bob.blog

Review: Sim Church pt 1

It's really difficult for me not to come out swinging when a book I've been promised deals with real questions in an even handed manner begins with breathless statements like "Today a new community of the people of God has begun... A change is occurring in the Christian church the likes of which has not happened in centuries...This type of church is unlike any church the world has ever seen. It has the power to break down social barriers , unite believers from all over the world, and build the kingdom of God with a widow's mite of financing . It is a completely different type of church from any the world has ever seen."

And that's just the first page. 

Despite the stated purpose of Sim Church being to counter the "fluff pieces- pretty pictures, nice ideas but little substance" that the author identifies as so far making up the discussion on virtual church, I can't help but feel like, based on the first few pages, that's exactly what I'm I'm in for. 

Let's lay aside (for the moment) theological considerations of just what it is that breaks down barriers, unites people and builds the kingdom (hint: it's called the Gospel!), I think this book already suffers from the main problem of most books looking at issues of virtual church, video venues, etc, that is, begging the question. Assuming that "God is in this" and it only remains to work out the details. It IS church (the refrain throughout the opening chapter is "Today a new community of the people of God has begun"), now we just have to figure out what kind of church. 

And I say, hold on. It's not that simple. 

"Church" is defined by certain markers, the presence of certain elements, without which it may still be helpful, still be worthwhile, and yet not rise past the level of para-church. AA does a lot of good things, builds community, meets needs- but it's not Church. The Masons do most of the things Church does. Service? Check. Ritual? Check. Gathering together? Check. Funny hats? Double check.

But it's not Church. 

I'll get more in depth into what is and what isn't Church as I interact with future chapters (particularly chpt 2 where the author, very briefly, takes up the most critical question: What is Church and does Virtual Church qualify) , but I wanted to do two things by way of intro- push back against the initial first-line-of-the-first-paragraph assumption of this book that Virtual Church is Church and say- that's the very question you need actually to wrestle with, not tip your hat to and move on. 

And second, to point out this. The author makes this statement in closing chapter 1: "The Christian church is engaging far less than 1 percent of the seventy million people who are active in the virtual world. This means the virtual world is by far the largest unreached people group on Planet Earth... We have great work to do."

The obvious flaw in that reasoning is this: the (mistaken) assumption that these people are "unreached" in real life. They may have no credible Gospel witness in their lives, and virtual efforts at evangelism may be worth pursuing. But... it is seriously doubtful that, in missiological terms (and that's exactly what "unreached people group" is)  these folks are online and logging in to Second Life and are "unreached." This feels like a calculated attempt to draw parallels between virtual environments and real ones and play off our emotions regarding unreached people groups who have never had even an opportunity to respond to the Gospel and to bring a sheen of missionary respectability to efforts at building virtual churches. And again, that begs the question. Not an auspicious beginning. 

If you are new to this discussion you can catch up by reading my article There Is No Virtual Ecclesia here (part 1 part 2, Doug Estes' response here, and my response to his response here

Dust Up at UR over Virtual Chruch!

Last week, Doug Estes, the writer of a new book called Sim Church posted on Out of Ur what was essentially a response to my thoughts in previous Ur articles regarding the idea of Virtual Church. He wanted to avoid responding to me by name, but there were too many pointed comments to avoid the conclusion. 

You can check in out here: "In Defense of Virtual Church."

I wrote and sent a response that was pretty quickly made superfluous by the (now) 87 (and counting!) comments on the original post. 

I reproduce some of it here. I hope you'll read it (and the original article that inspired it) and come back here to answer this question: What do you think of this debate? 

It's my contention it's an important one to have (in fact, I think I need to write a post on why!)- but I'd like to know what you all think. 

Here's my response to Mr. Estes:

October 27, 2009

Virtual Church is STILL a Bad Idea

Online churches are missing a few essential ingredients.

by Bob Hyatt

**Editor's Note: I apologize for the lack of posts in recent days. We've been experiencing some technical difficulties. -Url Scaramanga**

I was disappointed to read Douglas Estes’ piece last week on Ur, for a number of reasons, but chief among them is this: it fails to deal substantively with a single serious critique that has been raised regarding virtual church. In fact, Mr. Estes not only fails to address the critique, but he seems to fail even to understand it.

So in a spirit of Christian love and good dialogue, let me respond point by point!

First, Mr. Estes asserts that critique of virtual church can be boiled down to “Internet campuses and online churches are not true churches because they don’t look like and feel like churches are expected to look like and feel like (in the West, anyway).”

Respectfully, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, my concern about internet church is that it’s too much like what we expect (and want) church to look and feel like (at least in the West).

Video venues and internet church are the logical next step to the celebrity and consumer culture of America, and they represent a threat to both the overall maturity of the Body of Christ and our counter-cultural mandate. Celebrity elevation of pastors who have begun to franchise themselves and their “brand” around the nation should concern us for a number of reasons I’ve outlined elsewhere—they draw down people and resources from other church communities and they are unable to do mission-critical activities.

I’d say those are pretty substantial concerns.

Second, this article repeats what I see as the major scriptural argument in favor of virtual church—“Nowhere in the Bible does it preclude online church.” The argument from silence, as we all remember from high school debate class, is the weakest. And in this case, I believe the Bible isn’t silent. Let me ask very plainly...

READ THE REST AT OUT OF UR 

Alan Hirsch, Ed Stetzer and (Evergreener!) Caleb Crider on Multi-Site

Love all these guys... especially Caleb because I get to hang out with him as he and his awesome family are a part of Evergreen. 

This conversation needs to happen and we need to listen to these concerns. Those who say that people who question Video Venues do so because they are just jealous don't take into account guys like Ed. 

Stetzer: "Setting up movie theaters to project the graven-image of rock-star, celebrity pastors across the United States has some long-term implications."

Yes!

Hirsch: "Any model that makes the people of God more passive is a problem."

Double yes!

There Is No Virtual Ecclesia

In the early 50’s when Robert Schuller and others across the nation combined a growing car culture with “Church” they believed they were reaching a segment of the population traditional church wouldn’t or couldn’t. Drive-In church allowed parishioners to attend, hear a sermon, sing some songs, even receive communion and give- all without the fuss and muss of face-to-face interaction beyond a passing usher with elements and a communion plate or maybe being greeted by a through-the-window handshake from the pastor as they rolled away. 

And while they may have been able to point to a number of folks who “attended” that otherwise might not have, the question of what was being formed in these car congregations through limited interaction, a completely passive experience and a consumer-oriented “Come as you want/Have it your way” message (and yes, I’m aware those questions could be asked of MANY churches), along with perhaps the obvious absurdity of sitting mere feet from others and yet remaining separated by the coccon of one’s own vehicle meant that (thankfully) after a brief period of vogue, “Drive-In Church” has remained a niche curiosity. 

Please don’t misunderstand me- The problem with the drive-in church model isn’t that it isn’t church- it’s that it is just “church” enough to be dangerous. The people are there, hearing the sermon, giving their money, putting in their time... and completely missing some of the most vital aspects of what true “ecclesia” is meant to be. Far from “reaching” some who might otherwise not be reached, what this almost-church does is park them in a cul-de-sac where they have access to some of the easiest and most instantly satisfying parts of church while simultaneously exempting them from the harder and more demanding parts of community. 

And while I’m glad such an absurdity has remained fringe, as I watch the discussion about “internet campuses” I can’t shake a certain feeling of deja vu.

Following close on the heels of the Video Venue push is that of the Internet Campus: real-time streaming of a church service but with the added features of “live interactive features like lobby chat room, message notes, communication card, raise a hand, say a prayer, and even online giving.” At least 35 churches, among them some of the best known in America, are doing Internet Campuses with more jumping on board all the time (http://digital.leadnet.org/2007/10/churches-with-a.html). By one estimate, as early as 2010, 10% of Americans will rely solely on the internet for their “religious experience.”(http://www.denverpost.com/technology/ci_7228105)

Virtually “rais[ing] a hand”? 

Is this a problem? Something we should be concerned about or resist? 

Absolutely. 

Why? Because it’s malforming for those involved (whether they know it or not) and because it’s sub-biblical. 

When Shane Hipps earlier this year said of virtual community “It’s virtual, but it ain’t community” he set off a mini-blog storm of posts and comments, many agreeing, many defending their Facebook and Twitter time as real community. Now, here on Ur and in other places, the advocates of internet campuses and virtual church are lining up to defend this growing phenomenon. 

After giving this some thought I think I want to say that the problem with virtual community and internet campuses isn’t that it’s not church... it’s that it is just church enough to be dangerous.

What I mean by that is this: because it has all the easiest and most instantly gratifying parts of community without the harder parts, it ends up misshaping us. 

No, in an internet campus I never need to see that person I “just don’t get along with.” I don’t have to listen to so-and-so tell me about their hard week (again). I see NO needs around me and so feel zero compulsion to move to meet them. 

And that’s the problem. The lack of all of that forms me. But not in a good way.

When I am taught week after week after week, more and more sermons, more and more content, and yet never asked by someone who sees me week after week and knows me how I am or am not applying what I am learning, I am being formed. But again, not in a good way... 

Luther’s definition of “church” is where the Word is preached, the sacraments are received and church discipline practiced. 

I think that’s a good summary of the some of the defining characteristics of the NT Ecclesia... and a good summary of the main problems with internet church. 

Is the word preached “at” an internet campus? Yes- absolutely. In fact, it becomes the centerpiece. Church becomes boiled down to singing a few songs and hearing a message. We challenge (or at least we should challenge) people in our communities not to let Sunday be that- to come with an attitude of service to God and to others, open and available to be used. To see the “service” as just one part of their worship, along with being present to others and open to knowing others and being known by them. 

And while Internet Campuses provide a great sermon delivery vehicle, and even allow you to virtually raise your hand in response, what they don’t and will never be able to do is allow you to be missed. And to be known- to have someone who knows what’s happening in your life read your body language, see your tears in worship and know it’s time to come alongside you. You can’t stand at the end of the gathering and ask for help moving. You can’t help tear things down and clean up afterwards. You can’t look after someone’s kids while they pray with someone else. You can’t take a visitor out to lunch. You can’t be the Body in so many necessary and vital ways.  

Missing from virtual church are these vital things

1. the Sacraments
2. Discipline and accountability
3.  Service
4.  Equipping (beyond the Sunday sermon)

Now, I know that “virtual” communion and baptism are practiced. I watched one pastor “baptize” someone from their internet ministry via video. I had to laugh as the screen presided over this woman being dunked in a pool by a local friend- someone she actually knew. I just had to wonder- why wasn’t that enough? 

I know too that every week thousands in virtual communities practice virtual communion- each taking their grape juice and bread bits if not together, then at least simultaneously. And I have to wonder- why can’t they see that’s not enough? That simultaneous is NOT together and that taking communion in this way completely misses the whole point?

As for discipline and accountability, some say that online churches encourage more transparency with people sharing things like “"I struggle with porn addiction" or "I'm considering suicide" or "my marriage is failing and I need help" online in the chat rooms and virtual lobbies of internet campuses. And while the anonymity of internet campuses may provide the same impulse to self-revelation and disclosure as does the internet as a whole, my question is “What next?” How is not simply the pastoral care of prayer and recommending a good book resource but accountability, in-depth counseling and even church discipline practiced? Short answer- it can’t be. And in fact, because of the nature of internet relationships, only what people choose to reveal (“I struggle with porn”) will ever be known. Internet churches are no help for the wife who’s husband really needs someone to open a can of Driscoll on him... unless, of course, you can get him to wander into the virtual lobby. 

In the same way that internet campuses lack the mechanism for true discipline and accountability, they also lack the mechanism for true service. While I may be encouraged to serve other by a virtually-delivered sermon, and while some internet campuses have even organized short-term service trips abroad (yes, they found it necessary to actually all show up physically for those), what I can’t be encouraged to do in an internet community is take a meal to someone in my church community who’s sick or just had a baby, help someone else move or paint a house, babysit for a couple in need of a date night. How can our community be a sign and foretaste of the kingdom when our method of gathering keeps us from ever physically serving, loving, being present to one another? I know how participating in a congregation begins to make me more like Jesus. I’m unsure how that happens with an internet campus. All the little pieces that go into making the ecclesia “life together” are missing from virtual church. 

And so too is the equipping piece. While content is delivered and digested, and some are even trying virtual small groups, the truth is that discipleship happens in the nitty gritty of life-on-life. While content can be delivered via the internet, character tends to be shaped in more incarnational ways, through presence and practice. 

How does one become a leader in an internet church? Is it being made a moderator of the chat room?

And further- What does it mean to “desire to be an elder”? How am I confirmed in my gifts in an internet church? How do I exercise them? 

The internet may present a wonderful way for me to connect with the larger Church in ways not possible before- but it can’t, and shouldn’t replace connection with a local expression of Church community. We should have internet options like podcasts, forums and chat-rooms available for the home-bound and those otherwise unable to engage in a local community, but if we baptize that as an equally valuable and valid option for any believer we effectively cut the heart out of the growth to maturity we as a Church desperately need to see. 

The Ecclesia of Jesus, the called-out, gathered together ones may find great utility in the internet and technological tools, but in a world struggling to retain its humanity while being drowned in technology and to remain deeply connected to a few while filtering through 1000+ Facebook “friends,”  the Church can and should be a counter-culture that says- “We will use technology, but we will not let it shape (or misshape) us.” 

The choice is either to show up physically and be formed through the harder parts of community and having to learn through life together... or log on and enjoy the easy access, low-commitment and low accountability world of the virtual pseudo-church.

My fear is that like the drive-in church, internet campuses have that potential to make half-formed Christians who believe one of the highest values is convenience, not service... what I can get, not what I can give.

How could it not?  

A little admission on Video Venues...

I have an admission to make on Video Venues. 

But first...

Recently, one of my favorite sparring partners (and hopefully someday a beer-summit buddy) Geoff Surratt made some startling admissions of his own about Video Venues. 

He wrote on his blog:

"Will video teaching have unintended consequences? Yes. Can video teaching be used to inflate already over-inflated egos? Yes. Can video teaching lead to a lack of development of preachers? Yes. These, however, are not medium questions, these are leadership questions. An effective leader does not hesitate at the gates of hell to study all of the possible contingencies before making a move. An effective leader will follow Paul's example and "use all means that I might save some."

In a way, I think this captures THE main argument for Video Venues- the pragmatism of "decisions." In spite of what the unintended consequences might be to the Church at large or even the local community taught primarily by video, despite the complete surrender VV's represent to the Church Celebrity mentality and the over-valuing of "gifted" communicators who do not do what a shepherd should see as his/her primary role- the teaching of life in the way of Jesus by example, living among and alongside those being taught, despite the fact that VV's invalidate the equipping ministry of the Church by rendering moot the need for more elders who will lovingly apply Scripture to the life of local communities... as long as people continue to raise their hands and fill out those cards at the end of the message, it's worth it. 

My point has been, and continues to be that this is a false choice. 

In a sense, it's like pitting support for healthy births against support for good nutrition, education and health care. We need both- and to me, the Video Venue, despite the protestations of Campus Pastors and Video Venue proponents all across the nation, fails to get at a fully-functioning NT community- one taught primarily by elders who are equipping/raising up the next generation of apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and, yes... teachers. (Eph 4)

To answer another question posed by Geoff in his blog post: Would Paul have spoken by video to Corinth? Undoubtedly!

Would he have done so week in and week out, effectively replacing the teaching ministry of their local elders? Not a chance. (BTW- read the earliest descriptions of Christian gatherings- they say that what happened was a reading of the apostles words followed by an exposition by a local elder)

The Video Venue Model assumes that what can be done technologically and even probably should be done occasionally stands up as a model for the main teaching ministry of the church- I'm saying it doesn't.

And this is why it's a biblical issue! Paul directed the churches he planted to appoint elders- elders who had a qualification of "able to teach." Video Venues are (in my opinion) bad ecclesiology- and while some are searching the Scriptures in vain for where God forbids them, what I am saying is not that they are forbidden, but that they fail to get to what is prescribed- local leadership, and the gifts of more and more people (in this case teachers) being utilized and developed.

Geoff's assertion is that "An effective leader will follow Paul's example and 'use all means that I might save some.'"

Actually, I believe an effective leader will be smart enough not to trade short-term gain for long-term health. It's a medium/message question in that it communicates something very serious about who can teach, and what leadership means/looks like in the local community. If video venue teaching will, by your own admission, have unintended consequences, inflate egos and stifle development of others, it IS a message issue (those are pretty serious things to "say" with your model). Maybe there are EQUALLY EFFECTIVE ways of "making a move" that will see the same numbers of people reached with the gospel and yet NOT rebound to the longer term harm of the church.

But wait, Bob... I thought this post was an "admission" of your own. 

Ah, yes...

So, in light of Geoff's admission, I'd like to make a little admission of my own: Video Venues are probably a great improvement in the area of building community. You heard me right. 

Compared to most mega churches, where if you aren't in a small group, no one would know you exist, Video Venues which divide larger communities into smaller, more know-able groups are a great improvement. They give people an opportunity not to be lost in a sea of humanity, to have someone notice when they haven't been around, and to possibly get to know those they worship with week in and week out- a practical impossibility in many mega churches. 

And if "community" were the only consideration, I'd say "go for it!" 

The problem is, it's not. There are other, bigger issues (as I've outlined above and in other places) involved. 

So why make this admission now? Because Church Relevance is running a series on video teaching, I think in conjunction with the launch of VideoTeaching.com (quick response: tip o' the hat for providing all that teaching for free! Wag of the finger for continuing to insist it's a viable model to build worship services around video messages people can watch for free on the internet- if you WANT to see Driscoll teach, download the Vodcast and then go be with your own community that is taught by someone who at least knows something about you). The first post of the series on Church Relevance attacks the "Myth" that Video Teaching kills community. 

Well, who said it did? No problem there! In general, I agree-  I never said I didn't think VV's help in some ways. 

I just think VV's hurt us in some other, important ways. That's why I'm in favor of going multi-site without going video venue... and planting churches. 

I know some of you are probably tired of hearing me talk about this. Sorry.

 

But I feel strongly though that we're at one of the many crossroads we periodically come to as the Church and I just don't hear that many people making the case against VVs. If all I do is raise points to think about and hopefully get some to make some small adjustments while we barrel headlong towards a future with 5 or 6 franchised Video Venue churches in every major market (and robots serving as greeters and nursery workers! ROBOTS, people!!!) it will be worth it. 

(HT on the picture to Eugene Cho in Seattle who also has some concerns)

UPDATE: Great comment from JR Rozko-

"We really need to get beyond this naive interpretation of Paul's words here and think about the bigger picture. "Becoming all things to all people" is an incarnational approach to ministry and mission, not a license to capitalize on the cultural trends of the day for the sake of effectiveness or pragmatics. Thinking in terms of holistic spiritual formation rather than "decisions," changes everything about our ecclesiology. Don't apologize, this is an important issue in terms of the health and future of the church in Western culture."

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. 

Video Venue Churches: Pay your taxes

I said here that video venues threatened the gift of preaching. 

And I still mean it- more and more people watching a screen, means fewer and fewer people engaging in the art of teaching a congregation with regularity- communities that once had (or would have had) a teaching team soon will have a campus pastor who gets to preach maybe 12 times a year... and a DVD. 

Remember- one of the main apologies of those taking this route is that there just aren't enough talented teachers to go around. But the video venue, practically speaking, means fewer people with the real, hard experience of teaching a community week in and week out- what is certainly a gift of the Spirit, but also a learned skill that takes time to "master." 

And so the cycle perpetuates itself- fewer men and women with the chops to speak to crowds who increasingly expect polished oratory and high production values means more and more will look to the video venue to fill the gaps, thus creating a self perpetuating cycle. And what was meant to extend the gift of preaching now begins to kill it. 

But as I said in my last post on this: It doesn't have to be that way, if the Church will just pay it's taxes. Or maybe another way to put this is: When we hear a heart-stirring or life-changing message, we like to thank the one who brought it. Maybe we should thank the ones who listened to/sat through all the less-than-heart-stirring, sometimes mediocre messages that person had to preach as they were learning how to use the gift God had given them without putting a congregation to sleep.

Evergreen has a team of 7 elders (soon to be six as Chip heads to Denver to be the teaching pastor @ TNL) and all of whom are, in the words of Paul, "able to teach." While Dustin and I share the bulk of teaching at our two sites, all the other elders are in regular rotation, teaching our community, sharing their insight, perspective and unique voices with the community.  And growing in their teaching skills, even as I am, and as Dustin is. 

I don't claim to be a master preacher by any stretch- but I can do it. And the way I learned is by doing it. You learn to lead small groups by watching others do it and then doing it yourself, you learn to lead others in worship by watching others do it and then doing it yourself, and you learn to teach the community, to walk through passages of Scripture, teasing out what God was saying to them and what He's saying to us by watching others do it and then doing it yourself. And really, that's the only way. 

So- while we expect a certain level of facility with leading worship, with teaching, with leading a group or serving in some other way in the community we also recognize: We are ALL engaging in on the job training. 

And the community that, for instance, pays the tax of listening to a slightly less coherent message, or one with a less-than-Rob-Bell-mind-blow factor, or slightly less entertaining/engaging than Mr Driscoll, is making an investment. 

They invest in the teacher they are being taught by. By engaging, listening, giving good feedback (both encouraging and constructive) they help that elder they love, that elder who loves them and is doing his or her best to explore God's Word with them, to learn how to do it better and better.

And in so doing they invest in the future. The future not just of that elder, not just of their community, but of the Church as a whole as we all benefit by more and more people exercising their gifts, gaining mastery in how to do what God has gifted and called them to do. 

To me, video venues are at their heart, miserly. They are a symptom of a church who refuses to pay the community tax and invest in the future. They (along with mega churches and even personality-based smaller churches) try to parlay the gift of one or two people into something bigger and bigger, and like short-sighted Americans driving bigger and bigger Hummers say: Who cares about the consequences to future generations? I got mine.

Please understand: I recognize that the vast majority of those engaged in video venues have, at their core, a passion for seeing people come to know, love, and follow Jesus. I get that. And I even get that God uses the silliest of methods to bring people to Him. I'll bet I could even find someone who has been saved through the Evangecube. 

But just because God honors our silly methods occasionally doesn't mean we shouldn't look for better ways, perhaps less silly, perhaps ones with fewer unintended consequences. 

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.) 

Franchise ahoy!

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. 

I do know this- Mark needs men. 900 men to be precise. Recently he posted this:

"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. 

Multi Site the Low Tech way....

I'm in the middle of putting together a back-and-forth for Collide Magazine on Video Venues with a campus pastor of our friends up North, Mars Hill. 

With that in mind, here's a piece I did last month for Out of Ur (a great blog by Leadership Journal that you should totally be reading). This isn't new material for long-time bob.blog readers, but it's a good 1,000 word (do you know how hard it is to squeeze a whole argument down into 1,000 words???) caution against Video Venues... or at least some reasons to think twice.

 Multi-site the Low-tech Way

Are video venues the best way to go multi-site?

by Bob Hyatt

Evergreen, our small church here in Portland, Oregon, has just gone multi-site. But not video venue. 

We started in a pub in southwest Portland, outgrew that space, and moved to another pub across town. Outgrowing that one, we moved up to yet another pub in northwest Portland. Yes, we are the church on a pub crawl. When things got crowded there, we knew we had some decisions to make.

Our goal has always been multi-faceted. First and foremost, we want to see people come to and come back to Jesus. That implies growth. Second, our community as a whole, and our worship gatherings in particular, are highly interactive. We never want to lose the dialogical vibe in our teaching. Third, knowing that, according to statistics, people are reached best by newer (under 10 years old) and smaller congregations (as they grow from 100 to 200), our ultimate goal has been planting. 

For various reasons, we’re not quite ready to plant another separate community. So what to do? Consistent with the greatest number of our values, we invited some Evergreeners to start another worship gathering back in one of our previous pub spaces. We’re now one church in two locations. One or two more gatherings like that, and I think we’ll have reached a size at which we’ll have the people and resources to start planting churches around Portland.

So why didn’t we do what many growing, multi-site communities are doing and pipe my teaching all around town and beyond? Here are a few reasons:

1. We believe good things happen when worship is kept small and interactive. We want people to be able to talk to one another and to the one who is teaching them. We also want things kept at a size where people can know one another and be known by those teaching them. 

Some say that video venues are no different from a large service where parishioner number 3254 has to sit in the 50th row and watch the whole thing on the big screen anyway. It's not like she can raise her hand and ask a question. It's not like the one teaching knows who she is anyway... Exactly. To me, video venues simply magnify what’s already a problem of megachurches.

2. Many advocates of video venues say there simply aren’t enough church planters and talented teachers to go around. And my response is that in a video venue world, there never will be.

Pursued as a large scale strategy, video venues will inevitably lead to fewer and fewer gifted and experienced lay and vocational preachers. The gift of preaching— already suffering from over-professionalization—will become ever more the work of the celebrity.

At Evergreen, our seven elders rotate teaching responsibilities at both sites, though there’s a primary teaching elder at each. As a result, the church isn’t driven by a single personality, and several people are developing preaching experience at once.

3. Though many video venue churches also do traditional church planting, I worry for those who may see a campus pastor but are lead in large part by elders who live miles, and sometimes even towns, away. 

I believe what’s best is not to come up with new and creative ways to put space between the people teaching and those being taught. What’s best is to shrink that space as much as is humanly possible. If the problem is a lack of qualified teachers, do whatever you can to find, call, equip, and send teachers. Don't install a screen and beam teaching from 200 miles away. If you must install that video venue, call it what it is—a necessary and temporary compromise until your prayers for more workers are answered.

Some churches grow faster than they can find, train, and send church planters who have the same teaching talent as the “main guy.” But what if instead of asking "Can he preach as well as me?" you ask, "Can he or she, with a team of others, lead a Christ-centered community that starts small and grows, reproducing itself before becoming unmanageable and outgrowing the gifting of its leadership?" You might find more gifted/qualified people than you dreamed. 

I know, a lot of people love your preaching and want to hear it. Let them get saved and discipled at your community, or spend a season there, and then point them to your pod/vodcast, sending them as missionaries to reach their local communities. But don't say, "Well, people just want to hear me, so we must make a way for everyone to either sit in one room and watch me or my video representation." That simply makes no sense when we're talking about maturing Christ followers who will live self-sacrificially in communities centered on Jesus, not a preaching personality. 

One of the main justifications for video venues is that upwards of 70 percent of church plants fail. Giving people a “brand name,” proven communicator makes more sense. But do church plants fail because of the planter? Or is it because of unreasonable expectations, unsustainable "big launch" methods in which thousands of dollars are pumped into new churches in an effort to make them big, fast... because of the consumer mindset of many who look at the big churches down the street with not a small amount of envy?

Ultimately, video venues strike me as a poor compromise. They may be necessary at times, but are certainly not a strategy to be pursued, even alongside traditional church plants. They focus entirely too much on the preaching gifts of one person, a trend even we small "emerging" types need to counter.

The celebrity church must die. And doing anything—like video venues—that prolongs its life, even in the name of the lost, runs counter to the best interests of the Church in all its expressions, big and small, and its mandate to see more people not only reached, but gifted, trained, and sent.

McChurch

I told you. I told you. I TOLD YOU.

When Ed Young (from Fellowship Church in Grapevine, TX who launched a video venue... in Miami), Andy Stanley and others started opening "campuses" THOUSANDS of miles away from their churches and simply piping in the sermon via video, I said:

"This is
1. Everything wrong with video venues collected in one neat package.
2. The logical conclusion to where video venues take us- large churches franchising in every big "market" in the states. It's coming- mark my words. And it is a net-negative for the Church as a whole for many, many reasons."

Check this out:

"Church plants," "sister churches," and "satellite congregations" may be a thing of the past. In 2008, the language of missiology is changing, so look for "church franchises" in your town.

Eddie Johnson, the lead pastor of Cumberland Church, espouses the franchising concept when it comes to the relationship between his church in Nashville, Tennessee, and North Point Community Church in metro Atlanta. On his blog, he states, "Just like a Chick-fil-A, my church is a 'franchise,' and I proudly serve as the local owner/operator."

According to Johnson, his job is to "establish a local, autonomous church that has the same beliefs, values, mission, and strategy as North Point." He completed a three-month internship at North Point and continues to receive training and support. He claims to rarely deviate from the "training manual."

"Just like that Chick-fil-A owner/operator," he says, "I'm here in Nashville to open up our franchise and run it right. I believe in my company and what they are trying to 'sell.'"

The pastor says people who are already familiar with the North Point "brand" will find a local congregation with the same fit. For those who have relocated from Atlanta, they'll get a taste of home and know what to expect in their new church."

Read the rest here (link fixed)

And for the reasons, both philosophical and methodological as to why I think this is bad, bad, bad, check my series on Video Venues...

"This is
1. Everything wrong with video venues collected in one neat package.
2. The logical conclusion to where video venues take us- large churches franchising in every big "market" in the states. It's coming- mark my words. And it is a net-negative for the Church as a whole for many, many reasons."

Check this out:

"Church plants," "sister churches," and "satellite congregations" may be a thing of the past. In 2008, the language of missiology is changing, so look for "church franchises" in your town.

Eddie Johnson, the lead pastor of Cumberland Church, espouses the franchising concept when it comes to the relationship between his church in Nashville, Tennessee, and North Point Community Church in metro Atlanta. On his blog, he states, "Just like a Chick-fil-A, my church is a 'franchise,' and I proudly serve as the local owner/operator."

According to Johnson, his job is to "establish a local, autonomous church that has the same beliefs, values, mission, and strategy as North Point." He completed a three-month internship at North Point and continues to receive training and support. He claims to rarely deviate from the "training manual."

"Just like that Chick-fil-A owner/operator," he says, "I'm here in Nashville to open up our franchise and run it right. I believe in my company and what they are trying to 'sell.'"

The pastor says people who are already familiar with the North Point "brand" will find a local congregation with the same fit. For those who have relocated from Atlanta, they'll get a taste of home and know what to expect in their new church."

More insight on multi-site from the Journey

A staff member from the Journey in St Louis stopped by with some more details on what they are doing there- I have to say- sounds awesome. Much of it (well, most of it, except the video venue part) actually captures a lot of my dreams for Evergreen.

bob, i'm going to the journey in st. louis. i'm just beginning to lead worship for them as a part of a team of worship leaders that rotate between their muliple sites in tower grove, clayton, and west county. my day job is being a worship arts teacher at a local christian university here in town.

also, through the journey, i am a part of a church planting learning community that is being 'piloted' for guys like me who have full time jobs and can't 'intern' there but want training through the filter of the journey from acts 29.

wanted to share that just in the last month, the journey has made some significant changes in the multi-site direction. for each campus to function more freely, something like its own church, each campus will be hosting, not only sunday services, but a full range of ministry and spiritual development opportunities. each campus pastor will be raise up new elders, deacons and leaders who will care specifically for that campus.

currently, darrin still rotates between the tower grove and west county campus on sunday mornings to preach. additionally, when he isn't preaching due to traveling, vacation, being fed himself, etc. - which happens frequently throughout the year - the journey employs a teaching team, as well, which to me shows that darrin doesn’t think this thing is built around his giftedness – he really has empowered other regular teacher/preachers, unlike a lot of the video venue guys. and at this point, there are no video venues as of yet...

they are also launching a south city site early next year that will have its own campus pastor who will also be its primary preacher/teacher. in other words, my impression is that darrin won't rotate in there on sunday mornings. he'd have to clone himself :)

also, the journey is planting indigenous churches outside of its multi-site vision. both the refuge in st. charles, mo and the mission in edwardsville, il have been planted out of the journey. the learning community i'm in is made up of people who will be planting indigenously out of the journey, probably in locations outside of even the st. louis metro.

all this to say, they are doing multiple things to reach out in the st. louis metro area: multi-site with their own campus pastors/elders/deacons, multi-sites with their own campus pastor who is also the primary preacher/teacher, and indigenous church plants out of their church. i know that darrin and his team are wrestling big time with this. i think your concerns are their concerns too.

just so i don't sound like a journey apologist, i respect your thoughts about this issue - I think your insight to this is pithy. just thought i'd fill in the story a bit more on this end...

-Brad Andrews

VV Redux...

There's a bit of renewed interest in my stuff on Video Venues (err, maybe I should actually say "renewed interest in Darrin Patrick's response to my stuff"...), due mainly to mention by Drew Goodmanson, Jonathan/Church Planting Novice, and Steve McCoy...
(Oh and thanks Tall Skinny and especially Darrin Patrick for the shout out!)

Below is my response from more than a year ago to Darrin's response to my thoughts on Video Venues (got that???). I'm basically saying the same thing (though not as succinctly) as the ideas Drew Goodmanson highlights from Steve Timmis:

"Timmis, upon reflection asked is the problem we face the leaders or the types of churches we are planting? When he examined Paul's missionary journey, Paul traveled through cities where people converted.  Paul returned in under two years and more likely after a couple months to appoint elders.  Timmis surmised that the problem then cannot be our leaders but the types of churches we are planting and the leader requirement necessary to run them."

My response:

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.

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.

And Bob's head explodes...

So Fellowship Church in Grapevine, TX, home of the very photogenic Ed Young Jr has launched a video venue... in Miami.

Freakin' Miami.

(And yes- Ed Young is the guy famous for driving a tank onstage while preaching).

This is
1. Everything wrong with video venues collected in one neat package.
2. The logical conclusion to where video venues take us- large churches franchising in every big "market" in the states. It's coming- mark my words. And it is a net-negative for the Church as a whole for many, many reasons

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.

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...

Driscoll and Video Venues.. Again...

Mark Driscoll took a couple pokes today on his blog at those who disagree that the video venue is a healthy direction for the church. Thought we could talk a bit about that...

(if you are tired of hearing me talk about Driscoll, feel free to skip this post. I may need to start a "Driscoll" category, or even a separate blog if this keeps up...)

Here's the quote:

The entire concept of video venues is very controversial, particularly with house-church emerging types, who curiously argue against the technological advancement with their blogs and vodcasts. Nonetheless, the trend seems to be catching on and is likely to only grow in the coming years as live-streaming video technology via the internet becomes cheaper and easier. For any church leaders wanting to explore the entire multi-site concept, Larry Osborne is hosting a conference along with Leadership Network at his place in San Diego February 5–6, 2007.
I'm looking forward to speaking about what we are learning at Mars Hill and focusing on what it means to follow Paul's command in 1 Corinthians 9:22–23, "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel." Sadly, with the missional conversation often turning toward authentic community, the focus of using every possible means provided in culture for the gospel to reach as many people as possible is getting lost. 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. In saying this I am not defending megachurches in general, but am arguing that it is possible to be urban and evangelical, emerging and mega, authentic and video, evangelistic and reformed because, in the missional world, "by all possible means" is to be taken literally.

And here's what I think...

Video Venues.. Cont'd!

After all the back and forth here on the bob.blog about Video Venues (and how I don't think they are good, long term, for the Body of Christ), here are some good words (on Out of Ur) from Shane Hipps, author of The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture: How Media Shapes Faith, the Gospel, and Church

I was visiting a church recently on the day they were launching their multi-site service. I watched the sermon live, while two other gatherings in other parts of the city watched via a large projection screen. It was a stellar sermon by an extraordinarily gifted preacher well-known in the Christian subculture. But the most striking feature of the sermon was that his message was being directly contradicted by his medium—the video venue.

Here’s how. The pastor was speaking on the difference between talent and character and how too often we emphasize talent in ministry more than character. He began with an object lesson. There on stage next to him was a huge dictionary set on a high stool. As he spoke he began to dispense several cans of whipped cream on top of the dictionary, creating a white fluffy mound. When he finished he told us that the dictionary was our character, the firm foundation. The whipped cream was our talent, something very attractive but lacking substance. After this set up he concluded by saying, “If your ministry is based on character it will last, but if your ministry is based on talent…” he paused, and then swatted the mound of whipped cream. In one swoop it was all over the floor “…your ministry will suffer when times get tough.”

His message was excellent and told an important truth—ministry is supported by character, not talent. However, the medium of the video venue had a subliminal message of its own. The message of a video venue sermon is that the authority to preach is derived from talent and celebrity not character or communal affirmation. A televised event doesn’t communicate anything about a person’s character. It can only affirm or deny talent and attractiveness. We don’t watch movies, or TV shows because we respect or want to know the personal character of the actors. We watch because we are enamored by their beauty, talent, or celebrity.

Character is known only through communal affirmation, which requires some personal knowledge of one another. This personal knowledge is impossible for the satellite congregations who only see the pastor’s performance. The congregation witnessing the sermon via video can only assess whether the preacher is talented, not whether he or she has character.

Read the rest here

Read my thoughts on Video Venues here

Equal Time on Video Venues

So, here's one of the best apologies for satellite campuses I've heard. Nothing new, just stated in a way that makes more sense to me.
I'm not sure that I agree that so few people are cut out to plant churches... I think Acts 29 assesses too rigidly and doesn't make enough room for what God may want to do through some very cracked and unlikely vessels...
But other than that, this is excellent. It was a comment on Steve McCoy's blog posting about Mars Hill's (Seattle) plan to launch Video Venues™.

Here's an excerpt- click through for the rest...

Hey guys, I really hesitate to throw this out because I don’t want to be thought of as a guy who is trying to impress people with what God has done in our midst. I am a pastor in desperate need of God's forgiving and empowering grace and am becoming less and less impressed with myself. Currently I am in a sweet but painful season of repentance over the coldness of my own heart. Even as I write I am fighting back tears (honestly!) at my own lack of holiness and desire to be accepted by people more than God. In short, I suck but God is good.

I love small, neighborhood churches and have given my life to assessing, training and coaching guys who will plant smaller, missional churches that will rock their part of the world with the gospel. My heart bleeds for church planting! 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 our elders.

Our church is just over 3 years old and almost 900 people are attending the services. My vision 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 and “rinse repeat step one.” This was a great plan except it didn't work. The problem is that there are very few guys who can plant a church. Our network assesses hundreds of guys every year and I can tell you that few in our estimation are called to do it. This is evidenced by the 70-80% failure rate. I saw this in our own context as we simply didn't have guys with the calling and skill- set to give people to. The other issue, whether we like it or not, is that believers and un-believers are attracted to those with " 5 or 10 talent" teaching gifts and tend to want 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 are 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 intends them to in order to bless the world. I think this is the "right" reason for mega-churches who can be a resource center (training, funding, etc) to the city and perhaps world. There are a lot of jacked up mega-churches that function more like a mall than a mission center. But, that is another discussion.

We have three guys on our teaching team, although I preach about 70 percent of the time. There are many reasons for this but for the purpose of this discussion I will say I teach the vast majority of the time because it is my best gift to the church.

Here is our reality:
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. Now, only 4 months later we are having to go back to 3 services. We bought a building and will probably be at 4 services in the fall. Also, we are planting a church in the fall as well, taking several people and a staff member to do so.

The elders believe that a large majority of people who attend come to hear me preach. I hear it all the time from unbelievers (like last night when my wife and I had dinner with Eric and Amy). 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 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." The problem is that they are both working 60-70 hours a week on other important matters for our community. When they preach they have to take 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.

More here

video Venues... follow up 7

Geoff asked:
"4. Why is church planting superior to opening campuses? At Seacoast we do both. If a we have a leader who has a unique vision and a call to preach we help him plant an autonomous church. (We've helped plant almost 25 new churches in the past few years) If a leader resonates with the vision God has given Seacoast and does not feel a call to preach we help him plant a new Seacoast campus."

First. Very cool. I appreciate churches that plant churches and really, seriously desire for us to be that kind of church and plant that kind of church. I can't wait to see our first "grand-daughter" church... the first church planted by a church we plant out of evergreen.

However, where I find myself feeling some friction here is "If a leader resonates with the vision God has given Seacoast and does not feel a call to preach we help him plant a new Seacoast campus."

I think in general I have a problem with one body, one local church, being overly connected to another. It seems two seperate buildings on one campus is one church. One building on one side of the street and another on the other... maybe that's one church.

But when you start talking about across town or two hours away? Regardless of common branding and similar vision, it's different people and a different church community.

And to me, that means some things.

I've already told you why I think a church should have it's own teacher(s). While I believe in the unity of the Church as whole, I also believe churches should have their own elders... and vision... and mission... and control over their own community.

The main reason I believe planting churches is superior to planting campuses is that what you are really doing (if I am understanding the model correctly) when you plant a campus is planting a church that has had it's leadership outsourced to somehwere else. It's not just that the teaching is done remotely, but also (it seems) the leadership is done so as well.

Now, I'm sure that a "campus" church can still, as a body, listen to the prompting of the Holy Spirit and develop as their own unique body... the problem is that they can only take that so far. Their vision/mission, etc is determined by a group of people relationally and geographically distant. Thus, it seems that long term, there is some leadership development that cannot take place in this local church.

My contention is this: This makes for good short term, church planting results but probably for not-as-good long term body maturity results. Not only do I see this model having a problem developing competent preachers and teachers, but elders and leaders as well... It seems as though part of the maturity process for a church body is going through the steps of re-inventing certain wheels for themselves, learning certain leadership lessons over and developing their own unique community, people growing to maturity and into real leadership in a body, and that body as a whole, listening to what God is saying to them and having the freedom to work that out as a local, organic entity.

My big fear is that with the proliferation of churches with no control over their destiny as a body is not a healthy thing in the long run, for the church in America.

I'll wrap this up tomorrow with some more thoughts along this line...

Video Venues... follow up 6

Geoff asked:
3. Would Paul have used video if it had been available? I'm not sure I understand the difference between watching a video and listening to a letter being read at a church service. (Obviously Paul's video would have divinely inspired, we don't have that advantage at Seacoast. :)

Would Paul have used video? Sure. But that's a different question than whether Paul would have been in favor of setting up a congregation in Ephesus that was taught primarily by a video feed from Corinth. :)
It seems as though Paul not only had a heart for seeing leadership and gifts developed within the local church, but saw teaching by the local elders as being an integral part of the local church gathering. When he wrote letters to them, and asked them to be read aloud, I'm fairly sure that he did not mean for that to completely replace teaching by the elders of the church, otherwise, he would not have made teaching a requirement to be an elder. His encouragement to Timothy was to "preach the Word." He said "Elders who do their work well should be paid well, especially those who work hard at both preaching and teaching." This is part of the job of the elders of a local church community. In 1 Cor 14, one of the things we do when we come together is that "When you meet, one will sing, another will teach... etc."

So even though he could have commanded that when they met, the early Christians would have nothing but letters from Apostles read to them, he seemed to steer them in a different direction.

But... the question is, "Couldn't a local church teacher just do it from another building by video?"
I think that the answer (for me) is a qualified maybe. :)

Sure, overflow rooms are one thing. Differently themed Video Venues start walking down an odd road (to me), but at least they are all in the same place being taught by someone they know and could meet after coffee in the central area, etc.

It's when we begin talking about placing venues miles and miles (and even hours) away that it begins to fall apart for me, and in large part because of what I have talked about here (and in the last entry on this) in terms of leadership being developed from within, people being allowed and encouraged to teach, a body being able to interact with those teaching them, the teachers knowing those they are teaching, etc...

I'll say more about the importance of local leadership and control and teaching in the next couple of entries...

Video Venues... follow up 5

Geoff asked:
2. Are there people called to lead congregations who don't have the gift of teaching? One of our most effective campus pastors at Seacoast is a former farmer who has no formal theological training, can't spell expository, but is incredible at helping people to grow in their faith. If he planted a church on his own he would be able to minister to very few people; because he doesn't have to preach he is able to pastor a congregation of over 600 people.

Are there people called to lead congregations who don't have the gift of teaching?
Well... no.
There are no people called to lead congregations who don't have the gift of teaching.

Now, before everyone spits out their morning coffee and writes me an angry comment, let's remember: One of the qualifications of an elder/overseer (a word used interchangeably in Scripture with "pastor") is that that person "be able to teach." (1 Tim 3)

I know what you mean when you say "gift of teaching", though. At least, I can infer (maybe wrongly) that you mean someone who is good at it... good enough to draw a crowd.

And here again is where our models may differ. I certainly don't want people who teach poorly to lead our discussions on Sunday... but biblically, I can't allow people who can't teach to lead our community as elders/pastors. My duty then is to make sure that those who are called to lead are given the opportunity to develop in this area.
Make sense?

I'm not advocating that one person be the only teacher in a community, though I can definitely see a role for one person being the one who ends up teaching a good chunk of the time (In our community, this is me... Statistically I have spoken at just over 75% of our gatherings since we started. But my strong desire is that this number decrease to somewhere around 60%... I want when we are able to get Chris, our associate pastor on board half-time- and eventually full-time- that he begin to share more of this load with me and bring more of his unique self/perspective/gifts to the community. This is something I haven't put on him too much since he's been working full time and to do this well it takes preparation... Rich (our worship pastor) as well and whoever plants out of evergreen and people who are elders and potential elders and so on...) I think it's possible that in a group of elders one person becomes more of the shepherd, one more of the teacher, one more the administrator, etc.

But it's a biblical qualification- can't teach? Shouldn't be a pastor.

We could go into a lot of the reasons why that might be... But suffice it to say that if someone feels called to lead, but can't captivate a thousand people with his or her speaking gifts, rather than sending them out with a video tape of someone who can I'd like to think we could re-work a couple of our expectations and do some things which make it a workable scenario without resorting to video feeds.

1. Rework our definition of numbers success. I have no idea if my speaking could captivate thousands. The most I have ever spoken to was four services of about 700 a piece. I did okay. :) But at evergreen, I don't have to worry about it. We've set an upper limit on our growth (somewhere under 200). We grow, and then we plant. We grow more- we plant more. I don't need to find people who can preach like Spurgeon! I just need to find men and women who love God, love people, can teach in a somewhat larger than home-group setting and set them loose. That's makes it a whole lot easier because for every person who can speak to thousands, there are literally multitudes who can lead a dialogical teaching time with between 30 and 150 people. I'll bet with some experience and some coaching, Goeff's former farmer would do just fine!

2. Rework our method of training. "Pastoring" has always been on the job training. We (should) send people to seminary for formal theological education- not to learn how to shepherd and teach people. Rather than in the classroom learning to shepherd and teach people should be done in the context of... shepherding and teaching people! I know the pressure that exists as a community gets larger... as we grow, it's harder and harder to turn the "pulpit" over to those who might not teach as well. But it's a necessity. So the solution? This seems easy to me- Through planting other communities, keep your community from growing to a size where you can't let a college-aged student or seminary aged man or woman teach, where you can't let someone who feels they may be called to be an elder someday (or now) not only lead and love people, but teach them as well.
(I knew this would be a temptation for me... to not do this... so right off the bat, shortly after we planted, we did about a month and a half of people other than me speaking. We did it again last Jan/Feb... We're now re-tooling that a bit. Rather than a block of time where others speak (say for a month or more) I'm trying to schedule others in once a month or so to speak.)

3. Rework our planting model... pair those who teach well with those who can teach, but don't want to do it all the time or who don't feel it is their main gift.

I know that there is more to "teaching" than taking the pulpit on Sunday mornings. But, one of my main concerns about Video Venues is this:
If we plant a community led by a person who can't preach, and taught by a video feed from elsewhere, aren't we making it nearly impossible for that community itself to equip, train and develop people who can preach? How would they do that? And even if they can and do, why make it harder?

Comments/thoughts/pushback?

video Venues... follow up 4

Geoff asked: ". Does an effective preacher always make an effective pastor? I've seen excellent preachers who IMHO do a very poor job of shepherding their flock and lousy speakers who are great pastors."

I totally agree. My beef with Video Venues is not that they disconnect one aspect of pastoring from another, but rather that they disconnect the one teaching the people from the people being teached...err... taught.

But this is my beef not just with Video Venues, but with large church in general. When, because of the size of a community, those taking the lead in teaching the community become inaccesible to that community, I think we've moved into an unhealthy place. I'm coming from a paradigm that says it's best if we keep things at a size where we can all know each other, particularly where those leading can know those being led and vice versa.
I know the model of getting "smaller as we get bigger." And though I understand it, I just don't like it. What I see happen, practically speaking, is a huge disconnect between those making decisions and teaching and those affected. I may know the leader of my small group, which is cool... but at a certain point if most of the church is completely unaware of who their elder board is, and unable to get on the calendar of the person/people leading and teaching them, I think something is wrong.

So, again, I feel like Video Venues take us in the opposite direction of what's intended. I know that one of the reasons stated for doing Video Venues is so that as a church grows, it can remain "small" and people can know each other. It probably works fairly well on that count. Where it seems to fall down is the second part of the equation... Allowing leadership and the led to know and access and interact with each other. The best leadership comes from a place of intimate knowledge of those being led- what is needed now, what are our people wondering, struggling with, etc. And the best "being led" comes from a place of knowing and trusting those doing the leading.

So I guess what I'm saying is that while one pastor can primarily shepherd while others primarily teach, disconnecting those functions from one another may be fine, but disconnecting those functions geographically or organizationally from the people seems a move in the wrong direction to me. And it seems as though this is what Video Venues do, by locating the "vision", "mission" and leadership decisions of the church in a place geographically and organizationally removed from the people.

Comments/pushback?

Video Venues... follow up 3

(ed note:I "unpublished" and then reworked this for tone...)
Dave asked:
what if church plants had pastors but used videos of other preachers because:
3. they decided that there are very gifted preachers in the body of Christ and they wanted to learn from those diverse voices as well.

Ahh.. see, now, now you are getting tricky! Using all kinds of good "emergent" sounding words like "diverse"! :)

But again, I think Video Venues actually work in the exact opposite direction of what you are saying here.

It seems as though the Video Venue you have in mind is one where there's a rotation- a community hearing the best taped/broadcast messages from all over, rotating different communicators.
While I'm sure it exists, I've never seen/heard of it. The model we seem to be processing here is one where a single communicator is the one who is (mainly) speaking to the people via the video. (Other pastors may speak, just as in any church, but there's a main teacher).

If I thought videos were a viable long-term solution, your model would be the best. But I have a feeling it's not even on the table. What we're talking about in these satellite campuses, which started as overflow rooms, morphed to overflow buildings and are now complete overflow capuses, sometimes hours away from the main campus, is, in a very real sense, (please excuse the term) franchising.

So, a little thought experiment.

Let's say YourTown Community Church decided to set up a satellite campus an hour and a half from their main campus, showing video of their main guy every week. Now let's say that because of the top quality music and kids programs, YourTown West™ really grew... but it's in a different town, with different kinds of people, people who have heard of YourTown's Teaching Dude, who may even have driven the hour and a half to hear him on special occasions, but don't really have a relationship to him as pastor. And now let's say that YourTown West™ decides that they would like to do a rotation. They are fine with the Dude's teaching and want to keep including him, say every few months, but since there are so many good preaching resources available on video, why not have Bill Hybels speak at YourTown West™ one Sunday, Rick Warren the next, Erwin McManus the next and so forth.

How well would that go over? With the mother church, I mean.

But that thought experiment is more of a tangent than anything...

Here's what I want to see from the church- more pastors/teachers and not less. Video Venues get us less because more and more local churches will be feeding on steady diet of communication from elsewhere rather than developing the teachers among them. Where does a man or woman who feels called to preach get practical experience if their local church is a video venue?

Your question, "they decided that there are very gifted preachers in the body of Christ and they wanted to learn from those diverse voices as well" is the exact reason why Video Venues are a bad idea, I think.

Comments/follow up/pushback?

Video Venues... follow up 1

Dave asked:
what if church plants had pastors but used videos of other preachers because:
1. they decided the sermon is just one element of their time together and not the premier thing.

To be honest, I think this is the right reason and the wrong answer. That is, it's good for us to become less sermo-centric (critics: please don't read as less bibliocentric). I tend to think that Video Venues push us in exactly the opposite direction.

Now, I'm not saying that with using Video Venues, you couldn't allow everything in your gathering to preach, but you are by definition adding more focus to the sermon event monologue, not less.

I think the way to do what you are talking about, Dave, is not to watch the sermon on the screen, but rather to cease allowing it to be the climax of the morning. Cease the monological style of communication that doesn't make room for dialogue or hearing God's voice through other speakers or even follow up and clarification questions.

What we've tried to do (and we need to try harder...) is to diffuse the teaching and experiencing and hearing from God throughout the whole morning. You can read about Sunday mornings at evergreen here, but what we've done, in short, is try to do away with the "worship" time and the "sermon" time, diffusing the "point" of the morning rather than distilling it into three points delivered monologically.

Now, I could see the use of something like a Rob Bell Nooma video, where it's short, to the point, and allows plenty of room after for discussion by the people (in fact, I think we need to use one of those occasionally, now that I think about it). But when we are by definition locking our communities into passively watching a 30-40 monologue with someone they can never, ever speak back to...

I know that much of what is shown on Video Venues is top quality, very creative and inspiring preaching. It has to be! :) But if we want to make preaching not the "main point" of what we do, perhaps this is a step in the wrong direction.

But I may have a flawed understanding of this. My experience has been a Video Venue at North Coast and some stabs at it at the mega church I worked at for awhile. Tell me how they can be used, positively, to make preaching not the main event. And tell me if I'm making any sense here at all... been up since 3:30 again, dangit. :)

Comments/follow up/pushback?

more on video venues coming...

Okay... some very good push-back on the ideas of Video Venues (planting churches where the teaching is done strictly through a video feed from another location).

I wanted to quote some of the good questions that were asked in response to what I said here and on Steve McCoy's blog, and then later, after working over a sermon I'm not completely happy with :) I'll do my best to answer...

Dave asked:
what if church plants had pastors but used videos of other preachers because:

1. they decided the sermon is just one element of their time together and not the premier thing.

2. they decided that allowing their pastor time to shepherd was more imporant than having him prepare to preach every week

3. they decided that there are very gifted preachers in the body of Christ and they wanted to learn from those diverse voices as well.

such a model might include using many different videos from different churches...

And Geoff, pastor of one of the innovating churches in this area asked:
1. Does an effective preacher always make an effective pastor? I've seen excellent preachers who IMHO do a very poor job of shepherding their flock and lousy speakers who are great pastors.

2. Are there people called to lead congregations who don't have the gift of teaching? One of our most effective campus pastors at Seacoast is a former farmer who has no formal theological training, can't spell expository, but is incredible at helping people to grow in their faith. If he planted a church on his own he would be able to minister to very few people; because he doesn't have to preach he is able to pastor a congregation of over 600 people.

3. Would Paul have used video if it had been available? I'm not sure I understand the difference between watching a video and listening to a letter being read at a church service. (Obviously Paul's video would have divinely inspired, we don't have that advantage at Seacoast. :)

4. Why is church planting superior to opening campuses? At Seacoast we do both. If a we have a leader who has a unique vision and a call to preach we help him plant an autonomous church. (We've helped plant almost 25 new churches in the past few years) If a leader resonates with the vision God has given Seacoast and does not feel a call to preach we help him plant a new Seacoast campus.

5. If people are committing their lives to Christ and growing in their faith, what difference does it make who preaches, who controls the purse strings, what the name is over the door? I'm not sure God is overly concerned with the forms that we invent for how church is done (house church, mega-church, multi-site, community church) as long as we are obeying the Great Commission.

Video Venues... Good Problem, Terrible Solution.

Last week I commented on SteveMcCoy's blog about the latest sermon to be podcast by the Cussing Pastor. CP's church has grown and grown big. So... they are launching Video Venues as a solution to this problem.

Now... I want to be careful here. The CP serves God, not Bob. CP's community is different than mine, and its choices are its own.

But like Steve is now doing, I want to raise some questions. I'll try to do it carefully, tactfully, but still... some questions.

First, this is a great problem to have. When your community is healthy, growing and pushing out the walls, that's something to celebrate.
The obvious question is "what's next?"

I've written a lot about the role of pastor and how I believe that the larger a community gets, the harder it is to be an actual pastor as opposed to a manager, a CEO, an administrator... and eventually (both figuratively and now literally) a talking head.

It seems like the clear choice to me is to plant churches.

If you have the resources to plant a video venue, you have the resources to plant a church. If you have the need to do a video venue, I believe you have the need to plant a church...

I can think of very few reasons to choose a video venue over a church plant... and I don't like any of them. All I can say is that to me:

1. Video Venues seem to perpetuate the celebrity pastor model we (well... at least I am ) are trying to move away from. As Rick McKinley here in Portland is prone to say, "The celebrity-driven church must die." Now, while I'm sure that the CP would agree with that statement in principle, what good is your principle if your structures don't concur?
By setting up video venues, we not only perpetuate the structure that feeds the celebrity-driven church model... we plant it, water it and build a wall around it. We literally splice it into the DNA of our communities by going to great length, expense and trouble to ensure that everyone who wants to hear one single individual speak on a Sunday morning, can.

2. Video Venues seem to place an unbridgable distance between a pastor and his or her people, which I believe is unhealthy for a community. I've talked a lot about shepherds knowing those they are trying to shepherd, whether as a pastor or an elder. This is nigh unto impossible in the 1000+ person mega church... adding a Video Venue that meets 20 miles distant from the "main campus" does absolutely nothing to alleviate this. In fact, it says it is normal and good. I disagree.

3. In fact, Video Venues are unhealthy in the long run to the soul of both pastor and people. Doug Pagitt says something to the effect that with the way most do preaching, it's possible over the course of a couple of years for a person to hear literally hundreds of messages from a preacher and have that preacher hear not a single word from that person. At this point, pastors of large churches are literally firewalling themselves off from the people they are trying to love, shepherd and teach. How is this positive in any way, shape or form? The addition of Video Venues magnifies this problem 100 fold. Now, I not only am teaching people I have never and will never meet, I must place even more protections around myself to keep any one of them from ever feeling entitled to offer me feedback or even ask me a follow-up question.

I know that there are reasons why people want to do this- "We're growing! More people want to be part of our church than we can accomodate!" Fine. Time to set up a podcast so whoever wants to hear your sermon can, no matter how many seats you have in your space. Time to tell some of the Christians to grow up, step out in faith to something new and make room for someone not quite as far along the journey as them. Time to get off the celebrity train, say goodbye to the influence, power and resources (money) that having that many people "under" you brings. Time to invest heavily in other pastors, other/new communities. Time to plant churches.

Caveat: I know I come off sounding like I know it all. I know I don't. I realize that as the pastor of a church with just over a hundred people, I'm talking about institutions with multimillion dollar campuses and thousands of people that are headed by famous, well-known and respected pastors. Ok. I'm batting way out of my league... I don't feel like these churches are "apostate" or "shipwrecking their faith" or any of that kind of stuff. These are choices communities make, sometimes with spiritual motives, sometimes with financial ones, usually with a mixture of both. These choices are (on balance) either positive or negative for the Church here in America. I feel as though they will end up being negative... and I'm just saying so.