think in this context it has anything to do with being the "best," just the most available.

[B.D.]

There is nothing in congregational life that I can think of more than preaching that should be removed from pastoral care. If preaching is not a function of pastoral care, what role does it play? I would propose you can't find a better means of preaching than through pastoral care, for it is the application of scripture to the life of the community.

That's why this whole video venue thing is such a sham IMO it moves the preacher out of touch with the community life. It instead becomes focused on being funny etc. I don't see how you can read scripture or early church tradition(without Frank Viola-izing on a really REALLY small point of time) and disconnect preaching from pastoral care.

[Blake]

Would've saved a heck of a lot of trouble if Jesus could've just died on the cross from heaven via video venue. He wouldn't have had to go through all of that incarnational Word becoming flesh and moving into the neighborhood stuff.

I guess I'm saying that disconnecting the preaching from the pastoring possibly diminishes why God gave pastors in the first place. There's an element of combining loving and shepherding with ministering the word that I believe is vitally important to growing in grace and knowledge. Maybe for "mature" Christians video venues are an option (and not a very good one), but we as pastors have to incarnate ourselves into our congregations/communities. We have to shepherd AND teach - it's preposterous to think you can shepherd via video - and having a "site pastor" is a cop out.

[Nathan]

Tim Clark,

Re: #4...Puffing up pride of the pastor.

Well, some would say that with Driscoll it's too late. This multi-site thing is merely an expression of it.

[Chad Hall]

Bob,
Insightful and incite-ful comments.
I would think the churches/pastors who chose to go launch video venues in other communities have what they consider to be good and biblical reasons. But you offer some thoughts worth thinking about related to counting the cost and knowing how the best laid plans/intentions can backfire.

I admit that I don't want to take this medicine, but I think one of the reasons the video church is so appealing is that we don't want to know and be known (as pastors and as parishioners). Preaching as an art of performance and persuasion is fun and gratifying. Getting down and dirty with people and letting that inform your preaching is not all that fun and often not so gratifying. And the parishioners who want canned preaching are just as much to blame -- after all, who wants the preacher knowing you and preaching God's word directly to you?

Preaching that is not informed by the actual lives being lived in one's congregations is not limited to video churches. I suspect any pastor can be tempted to offer preaching that is distanced from the harsh realities of his/her congregation. So our advice we aim at the Driscolls and Stanleys can inform anyone who preaches.

[Seth]

Bob, thank you for your blog. I am a new subscriber. I just found out about you from a friend’s twitter. I would like to bring up another point of view. The church I am a part of is in a town of a little more than 3,000 people. God has placed on our pastor’s heart the desire to grow the church. Rather than building a bigger building we are launching out into the surrounding towns to plant new churches. Right now we only have one additional campus and our pastor preaches both places in person. There are others who preach from time to time and we currently finish one service, drive about 30 minutes and preach in the other location. What if we could preach to the other locations by video as an interim step while God raises up additional preachers? I understand the heart of your post, but it seems just as wrong to say that we can’t use the tool because it makes it easier to be a passive Christian. Anyway, I really appreciate your post, it has given me a lot of food for thought.

[Drew Caperton]

I've read the book. Really hits the nail on the head with sound theological arguments while showing the implications (and first-hand stories) of the McChurch kind of thinking.

[Jen W]

I don't presume to speak for Bob, but I think you answered your own question when you said "while God raises up additional preachers." It sounds like your goal is still to get local people preaching, not stay indefinitely as an ever-unfolding video venue.

[James Carmichael]

looks like a fantastic book with interesting insights. I think you could be onto something here. I wonder - does the book talk about how some new technology goes past what was and creates a new connection?

Like eamil got bogged down, so people have moved onto social network platforms and testing?

If preaching is the email, what is the social network platform and what is the texting?

[Nick Blevins]

I agree that it's a bold statement, and I've enjoyed reading this post and the other one about your thoughts on the topic.

I have a couple questions I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on:

Must the teacher and pastor (shepherd) be the same person 100% of the time? I ask this because I believe I am called to plant a church, but I do not believe I am called to preach. That wouldn't work in most models. I believe I can use my gifts of leadership and pastoring to lead a church, even if I preached just 5 times a year (which would be plenty in my case).

Is it bad for a local pastor of a "video franchise" to preach 4 times the first year, 6 times the 2nd, 8 times the 3rd, etc. In other words, is it a problem for them to develop their gift over time, supplementing video the rest of the time?

Has anyone talked to Mark Driscoll, Andy Stanley, Craig Groeschel or any other "video preacher" to see if their desire was to promote themselves and their ego?

Do unchurched people really care who the communicator is? I ask this because, I agree with what has been said that a "video church" might attract local churhced people who want a better show. But, that statement is pointless in this discussion because the same thing can happen with a traditional church model if the preaching is better, or the music is better, etc. On the flip side, I think only churched people have issues with "video churches". Truly unchurched people don't have a pre-determined idea of what the local church should look like.

[Elle]

I will front end load my comments by saying that I attend a large multi-site video church. I am in no way, shape or form, attempting to sway perspectives or battle further into this debate, but I saw no use in hiding that fact. I do see value in humbly suggesting that not all multi-site churches operate in the same fashion. I believe and have experienced that a multi-site church has it's faults, like any other method, but it also has a few favorable positives, some which I have not seen mentioned in this conversation so far. I am an avid reader of your blog, but have never commented, so please don't throw too many tomatoes my way. :)

I should also state that the church I attend is in Canada, and our "celebrity-cult-pastor" thing is slightly subdued compared to our American friends. I think, and I could be mistaken, our biggest church is 8000 or so. So, please do remember that context when you continue reading. (I also realize by sharing I live in Canada, it won't take much searching to figure out just what church I do attend, but, alas I don't think that is the point)

I think the first issue to be addressed regarding multi-site churches is not the method, but more the heart behind the choice to utilize that particular technology. I can only speak from experience, but where I attend, the choice was made to use video as a way to enhance and foster community, not to drive away from it. If your church is growing and busting at the seams, I think logically you have a few choices, and one of those choices is to build a larger church (or for those in the US, buy an arena) or choose another path of church planting.

Another issue to be addressed would be the motive for expanding and using multi-site technology. Where I attend, they don't advertise expansions (other than through their own website) and those expansions are always, always, always, facilitating people who are already meeting and using material from the church. They are not looking to find more people to attend their church, they are simply facilitating something that already exists.

The other issue harkens back to the intended topic of preaching. Where I attend, the only shared common thing on Sunday is the teaching. Everything else, from the worship to the children is very site specific. Each site has a youth pastor, children's pastor and Lead pastor. Though the Lead Pastor speaks infrequently from the main site, he/she is freed up to attend to other things. Throughout the week, those in the church engage in something called "Home Church" where real life and real community takes place. Sunday morning is incomplete without the Home Church experience, and if you have to choice only 1 due to time constraints, the church encourages to make Home Church your choice. There are also many other preaching opportunities outside of the Sunday Morning context where I attend, and those who are gifted in that area are used quite regularly. I suppose it depends on your definition of preaching and if it is contained to a Sunday morning setting.

I think this debate is incomplete without a look at what other multi-site churches are doing that is working. I have never felt more of a sense of community then I do with this church. My Lead Pastor is so available and has time to meet and foster connection. Because the person on the screen only comes to our site a few times every year, he finds other ways to connect through the internet and open houses. And I don't feel I am losing out because I don't interact with him on a regular basis. Because being the Teaching Pastor is his main job, he also is freed up to study and deliver quite in-depth sermons. He is also extremely available. I have spoken with him over the phone and the internet more often that I had spoken with my previous Pastor in a church of 600.

I feel like we as Christians must be careful, or at least tread lightly as we work through these issues. I love the conversation and appreciate that people are debating these things. But, in my own life I have been careful, or at least tried to, not make generalizations, or at least try not to make them so broadly. Because, the truth is, I don't know what everyone out there is doing, and perhaps somewhere the very thing I think is totally wrong and un-healthy could be the most healthy thing there is in a certain community.

The question my church wrestled through years ago and perhaps would add some thought to the conversation is: Can a family of churches that share a common vision, teaching and leadership reach a city in
a way that a single local church can not?

I welcome and would appreciate feedback. Thank you for posting this Bob.

[anonymous]

If I may, I'd like to offer some points to "counter-balance" you here:
1. Jesus preached to crowds of thousands, aside from the supernatural, he would not have known each of those people "like a family". Maybe you could argue that Jesus was more akin to an evangelist than a pastor, I don't know, I'm not a theologian. The apostles were well known in their day, (at least in the church world). Certainly they didn't know all the people in the many churches they traveled to, yet, they preached to those congregations and, of course, wrote them letters. I would ask where in the Bible it talks about how well a pastor should know each person in his congregation.
2. I think there's a distinction between knowing each person in your congregation and knowing your congregation as a whole. (see #1) Jesus certainly "knew" the people he preached to at least as much as anybody knows a group of people they are a part of or similar to.
3. I don't see how it's any worse if 1 church of 1000 people are let down by their pastor than if 10 churches of 100 each are all let down by their pastor. Either way, it's the failure of the leader and his responsibility.
4. Any person can struggle with pride. I think if a pastor can't handle being a "celebrity" then that's a fault within themselves, not a fault of being a "celebrity". If it's hard for a pastor to be a "celebrity" and maintain your humility then that's something that should be considered as to whether they are the right person for the job. Just because we don't hear about them in the news doesn't mean that there aren't "celebrity pastors" out there who are doing it right and handling the position God has put them in with humility, that is after all why they aren't in the news. Would you also say it's impossible for a celebrity (i.e. actor, politician, entertainer) to be a good Christian?
5,6&7. Again, you are starting with an assumption. I've made some of the best friends that I have while at large churches through small/home groups and volunteering. (see #1) You said, "A healthy church body KNOWS everybody else", I would love to see some biblical basis for this statement because it seems to drive your most fundamental* views of church. I would argue that there's plenty of social cohesion for someone who is involved in a large church as opposed to someone who attends a large church, but then again isn't that true for any size church?

I'm not writing this to come across as confrontational or offensive, but I'm just trying to challenge you to reconsider your positions and look as carefully at what Scripture doesn't say as what it does say. I hope you'll take this as the friendly dialog it is intended to be.

* fundamental as in elemental or foundational, I'm not calling you a "Fundamentalist"

[B.D.]

I'll give you some thoughts Nick. I actually think that it is okay for there to be people who serve pastoral roles, who aren't the primary teacher/preacher. However, if the primary teacher/preacher isn't connected with the local assembly I think it will be a disservice to that church plant.

Also, as far as the developing preaching skills goes the best way for me has been to preach and to try to do so regularly, I am still very much learning the skill, but I find the more regularly I work at trying to do it, the faster I learn.

And as far as unchurched people and videos go, my experience has been very much that my unchurched friends would be turned off by going to church to watch a video. The same way they don't like being handed a track or walked through a script instead of having an actual conversation. If you want to be friendly to the unchurched, I think a local preacher and one that is open to interaction, even if that interaction is them saying "I think you're full of ____" is much more the way to go than a video. I'm just going off of my experience with that one though. (This is one of the greatest things that I am impressed about with Evergreen is this availability)

[Nick Blevins]

Good thoughts B.D. My experience with unchurched people in video churches is just the opposite, they have no issues with video teaching. Why do you feel it is a disservice to a church plant for the primary teacher to not be connected to the church? I guess my follow up question would be, is that any different from a pastor of a 2000 person church? Because, in both instances, he personally knows a very small percentage of the people in the church.

[centorian]

Great thoughts. Preaching is in fact a vital component of pastoral care. While we could argue whether the pastor and teachere are two distinct offices (Eph 4), teaching was an instrumental part of the ministry of the early bishops or pastors.

[B.D.]

I think it is a disservice because (as I have said earlier) preaching is a function of pastoral care. Yes, there are points where it doesn't need to be on a personal level, but I would argue that someone who is not connected to the community at all would not be a good fit for being a regular preacher.

And this kind of bleeds into the second question, I would hope that our hypothetical pastor of 2000 people church would be connected to those on the ground doing the work of pastoral care. That at least if not aware of individuals, that pastor must at least be aware of the congregations life as a whole. If that pastor isn't connected with those people in that way I feel that the preaching will miss the target of working out God's story in that congregation.

[Nick Blevins]

If preaching is a function of pastoral care, you're saying one can't fully care for someone in the pastoral sense unless they preach to them as well, correct? Otherwise, it's possible to provide full pastoral to someone without preaching to them (i.e. - the lead pastor or campus pastor). I'm not saying I can disagree with that Biblically, but it's a more specific way to state your point. I'd love to hear your Biblical support for that view if you don't mind.

As for the hypothetical megachurch pastor, I have 2 thoughts:

I think most megachurch pastors, and "video church" pastors believe that small groups are where pastoral care really happens. So, the pastor provides pastoral care to those they are connected to directly (staff, their small group, etc). In other words, they actually believe the Biblical idea of every member being a minister as opposed to the view that only "pastors" can care for others.

I totally agree that if you only use video preaching you would never be able to address issues that bubble up within a specific congregation. However, I think that's what the campus pastor or lead pastor of a video church is there for. So, it's both/and, not either/or.

Thanks for being willing to dialogue. I'm totally interested in learning other viewpoints and the support of those viewpoints.

[B.D.]

The closest thing I have to preaching to start with biblically would be Paul's letters. They are all written out of pastoral concern about specific issues going on in churches. Certainly Paul didn't know every single person in all those churches, but he was familiar enough with their scenarios to write letters specifically to the issues facing the different communities. There are certainly similarities in the different letters, but they always come back to addressing issues that are going on in specific communities.

Outside of addressing how scripture is applied to the congregations life, I have a hard time seeing what the role of preaching would be. Is it just a lecture to get smarter? A time to be entertained and encouraged? From my vantage preaching HAS to be about the application of the Christian story to the life of the congregation.

To be fully disclosed though, my background is and continues to be small churches. I grew up in a country church, I've been involved in multiple smaller churches in Spokane, WA and now in Portland, so I'm pretty sure I have a fairly different background. My worry continues though that the regular preacher/speaker must be connected to the life of the congregation either through connection to multiple individuals in the community(small church) or to those who are pastorally connected with individuals (larger church). That said, my worry is much more about multi-city-franchise-church video venues than one-city video venue churches.

[B.D.]

I hope that appealing to a broader scriptural context as opposed to Bible bullets works for Biblical support. I could work at coming up with some Bible bullets if that is what you would prefer.

[Chris]

Great post ... good stuff to think over.

I think the comparison of video preachers to Paul's letters is a huge stretch ... the churches that Paul wrote letters to had local pastors and elders who would do the teaching ... Paul did not write a letter to be read every Sunday! Bad comparison. Paul was shepherding young pastors and keeping churches on track theologically and practically.

I think it would be great to ask a video pastor that is planting a church why he chose video rather than training a local pastor. If anyone has insight on that (either you have asked or you are a video pastor) it'd be great to hear.

Blessings.

[eric Blauer]

The lure of kingdom building, influence, reach, opportunity, size, meaning, purpose, fulfillment, power, prestige, legitimization…didn’t Jesus point to a different way, when He was offered all those things on the pinnacle of the temple? Talk about high visibility and impact?

Didn’t God have something to say about all that through the story of Gideon, David and Goliath, the wind in the trees, a woman at the well, a small seed and a baby being born in the back alley?

Jesus turned His back the immediate push to gain a following, answer all questions, prove Himself and reach the masses. He determined or could I say submitted, to the plan from His Father on how and when He would attain such things…it’s been over 2000 years outworking.

I fear, we need to wrestle long and hard with the same offers.

The old Rolland Allen’s book “St. Paul’s missionary methods or ours” challenges this monolithic, build it to the heavens Babel like, methodization. Paul left after at the most a few years…following it appears, in the “way” of Jesus. Paul told his young church planters to follow his example in “words and ways”. We can choose to follow as disciples of the apostles or choose not to.

I’m clallenged by their “ways” which often seem to cross my natural desires both for legacy, comfort, personal security and self worship. Jesus refused “kingship” even when everyone wanted it. He espoused hiding, leaving, mobility, silence, empowering others, smallness, a few. He even called his work “little flock”. I’m a fan and reader of Driscoll, none of this is said from a place of disdain for the man…just a place of concern for the methods. I’m not a house plant/simple church guy either.

Great thoughts on this post and comments.

P.S.
I pastor Jacob's Well (www.jacobswellspokane.com) and I recommended my father to come check out Evergreen, he is in his 60's and has really been moved by some of Brain Mclaren's recent books. I'm from Portland and know many of the voices and works taking place around there but I kept thinking about you folks when wondering where he could find some people open to dialogue and similar heart and mission values. I hope he checks it out, Im coming down from Spokane WA this weekend and I am going to try to bring him along if we can make a meeting.

[t-dog]

Hey guys. I was thinking about this a little bit and wanted to offer this thought up for discussion. Our church has grown and is running 4 services on Sunday mornings so that we can accommodate the crowds. We have 1 main teaching pastor. He happens to be the pastor who planted the church that started as a bible study group of about 10 people. As the church grew he was unable to provide all the pastoral roles required. How can he prepare to teach the Word, and visit the sick, counsel with people in the church, plan for everything else and do the more important things of loving his wife and kids? So he invested in people that could help accomplish the Lords work in our community. People that were called by God and qualified to do the work of the ministry. This continued so that his primary role for this church is the teaching/lead pastor with 9 other pastors on staff in assistant roles. They (me included) do the things that are impossible for him to do, because of the size of the church. Not all who pastor preach/teach, just as we are told in 1 Peter 4:11. Our struggle as a church is "how to stay small as we grow large in #"s". Is that model of adding pastoral care in the the areas other than teaching/preaching wrong if he is reaching and identifying with the community at large. Even if our church were to grow to be 20,000 on a Sunday, that is a drop in the bucket to the amount of people that will go each week with out even hearing the gospel who live in our area. Maybe the video venue needs to focus on the support structure FIRST before a launch rather than rushing to fit more bodies into a venue. Just a thought. If the congregation is strongly supported by a caring team of pastors who are there to serve, it could actually lend to be a greater work than if they never branched out and were able to be placed into servant ministry.
t.