Multi Site yes- Video Venue no

I'm beginning the process of preparing for a debate I'll be doing in late September at the MultiSite 2.0 conference in St. Louis. 

The debate will be between myself and Larry Osborne, pastor of North Coast Church in Vista Ca. I hope it's a spirited, yet good-natured discussion of the theological and philosophical foundations of video venues and the ways the medium shapes both message and messenger.

I know a number of people were wondering when my name came up on emails/ads for this conference- my participation didn't seem congruent. But rest assured- I remain steadfastly in the multisite yes, video venue no camp :)

Why?

To me, multi site begins to turn back some of the most harmful effects of the mega church. Smaller, more localized gatherings is something I'll always be able to get behind, even if it does come under the umbrella of a much larger organization. It feels like a step back from the precipice that "mega" everything pushes us toward. 

But if multisite steps us back from the precipice, I feel like video venues gives us a good hard shove over and down. 

What we gain back in terms of smaller, more local gatherings is immediately traded away by distancing those gatherings from elders and teachers who should be shepherding and teaching out of personal knowledge of those they are leading. I understand the campus pastor thing. I also see that as incomplete, biblically. 

And yes- this issue to me is a biblical one. 

I began reading what is probably the seminal text in this discussion- The Multi-Site Revolution by Geoff Surrat, Greg Ligon and Warren Bird. And though it's a great handbook for how and even many why's, the question that fails to be considered is IF. At least, it fails to be considered at more than a practical, "Is it right for your church" level. And that seems pretty endemic. 

The closest we get to theological, much less ecclesiological considerations is found in a paragraph heading on page 19: "Multi-Site is a God Thing." A number of stories are told about how certain churches stumbled into various types of multi-site/video venue, with the "God Thing" conclusion being made by a researcher who concluded it must be such, because as he studied it, it seemed to be happening everywhere.  

I think we need more than that- the Church has a mission to reach people, absolutely. And if it's simply a pragmatic question, then by all means- what we can do we should do, if it gets us there. 

But the Kingdom of God is not a pragmatic realm. Often, how we do what we do matters. What we communicate not just with our words, but with our methods matters. And because the message is SO important, and the mission so vital, we would do well to heed the words of Marshall McLuhan that we are often blind to the ways the medium shapes our message- and the medium ALWAYS shapes our message. In fact, it embodies our message, in fact, it becomes it (his famous dictum: "The medium is the message").

So, I'm glad to hear some of the voices like Mark Driscoll who are saying things like "The Jury is still out" on video venues, though I wish that were a question asked before launching a ton of them, and Matt Chandler who writes about Clouds on the Horizon... implying that there are serious questions that still need answering when it comes to this issue. He lays it out: "The theological and philosophical criticism we did find was both limited and weak. The main criticism we encountered is that the Bible is silent on multi-site. This is an argument from silence. To say that the Bible doesn't say anything about such and such and therefore it's wrong to do such and such" is weak at best and a hypocritical at worst." 

I don't want to doubt the hearts and love for Jesus most of those involved in Video Venues have- though I will say, often it's just an extension of the celebrity church model and as such needs to die. 

But many are simply pursuing it because their love for Jesus and for people pushes them to it. My point, and I hope the point of a growing number of others is that the unintended side-effects of Video Venues are too great, we have rushed headlong too quickly, and so a more thoughtful and theologically informed approach- and a general stepping back, is needed. 

Comments

[Ben Sternke]

I'm in this camp with you Bob. Good post.

[andy]

I also agree with your statements here Bob. I just heard Shane Hipps talk about this and I think the real issues lie in not thinking through the possible long-term effects because we're so convinced that the immediate impact makes it automatically worth it. I'm glad to hear that some "big wigs" in this movement are saying the jury's still out, but how will they be able to back away from it 3,4 or 5 years down the line when they've literally invested tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars into this project?

That being said, I've spent some time with the guys from Windsor Crossing. I think that Greg's the real deal and I'm glad they've invited you to represent this side of the conversation.

[Brett]

Im not sure why you feel the campus pastor role is biblically incomplete. As a CP at a video campus I fulfill all the roles of a biblical elder including teaching, leading, encouraging, equipping, praying, disciplining, etc. If it is a question of teaching, then I think the argument falls short. Most campus Pastors in video campuses I know do a lot of teaching, albeit not consistently on a Sunday morning. As a matter of fact I teach about 18 times a year to the congregation as a whole and then Im doing some kind of group teaching twice a week on top of that. Multiply that times the number of campuses we have and that is a LOT of teaching done by Campus Pastors. Much more than our senior Pastor is capable of on his own.

I would be interested to hear more than a single line statement as to why this is an incomplete picture of a biblical elder.

[bobhyatt]

It's not that I think the role of campus pastor is biblically incomplete- it's that I think that a community whose primary teaching comes remotely from someone physically and often culturally separated from that community is biblically incomplete.

What's also interesting to me is the argument "We free campus pastors from teaching so they can shepherd" or "Not every pastor has the gift of teaching, so we use video" (I've heard those from Mars Hill and Seacoast pastors respectively)- your argument would seem to want to have it the other way.

[hastings]

I understand your point of view. But, here is my point of view: there is no one way to do church. The New Testament does not give us a prescribed formula for how to do church. If so, then which church do we model ourselves after?

The church at Corinth? Ephesus? Certainly, there are principles we can learn and follow from those early churches. You say that you are okay with multi-site campuses but not video venue. Your logic then must be applied to watching any preacher/teacher on television. Or, what about a bible study that uses a DVD with someone teaching the bible(e.g., Beth Moore).

If what you say is true then why is your opinion the right opinion? Why isn't my opinion the right opinion? (I am being facetious). No one person can be right about this issue.

Why? Because it is only an opinion.

Many years ago, multi-site campuses were criticized as being un-biblical. But, now it is alright except you can't have a video venue. That is confusing.

We find common ground if we can all say that there is no one specific way to "do church". If I am a pastor (and I have been but now I am an associate pastor) then my only resonsibility is the church I pastor. Every other church is God's responsibility and the responsibility of the pastors of all of those churches. I don't have to concern myself about their way of "doing church". God is very capable of dealing with those churches if they are doing something wrong.

I am 57 years old and I hope that I have matured enough to see that, even though God stopped creating on day 6, He didn't stop being creative as to giving pastors, leaders, and churches creative ways to reach people with the gospel.

If the younger generation starts to put up restrictions on how to "do church" then the churches will end up like most of the churches today: dying and dead because they are trying to use methods of reaching people that worked in the past and think that those methods can still be used today.

The issue is not how we do church. The issue is reaching people with the gospel of Jesus Christ so that others can go to heaven.
___________________________

By the way, I guess we will just have to wait for Mark Driscoll to give us a papal encyclical on this issue before we can find what the final word is on this issue (just kidding)

[bobhyatt]

"I understand your point of view. But, here is my point of view: there is no one way to do church. The New Testament does not give us a prescribed formula for how to do church. If so, then which church do we model ourselves after?"

I don't think you do understand my point of view. If you did, you wouldn't imply that I believe there is "one way" to "do" church. There isn't- I'm fine with house churches, small churches, multi-site church, mega church. I'm less fine with certain of those models because of what I see as trade-offs with biblical essentials. My main problem with VV is that the trade-offs become too great and the cost to the future health of the church too high.
You can read the rest of my thoughts on VV here http://bobhyatt.typepad.com/bobblog/video_venues/

[Matt Stephens]

My two cents:

1. Just because the Bible is "silent" on this issue in explicit terms doesn't mean it doesn't prescribe principles that, applied, make video campuses a bad idea.

2. The issue of unintended consequences is huge. We have to do critical evaluation of ourselves to see what sort of consequences (not just the positive ones) our actions have. One of the positives of multi-site video venues is that they are a solution to the tension of rapid multiplication and preserving theological integrity (assuming the preacher has it to begin with). The problem with strictly cell-based rapid multiplication models is that there is no "quality control" in terms of biblical instruction and guidance. In my opinion, the once-a-week gathering on the Lord's Day continues to be the optimal context for consistent, coherent, long-term biblical instruction for the church collective. The problem with beaming the preacher to multiple campuses is not only that he is out of touch with that particular community (which does not necessarily have to be the case), but that it exaggerates a dependence upon one particular leader at the expense of developing and releasing new leaders--in this case, new preachers.

[joe]

hi bob:

i recently put out a documentary film entitled 'one size fits all? - exploring new and evolving forms of church in canada.' it would be in your camp, and the antithesis of the conference. if you'd like a complimentary copy, send me your mailing address and i'll fire one out. for more info, go here: http://www.onesizefitsall.ca/about

[Brett]

I think I understand where you are coming from better, but I think that your argument implies that somehow a teaching pastor is more important than a shepherding pastor (although as I said, most CPs do both). Yes the teacher will be held to higher account, but I don't think that being a primary teaching pastor is somehow a greater calling.

I do agree that it is possible that there can be a cultural separation, but I think that the benefits outweigh the downside of that situation. My campus is 300 miles away from the main campus. It is always the goal of the teaching team to bridge that divide within the messages. I think the farther you get away, the harder it is, but again, I still feel that the benefit of great teaching in a video venue outweighs the occasional cultural comment that doesn't quite connect. And in many ways, the CP becomes that bridge for the people anyway...helping to promote the vision of the house at their specific location.

I appreciate your thoughts. I think it helps us all think through how we can make multi-site most effective.

[bobhyatt]

You infer what I do not imply :)

No- a teaching pastor is no more (or no less) important than any other. And that's my point- in Eph 4 we see God has given 5 gifts to the local church in the form of apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers. They *all* play a role and all are vital to the equipping of others for the work of ministry. When one gets outsourced, though, something vital gets lost.

I'm glad that you see that 300 miles is a gap to bridge! Now imagine the gaps created when churches are planting venues THOUSANDS of miles away (as they are). When a church's PRIMARY teaching comes from someone who will never meet, know, love, shepherd those people- something vital is lost.

Again- not *more* important, but still vital. If churches were choosing instead to outsource all their shepherding and discipleship to trained counselor/pastors 100's of miles away through video connection, I'd have just as much of a problem and think it just as below par.

Both represent using technology as a shortcut- and those rarely work out.

[forspammerstouse]

so....it's okay to have a video/dvd of someone teaching the Bible in the church but it is wrong to have video venue at another location?

[bobhyatt]

So... no. I think using a video is fine ON OCCASION. Replacing the teaching ministry of local elders with a DVD is not.