Video Preaching at Church

Several months ago my wife and I attended Harvest Bible Chapel (James MacDonald) in Palatine, IL.  We tried very hard to make sure we were at the main church on a day MacDonald would be there.  We got there and found out he wasn't there, but Joe Stowell was preaching.  Okay, cool.  Feed me.  Uh, it was Stowell on video from an earlier service. 

Right now I'm ten minutes into Mark Driscoll's sermon "Jesus Took Our Wrath" and he hasn't started the sermon yet.  That's actually not a strange thing for Driscoll, especially since he has about an hour and five minutes left.  He is explaining how Mars Hill has been growing in leaps and bounds.  Faster than they can accommodate.  And they are looking for ways to make space, and space is hard to come by.  Wouldn't we all like to have their problems.  One quick solution that won't last for long is adding a fifth service on Sunday.  As a pastor that sounds like a nightmare for my physical/emotional well being.

So instead of just killing the pastor and staff along the way, they have chosen to make some of the sermons video sermons.  Driscoll will preach the first service, it will be taped and used at a service or two that day.  That takes care of the killing the pastor/staff part, but I'm a bit concerned at the direction of good churches that I highly respect who are turning to this option.  I wonder if this isn't an abuse of the gifts of modernity, rather than using these gifts in a way that truly benefits the church. 

Let me just give a few thoughts as to why I don't like this trend.  I don't mean to pick on Harvest or MHC or MacDonald or Driscoll, but they have triggered my thoughts.

1. There's a dynamic that isn't there when the preacher isn't standing in front of his people.  Every sermon I preach changes because of how the audience responds, how I feel, the sense of "unction" and so on.  I don't think these are repeatable things, and so the dynamic is lost.  If I have the story right, Martyn Lloyd-Jones didn't like his sermons audio recorded (though they were) because he felt like you couldn't replicate the experience so it wouldn't be the same. 

2. Video preaching is, it seems to me, a way of doing an 'end run' around the real need: more preachers/more churches.  We are to pray for workers for the harvest, not for digital machines that can video-photocopy a sermon and reproduce it.  If God's providing the people to join the flock, I want to believe that God is providing enough pastor/preachers who can shepherd the flock.  I know the philosophy at MHC behind why they don't want to share the pulpit, but I'm not sure I fully buy it as the better option.

3. Video preaching seems like the result of personality-driven ministry.  The preacher is so important and so beloved that no one else can fill their shoes well enough to preach in their place.  I hope this isn't the case, but guys like MacDonald and Driscoll are very charismatic and certainly some are coming who would not if they weren't there.

What do you think?

Comments

[Mike]

I agree with all 3 points. Quite honestly, if I were walk into a church like that, I would feel like it's kinda phony. There is a dynamic that having a real person there helps with.

We have been talking through going to 3 services here, and the pastor is asking questions on whether or not he can share the load. I am guessing that there has to be somebody at MH Seattle that can preach other than Mark. I am curious if they would feel comfortable team teaching, which would be much more work but much more rewarding...more flavor if you will.

I'm also having these haunting images of some psuedo Left Behind video. Somebody digs up the old files, "If you are watching this, then..." :)

Thanks for your thoughts as always. Love your blog!

[David Wright]

I wholeheartedly agree with your concern.

When a church gets so big that it has these kinds of space and staff problems, why not consider a (grace driven) division?

In any case, whether it all stems from a personality emphasis or not, it will of necessity lead to a personality emphasis. Take 20 pastors from twenty 500 member churches--one of these 20 has the most charisma. That's the one that ends up leading the new 10000 member church. Those with less charisma need not apply to such a visible position. Back before the 10000 member church, most of the 20 pastors were probably doing a decent job. Now they're not good enough, because they can't hold the attention of 10000 people. Members of their 500 large congregation are going gravitate to where the "success" really is: the big place 10 miles away. So, now these pastors aren't good enough to hold the attention of 500. (I'm not saying it's truly all about holding people's attention, I'm just trying to reason out the consequences of the trend). It will be interesting to see whether at the end of the whole megachurch trend there will have been an actual reduction in the seminary population" training for the pastorate.

In addition, I can't help but think that churches which have one pastor preaching to 10000 must have a bigger problem getting away from the staff/laity involvement divide than those regular churches already struggling with this probelm. But in the megachurch case, the struggle is masked by an abundance of staff resources that make it all the less necessary for people to get involved in their church.

In today's model, Paul would never have left, say, Ephesus. He was probably the most gifted pastor in Christian history. Why on earth would he leave if under his ministry, the church Ephesus can grow bigger and bigger? Why hand over the ministry to others who are less gifted? In today's model, the Ephesian church would have eventually ended up renting the amphitheater, and having Paul preach at two services, with video Paul at the other three. No letter to the Ephesians, either, because, hey, Paul never left Ephesus.

Yes, this is a bit over the top as a comparison. But it's not over the top enough for comfort.

[James Paul]

Great post.

I think most churches today are top-heavy. I've heard the "members do the work of the ministry" talk 1 too many times. We still don't get it! Congregations still think the guy up front does the work. And sometimes the decisions made from the top substantiate these claims. I find it interesting that a pastor like Driscoll (whom I admire) doesn't employ the same scattering philosophy of his church planting network to the mega-church he's building. Why, at least, wouldn't he WANT to share the pulpit? Has this "flock" become so large that he doesn't feel he can trust his own staff to share the Word on a weekly basis? What if he dies? I can't imagine ego as the motive. Mark's philosophy from the very beginning has been one of sacrifice and sowing generously into the harvest.

Congrats to Mars Hill for the incredible growth. May God continue to bless the eldership with the necessary wisdom to steward it well.

[Jon]

Good points. Since I'm Anglican and a bit old fashioned, I'd add that you have to have a priest present anyway to do the Eucharist, or, if Morning Prayer is used, no sermon is necessary.

Jon

[David Price]

All very good points. I think you guys are spot on in your assessments. I've been concerned about the mega-church movement for some time. The church I used to attend in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area (about ten years ago), Fellowship Church, headed up by Ed Young, Jr., has been doing the video thing for some time now. I've never liked the idea (for some of the very reasons Steve mentioned). I am much more comfortable with the divide and plant option. The "pastor" of a mega-church is not the pastor at all...he's the preacher. There is no way for him to truly pastor a church that large, especially when there will be members he's never even met.

Oh, and I, too, found it interesting that Driscoll promotes church-planting so extensively but has, in practice, grown a mega-church himself. Might be very good reasons why, but sure seems odd.

[david]

in driscoll's defense, he continues to plant churches, and i think is committed to it.

i agree with steve's points on the video stuff, but to play devil's advocate, what if the resources (mainly financial) that were being saved by doing video were used to feed the hungry, etc...? could it be argued that this is just good stewardship of someone's gift?

also, does this apply to small groups that use video curriculum?

that said, i would have a hard time in a video service, i think that moves more away from Biblical Gathering than towards it...

[Steve McCoy]

David (the last one), I don't think money has anything to do with it. They have decided they should strive to keep growing and they are out of options like renting a huge place (no possibilities) or building a huge place (far too costly in urban Seattle). So if you are going to keep growing and no where to go, you either have to do more services or something like splitting off and starting other churches in other locations.

They seems to be doing both, but some of the services including the split offs will still feature Mark on video, if I heard right. If this were a short term solution until they could bring in church planters I would have less of an issue, but that doesn't sound like the dealio to me.

I don't think this applies to small groups since these are small groups who are less about pastors and visionary leaders and more about straight up study, and videos are "curriculum" and not leadership.

[steven]

Touchy one personally, b/c I have family who attend churches who do the whole video sermon thing. The pragmitist says, "Who cares how they do it as long as it is growing?" Then, of course, he lambasts you for questioning a tactic that is "bringing people to Christ." Personally, I agree with all three of your points of contention. I've preached multiple services at one church and every time the sermon is different - because it needed to be. Point 2 & 3 are related, I think... sure there are plenty of people who could pastor that new church plant, but maybe people wouldn't attend b/c they come to hear "Insert name of famous guy here." I understand economies of scale and all of the pragmatic arguments - I just think that we've gone too far in adopting a capitalist economic model to our ecclesiastical decision making.

[Christie]

Ideally I think Mars Hill should start more churches, but whether that is feasible right now, I don't know. The video seems odd to me and I surmise it would cause the live service to be more favored than the recorded.

[Scott Lyons]

Your commenters have made some excellent points, Steve. And I would agree with your argument as well. We have a "Video Cafe" at our church that streams the message live into another room. It's not the same. There's something lifeless and non-participatory about it (though it's hard for me to explain) - the difference is as large as watching a football game on tv rather than actually being there. Something precious is lost in translation.

Sharing the pulpit and/or growing by "grace-driven division" seem to be the direction the church should take when encountering this "growth problem."

[Danny]

Steve (and the gang),
Great topic to think, talk, read and pray through. This makes me think of George Whitefield, who's remains are buried about 1/2 mile from where I am sitting right now in Newburyport, MA. Come to learn that in 34 years of ministry he preached over 18,000 sermons! Calvin, Luther and some of the dead redwoods preached just about every day as well. I can't speak for or about Driscoll, but I envision preaching every day! Perhaps that would alleviate some space issues. Maybe, maybe not.
May all who read your blog, and especially those who comment follow up their words on the blog with words before our God, who can supply wisdom for those and where it is incredibly needed.
peace,
Danny

[rev-ed]

Good post. Of course these churches are and will continue to be personality driven. You admitted as much when you stated that you tried to attend on a Sunday when MacDonald would be there. Attending a church because of the personality/presentation of the senior pastor is a factor which needs to be considered in an age where we don't simply attend the nearest building with a steeple.

With that in mind, video sermons are an option which must be considered. Like you, I don't like the dymanic (or lack thereof) of a videotaped message. Yet I don't truly care for a weekly worship service of 15,000 at a single service either.

Your point about praying for more people in the ministry is very valid, but what do we do in the meantime? We have to decide if video preaching is a viable method or if we are "trying to help God unnecessarily" like Abraham and Sarah did by bringing Hagar into the picture.

[Ashlee]

I think if one was going to church to watch a video they might be inclinded to just stay at home and watch it over the web later. There's a big difference in a live presentation and a video. Just ask anyone who has taken an online class and watched lectures on video!

[fr'nklin]

everything about this new video sermon craze feels wrong...

it communicates "popeish" protestantism where one man is "da man" and we all sit at his feet to be taught.

I'm positive this isn't the motive of ANY of these churches, and I think you're right - it's the easy way out.

What we need is more gifted men to step forward and plant churches. I hate that statement because we don't need "more of the same" - we need churches like these guys are pastoring...and the men are out there who will plant them...so what are the obstacles we put in their way to keep them from doing so?

[Adam L. Feldman]

good convo here. i don't think this is necessarily a "mega-church" thing. i've been to a "mega-church" that used video for the preaching. take, for instance, northpoint community church where andy stanly is senior pastor. they've had video sermons for several years. the problem was a space issue. to accomidate the growing crowd, they added an addition to the building and showed the video of the sermon being preached live in another part of the building.

i saw a similar thing just a few weeks ago at a church that meets at a local community college. the theater where they meet can only hold around 250 people. as it is, they have 3 services! so, they have a "video cafe" where the sermon/service is pumped live to another large room on the campus so that people can still participate in the service. i must confess, when we visited, i got "stuck" in the video room. i wished that i would have seen the live experience. but, as time went on, i realized that many parents of small children and infants had voluntarily opted to go to the video cafe because it was easier to be less of a distraction for the congregation as a whole. so, in this case, the video served several purposes that allowed more people to experience the sermon with the least amount of distraction and physical drain on the pastor.

just my $.02

[Steve McCoy]

Adam, your points are valid if this is a quick fix solution for something that is going to be fixed in a better way soon. Or if it's an accomodation to breastfeeding moms and the like. That isn't a new idea, and has been around before video sermons. But that's not the intention of Harvest or Mars Hill as best I can tell.

[bob hyatt]

what really gets me about this is:

Mars Hill has spent the last few years setting up the infrastructure to plant churches (many have been planted, many have simply had the Acts 29 stamp of approval placed on them... but that's a separate issue). At this point, Mark Driscoll has a file (or at least Steve Tomkins, sitting just down the hall) a mile thick of people who want to plant a church, and if they were to issue a call, they could have 20 planters ready, willing and Acts 29 certifiable who would up and relocate next week to Seattle for the chance to plant out of Mars Hill.

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 viedo 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. :)

[Steve McCoy]

Bob, I agree with your very well-stated comment.

[david]

bob, maybe i should have posted my comments on your blog here...

i'd love to see some of the guys who are doing video venues come on here and comment. i think hearing their motivations and rational might steer this discussion in a good direction?

can anyone hook some of them up?

i know andy stanley posted a while back on a blog that was criticizing northpointe...how do we get him here?

[Steve McCoy]

Be sure to read Bob Hyatt's post on this.

[One Salient Oversight]

I am no longer in favour of mega-churches.

It's not that God can't work in them - of course he does. Nevertheless there are problems with them.

The biggest problem is that the head pastor needs to have a genuine and authentic relationship with the congregation. He not only has to provide spiritual guidance through his Sunday preaching, but he must also be seen as a model Christian. When Paul gives his qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy and Titus, the focus is greatly upon Christian character. Things like sound doctrine and the ability to preach are essential as well, but Paul makes it clear that elders should be spiritually respectable people - not like the pharisees, but certainly a model for Christian behaviour.

The mega-church preacher cannot have an authentic relationship with his congregation. There are just too many people to have relationships with. In addition, the bigger the church, the bigger and more muddied is the space between preacher and congregation - something that is usually filled up with administration and assistant pastors and whatnot.

With the preacher isolated from his congregation and unable to relate to them in a personal and authentic way means that the perception of godliness is important, rather than the experience of godliness that comes with authentic relationships.

When the preacher relies upon the public perception of his godliness, his image becomes all important, and his personal godliness can become less important.

What should this particular church do? It should split into a multitude of different churches. Driscoll himself should take a church of between 50-75 people and attempt to grow it like he did in the old days. When it becomes too big, split it again. Hopefully all the "daughter" churches are doing this as well. I'd rather ten churches of 100 people each with ten pastors leading them then one church of 1000 with one pastor and nine assistants. The smaller the church, the more reliance the church has upon individuals in the congregation. It is much easier to sit back and relax in a massive auditorium than it is in an old school hall where everyone there knows who you are...

[bob Franquiz]

Steve,

Good insights. I agree, but I would offer another view to consider:

I think videos can still move us and still be used by the Holy Spirit in a fresh way. Movies can move us to tears and these people are just acting. While it does create a different dynamic, I still think it can be done well.

The issue is, is this a band-aid or the answer to the problem? This is where I haven't landed. It is yet to be seen if video churches can be sustained over the long haul...

[bob hyatt]

Bob... not to be contrary, but... :)

I agree about the impact of movies/tv... but the social contract between us and movies is different than between us and our pastors/churches. A movie doesn't need to know me to move me. I think a pastor needs to know me to shepherd me...

It seems by the same logic I could say that I could mime all my sermons and the Holy Spirit could use them, or type them out and hand them to everyone to read during half an hour of silence...
You know what I'm saying?
There's no limits on what the Holy Spirit can do...
I think there are limits on what is prudent for churches to do...

[Matthew Westerholm]

Wow. Hot topic.

I've been a worship pastor @ Harvest for 8 years. Allow me to contradict a commonly held opinion: video campuses are not substitutes for church plants. Church plants never solve a growing church “problem”. We send 300 people away with a senior pastor and another staff person, and those seats are filled back up in months. Our daughter churches have over 5500 people in them, and our church has doubled in size since we began planting them (5 years). Harvest is very passionate about church planting. You can check out www.harvestchristianfellowship.org for more info about all 12 of our church plants.

The suggestion about Mars Hill have 20 guys they could kick out next week is also really tough. No offense, but the weight and responsibility of commissioning a man to lead a church is huge. You’re going to take 100 people that the Lord has entrusted to you, and give them to a new person. That’s huge, and not to be done lightly. The work of validating, training and equipping this person cannot be minimized.

I share the concern about people becoming "addicted" to one bible teacher. "For when one says, 'I follow Paul,' and another, 'I follow Apollos,' are you not being merely human?" This is why we added Pastor Joe Stowell to our teaching team. We also never announce where the live preacher is going to be. They rotate to different campuses each service. Don’t come to see James MacDonald – instead, come to meet with God.

We added our second campus, not by design, but because of supernatural provision. Our second campus is a $50 million facility that was donated for a single dollar. Our third campus was also donated to us free of charge after a dying church closed its doors and gave us their property. The church of 30 that could not find a senior pastor for 5 years is now a vibrant community of 650.

All of this to say: not all video services are about catering to people’s felt needs: whether worship styles or preaching celebrities. And we’re not all that impressed with video. Our video service is a stop-gap measure as we build out a large enough worship center to handle all the people the Lord is sending to us.

And I would also humbly disagree with the commenter who wrote about mega-church pastors. Was the effectiveness of John the Baptist’s ministry based on his “authentic relationship” with each of the people in his ministry? Did Paul ‘need to know me to shepherd me” for the church in Rome? I totally resonate with the dangers of “perception” of personal godliness, but surely this is just as difficult in a small church as it is in a large one. The apostle John never met me, but he kicked my butt this morning as I read 1 Jn 2. And Pastor John Owen died before my country existed, but he might as well have been reading my diary when he wrote “Mortification”.

This is getting long, sorry. Anyways, Steve, drop me a note next time you swing by Harvest, and I’ll get you the hook up.

[Matthew Westerholm]

I goofed up my own church's church planting link. . . try http://www.harvestbiblefellowship.ca instead.

[Dale McCrory]

I'm a member of Harvest Bible Chapel for over 5 years and attend the smallest campus which is 98% video preaching. I acknowledge that video services are not the best, but I also know that the reason we have video services is born out of necessity moreso than desire.

The fact that we have been able to accomplish so much in the past several years despite the limitations of video is directly attributable to an awesome God who can work through all circumstances. My wife and I recognize that having a live pastor is definitely preferable, but not mandatory to experience the working of the Holy Spirit.

[Steve McCoy]

Matthew, thanks for a thoughtful comment. If I do find my way to Harvest, I will look you up beforehand. Thanks for the offer. Does that include lunch? ;)

I'm not sure you made your position clear, and I'd love to know it. Do you think video sermons are an acceptable part of church growth? How are they acceptable? You mentioned it in your church as something done until a larger place is built.

There's a lot to this conversation. We can talk about mega-churches, personality-driven ministry, basic ecclesiology (building buildings vs house churches vs renting vs whatever), a lack of other good churches leading to tremendous transfer growth in a short time, a lack of good planters or good training for planters, failure rate of plants, and so on.

I'm simply trying to say that, generally speaking, I think video sermons are a symptom of a problem because they are becoming a trend, not typically a quick fix until something better comes. Would you agree?

I think this links in with the idea of 'satellite churches.' Instead of planting, churches (usually mega-churches) are moving to satellites intead of establishing more autonomous local churches. I'm not excited about this trend, though I'm sympathetic to the concerns of those who do satellites.

[David Wright]

Good conversation on this topic.

If I understand it right, some of the churches doing this are doing it out of necessity. I've never been in a church that would even come close to that kind of necessity, so I'm a bit confused. Does this mean that so many people are showing up that the church is bursting at the seams and doesn't know what to do with them? (I guess that's it).

If that occurs, why not have an amicable split down the middle? And if it happens again, another split, etc.? Is this just a naive notion? (I've never been present for such a thing, so it's just an ideal thought).

I can see where the bursting at the seams scenario could really be difficult to handle well. I guess I just wonder what the point is off getting bigger and bigger and bigger. I'm not saying it's flat wrong or ungodly, but why do it?

[Andy Lutz]

Steve,

I enjoyed your post. I have often thought many of the same things. Isn't there more to church than a preaching forum? Why have we come to think that a church of 1000 or more is a vibrant church? At what point to we as pastors stop promoting Christ and start promoting self?

If we really take this video message to heart, is there really a need for any more than one preacher in the world? We should just have a preach off and then the best man in the world becomes the pastor of all via satellite. The possibilities are endless. We could pod-cast the sermons, we could even receive them on our cell phones now. But at some point the church would then cease to exist the way God intended in the NT. I often wonder if we are gradually losing sight of the church's purpose with all the church growth we are surrounded with. It would compare it to evangelism. Even people with good theology often have no idea where to begin in evangelism, because they have only seen the canned door to door sales type evangelism. Maybe in the same way we are losing sight of how to be a church.

[Steve McCoy]

Andy,

Good questions and points. Though I think you overstate it a bit (probably intentionally), I think the scenerio you point to is not that far fetched. I've been thinking about that possibility because of this thread.

My thought was, why couldn't a congregation start in Illinois who gets a satellite feed of the preaching from a church in Seattle, or Texas? It's the same basic principle. They may say the video isn't ideal, but if it's acceptable then there will be plenty of people who will start talking themselves into this as a viable option.

[fr'nklin]

I posted this comment over at bobhyatt's blog and thought I'd duplicate it here.

I wonder if the whole thing doesn't expose, at some level, a basic flaw in our notion of "church". People go to church to hear the best "speacher" (pagit). Is this bad? I don't think it is at some level, but I think it can be dangerous (maybe that's too strong of a word). In other words, "church" becomes all about Sunday morning and having great music and a great "speacher".

It also does call into question the value of a community, dialoging together about how the Scripture speaks to their particular circumstances. Is it a one message fits all kinda thing? Just mine the "meanning" from the "text" and that is the "truth" for all of us?

Maybe we need pastors who are not great at preaching so that people can see that you don't have to be a "professional" to understand the Bible. Sometimes great preachers (especially of the expository type) can actually send a message to the congregation that in order to understand the Bible you have to know greek/hebrew and all the historical background stuff. There are two problems i have to continually watch as a pastor: my ego and not creating a new priesthood w/ me as the high priest.

I DO NOT THINK THIS IS WHAT CHURCHES ARE DOING WHO USE VIDEO VENUES. I'm just saying these are potential pitfalls I see and it does raise questions in my mind about how we currently view "preaching" and "church".

[Kevin Jones]

Steve, thanks for the insightful post. I posted some similar thoughts on my blog last week.

It's interesting that Second Baptist Church in Houston is considering doing the very thing you mentioned in your last comment. They envision opening satellite campuses around the country (and even around the world). In their local main satellites, though, it appears that they generally have live preaching by different pasors.

I don't know a lot about Second, but it sounds overall like a good church that I would consider attending if I lived in Houston. However, I'm not excited about the idea of franchising the church all over the country.

I think that there's more to a church than the interaction with the preacher. And I can see how video preaching could be tolerable as long as there is a local pastoral team to shepherd the local congregation, but it doesn't strike me as ideal.

[Pete Williamson]

Something I've noticed in the course of the this discussion is that there seems to be an unquestioning acceptance of a sharp distinction between the vocations of preacher and pastor. Is there a biblical warrant for such a distinction?

[Steve McCoy]

Pete, really good question. I don't see biblical reason to make a distinction. I do see in larger churches that the shepherds are shepherding shepherds, and these other shepherds are leading the people though a "visionary leader" is still preaching. There are certainly great benefits to that, but there are also problems.

[bob hyatt]

Kevin,

You said: I think that there's more to a church than the interaction with the preacher.

I agree- there is... but you can't turn that statement around and say that interaction with people isn't a vital part of pastoring. When we disconnect teaching from shepherding, I think we do something dangerous...
I teach to where my people are at, what they are experiencing now. I have the ability to say certain things with certain people in mind. I'm speaking to people, not a camera... And they talk back to me. We're very dialogical. People ask questions, affirm, disagree...
That dynamic is vital, I think.

I know that you could do a video venue and still have all this if you did it right and went to great effort. But I still haven't heard any reasons why you would want to. Why plant a video church rather than a just a straight church plant?

Matthew- thanks for your comments and experience from Harvest. I hops this isn't perceived as an attack. I realize that God is using churches like this and they have a great impact.
I'm just thinking about (or trying to think about) long-term health for the Church as a whole and the idea of video venues seems very unhealthy to me for a lot of reasons...

you said: I've been a worship pastor @ Harvest for 8 years. Allow me to contradict a commonly held opinion: video campuses are not substitutes for church plants. Church plants never solve a growing church “problem”. We send 300 people away with a senior pastor and another staff person, and those seats are filled back up in months.
That to me is a beautiful thing. The answer, it seems, is not to do video venues, but to put all those resources into the training of men and women to the work of pastoring and shepherding. Start seminaries, not video venues, I think...

Our daughter churches have over 5500 people in them, and our church has doubled in size since we began planting them (5 years). Harvest is very passionate about church planting.
That's very, very awesome. I love hearing this. I think that churches that plant other churches grow. It's a sign of health (and pbedience, I think)

You said: The suggestion about Mars Hill have 20 guys they could kick out next week is also really tough. No offense, but the weight and responsibility of commissioning a man to lead a church is huge. You’re going to take 100 people that the Lord has entrusted to you, and give them to a new person. That’s huge, and not to be done lightly. The work of validating, training and equipping this person cannot be minimized.

I agree wholeheartedly. It's not to be done lightly. But it must be done. Simply because it's hard, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. What did we do before we had video technology? :)

you said: not all video services are about catering to people’s felt needs: whether worship styles or preaching celebrities. And we’re not all that impressed with video. Our video service is a stop-gap measure as we build out a large enough worship center to handle all the people the Lord is sending to us.

It may not be about that for you... but there's no denying that when some large churches which shall remain nameless begin video venues with different "flavors" that they are demonstrably catering to people's felt needs (and probably wouldn't have a problem with anyone saying that). We can debate the appropriateness of that (I think we must do this to a small degree... but this seems to take it too far). I have other issues with the "size" thing, but that's a different discussion :)

you said: "And I would also humbly disagree with the commenter who wrote about mega-church pastors. Was the effectiveness of John the Baptist’s ministry based on his “authentic relationship” with each of the people in his ministry? Did Paul ‘need to know me to shepherd me” for the church in Rome? I totally resonate with the dangers of “perception” of personal godliness, but surely this is just as difficult in a small church as it is in a large one. The apostle John never met me, but he kicked my butt this morning as I read 1 Jn 2. And Pastor John Owen died before my country existed, but he might as well have been reading my diary when he wrote “Mortification”."

These seem to be apples and oranges comparisons. John was a prophet, not a pastor of a local church. Same with John and Paul when they wrote out of their authority as apostles. They had a meta-shepherd role, a valuable role, but different than the role of someone who lived with and among people... Also- they frequently appealed to "You know me... and I know you" in their writings. They were not as disconnected as you might think...

[Pat]

Steve, you mentioned that Acts29 is preparing as a church planting network. I think it's up and running already; I was able to worship with an a29 affiliated church in the suburbs of Boston this summer.

There's an intersting dynamic to growing churches: they gather momentum on their own. I suspect that the social psychology is, "hey, it's popular, it must be great". I think Mars Hills is a fantastic church based on what I hear, (and I'm in the same general neighborhood.

Frequently megachurches are so large because the personality of the lead pastor is very attractive. For better or worse, this plays into the equation, and Mark is certainly a charismatic leader. If they were to spin out 20 church plants this Sunday, the plants may do well but Mark's personality, notoriety, fame and skills would bring their church back up quickly, I'm certain. They'll have that challenge again soon.

I have a friend with a ~300 church gathering who's doing a video venue to serve an outlying geographic region. That venue has live worship bands, a video sermon, and then live prayer ministry time. The worship leader for that venue tells me that it's effective, and ministry time is powerful just like it is in the home church.

And finally, I wonder if the people attending a video venue would struggle more with the "entertainment" factor of large churches than otherwise. I attended a Third Day concert hosted in a megachurch a while back and we couldn't see the stage, so we were resigned to watching the whole thing on the video screens. I was livid; I hated the experience and I felt cheated. I wonder if a video sermon would feel similarly to me.

As for me and my church, we're called to different things than Mark's church is (thank God for both of us). I don't suspect that video venues are in our future.

[Matthew Westerholm]

Yes, Steve, it includes lunch. You wrote: "I'm not sure you made your position clear…”

Wow. I wrote a post that was sooooo long, and still unclear. That's why I'm a worship pastor and not a preacher! :-)

"Do you think video sermons are an acceptable part of church growth?" Yes. We don't really concern myself with growing our church numerically, however. I'm working on the DEPTH of my ministry and letting God handle the BREADTH. Do I think many churches doing video are doing an acceptable job? I have neither have any idea, nor (fortunately) will I have to answer for them.

"How are they acceptable?" Paul rejoiced in the proclamation of Christ whether through pretense or truth -- MOTIVES, which seems inherently more dangerous than through different MEDIUMS. Content must be the supreme test of preaching. True gospel preaching is incompatible with pastoral pride, as Paul said “For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting.”

There are huge pitfalls associated with video churches that need to be avoided. Those have been well described by your post and the commentators – thanks for the reminders! But, there are huge pitfalls associated with small rural churches as well. I don't consider those any smaller or less dangerous.

A main pitfall (like fr'klin mentioned) is avoiding the "Sunday central" mentality. One way we do this is to have a former academic dean from Trinity with his Ph. D in New Testament from Aberdeen in charge of our Adult Ministry. We are not a church with small groups, but a church OF small groups where real life transformation can happen. We declare war on people who are “Sunday Morning Only” and also flat out declare war on people who do not serve and shoulder weekly kingdom responsibility, but only consume.

BOB, thanks for the response. I haven’t been listened to that carefully on a blog in a long time. Hopefully I can return the favor. I'm swamped @ work right now, but am formulating a response. We'll see if it's helpful. :-)

[Scott M]

Hmmm. I have this vision of a personal screen and ear buds with a selector allowing me to choose each week from Chris Seay, Doug Pagitt, Brian Mclaren, Steve McCoy, James McDonald, and other noteworthy preachers. Why should I be confined to the same choice every week? And if one of them isn't on that week, a quick flick will allow me to switch to another channel. Or maybe I can just surf.

And from time to time I might even want to go be part of the studio audience...

[Steve McCoy]

Matthew, another thoughtful response. Thanks.

I do resonate with much of what you are working for, but I can't help but to feel very uneasy about the prospects of this position.

A couple of thoughts.

I hear you on Paul, and that's why I'm not saying video sermons are dead wrong. That's why I've said that churches who do this that I know of I have great respect for, and I count some of their pastors as very influencial in my life. But Paul isn't saying to go preach like these guys and it's okay. I'm sure he would say there are better motives, just as I'm saying there are better mediums.

I think there is a link between content and medium. In writing isn't sufficient, right? So we need to draw a line somewhere.

No doubt God can and surely does work through less than ideal circumstances. I'm not discounting that one bit. But just because God speaks through an ass doesn't mean I'm going to start herding donkeys. :) C'mon, that was funny.

I'm not willing to say that when Paul wrote that people won't hear without a preacher he really meant people won't hear without the content of a sermon. I think the person who delivers is crucial just as the message is crucial.

And sometimes (every time?) the medium is an instructive part of the message. We have so pulpiteered the preaching ministry that we forget that it's about "beautiful feet." Suffering is involved.

For example, I have preached sermons where I have felt ill over the message. Not nervous, but gripped by the weight of the content. My demeanor changed. My delivery was impacted.

Last thought. Every sermon I preach changes depending on who is sitting in front of me. People, my people, are a part of my sermon. I'm preaching to them in particular, not to the average Christian at my church. My application sometimes takes on new life because of people I see. Even service distractions play a role.

Anyway, I'm in a rush to finish up here. Looking forward to more interaction. This is really helpful for me to think through, and this thread of comments is very good.

[Steve McCoy]

Scott M, putting my name on that list is where your whole argument falls apart. I'm like Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who said he wouldn't cross the street to listen to himself preach. :)

[Susan]

Remote preaching? Maybe--just maybe.But the idea of remote pastoring is absolutely ridiculous. And isn't preaching (in the context of the local church, at least) a function of pastoring?

[Matthew Westerholm]

Well, it looks like the feeding frenzy has died down on this post. Maybe just a final response … then I'll start buying lunch for Steve.

I believe that video ministry can be a legitimate way of preaching. We are using it as a short-term solution. I know some churches are using it as their long-term plan, and that’s not me. I’ve got my own Bemus-Seat-questions to answer, and “why did you spend that much money on video” is not going to be one. Dumbjock’s David commented why not spend the money feeding the hungry. Good question. What is VideoChurch’s missions or compassion budget? I hope they are leveraging their ministry to do MORE for these types of people.

BobHyatt and Steve were both concerned that video campuses reduce church plants. That’s not the case at our church, and I would have to ask churches who ONLY videocast about their inability to grow new leaders.

Fr’nklin called video “popish” and suggested maybe we need more preachers who stink at preaching. I think I get his point while shuddering at his suggestion. Could this lead to pride in a senior pastor? Sure. However, I know pastors with a congregation of 80 -- filled with pride, and I work for a pastor with 9000 people in his congregation who lives in holy dread because of the number of people coming. “Who is sufficient for these things?” Paul was HUMBLED by the size and scope of his ministry (2 Cor 11:28-29).

One great concern is what Steve called “unction” of being in front of a specific group of people. My main question would be where does that unction come from? Does it stem from your ability to read body language and other social signs, or from the spirit’s working in your heart? I’m sure the line is blurrier than I’m making it, but I hope you see my point.

To quote John Piper: Nowhere “. . . in the New Testament do we get detailed instructions on how to organize the church for pastoral care and worship and teaching and mobilization for ministry. There were elders in the churches … and there were deacons, and there were goals of teaching and caring and maturing and praying and evangelizing and missions. But as far as details of how to structure the church in a city or in an area or even one local church with several thousand saints – there are very few particulars.”

So, BobHyatt, I don’t have a biblical problem with big churches per se (Acts 4:4 has a gendery word “men”, meaning you’re looking at 7,500 to 10,000– and Luke reports this as a blessing, not a pain in kiester). I don’t think 10 churches of a hundred are better than one church of 1000. But I also don’t think one church of 1000 is any better than 10 churches of 100. I think God left the particulars open so that churches could be structured in ways appropriate to different cultures. The wealthy churches and the poor churches; The medieval illiterate Europeans and today’s student groups at Harvard; The nomadic African tribe churches and architecturally enriched Europeans; the underground church of China and the state churches of Abraham Kuyper’s day; (The redwood forest and the gulf stream waters – now c’mon THAT’s funny).

This flexibility should be a call to the elders and the congregation of every church to fast and pray for God’s leading in matters that are not defined in the Bible – like videocasting or no video, multi-campus or single-campus, single services in big buildings or multiple services in little buildings, hymns with organ or praise choruses with drums, a single preacher or teaching team, and on and on . . .

[Matthew Westerholm]

favorite word of this whole discussion: "pulpiteered"

Nice work, Steve! That should be a word-verification on blogger...

[bob hyatt]

Good thoughts susan...

some push-back, if I may :)

My concern with VideoVenues is not that they reduce church plants.. I can see that a particular Big Church might plant 1 "real" congregation for every Video Venue... My point is simply "why?"

I have no evidence for my next statement and it will be inflammatory and step on a couple of toes, so I apologize in advance... but I need to put this on the table.

It seems like the greatest reason to choose a video plant over planting an autonomous congregation is just that... Video Venues are not autonomous. Even if they are in a city two hours from the mother ship. those running things at the mother ship get to determine vision, mission, budget, leadership. It seems like this is a way to continue to "count" the resources of a new church community on my tally. It also seems anti-baptist church polity ;) (that was for the home crowd...)

As for big churches, while it's tangential to this conversation, I'll take a crack... I don't think you can use the numbers of people reported as converts in the NT to support the existence of mega-congregations. The two situations are not analogous. Peter and Paul, I think, would have both shuddered at this... I know I probably shouldn't put words in the Apostles mouths, but the church in Acts met in homes, in the Temple courtyard (not a huge place), in synagogues... 3,000 Christians probably didn't meet in one place until quite a long time after the book of Acts.

I hear you on praying and asking for God's wisdom on these kinds of matters. That's why I think these discussions are so valuable... We are the Christian community (or at least a tiny slice of it) hashing out some things. Will I convince everyone of my point of view? Probably not... But maybe some. Will I adjust my stance and what I think about this issue because of this discussion... I think so :)

I may have missed it, so sorry to anyone who has offered it, but I still still haven't heard what I'm looking for. I see a lot of reasons why Video Venues are permissable (which I agree with). I haven't seen any reasons they are preferable- why we should choose Video Venues over planting another church and supporting it? What's the compelling reason for doing this?

[A. B. Caneday]

I agree with all your points, Steve. Video church poses very serious problems. I've posted on this topic (http://woodchipsandmusings.blogspot.com/2005/08/preachers-on-digital-steroids.html). I have more to say on the subject. Some day I may offer another post.

At a conference last week I was part of an extended discussion on this topic with three friends. One posed the theoretical thought that eventually the evangelical church in America could end up with perhaps ten preachers whose video preaching could be distributed throughout their respective regions. What a horrendous idea! We're well on our way to that foolish notion, though. Aren't we?

[James Paul]

I like the main idea of this post: Video preaching is counter-intuitive to the "motion pictures" of church planting and community.

However, I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that video ministry, in general, is a bad thing. I place this new phenomenon in the same category as great Christian books and audio sermons. I have been extremely grateful to have experienced the cross-pollination benefit of digital media while remaining faithful to my local church. IMHO ALL churches and denominations have strengths and blind spots. What an incredible grace to be able to eat at the table of several tribes while remaining planted in a specific house of worship.

[Greg Surratt]

Thought provoking discussion...the church I serve, Seacoast, plants churches (23 in the last few years), has video campuses (9 currently), and a video venue (only room for one on campus). I am also a fan of Mark Driscoll...should be interesting to watch what happens.

It would be fun to kick it around on several of the above topics, but I'm not a fan of long posts...especially my own.

I remember first feeling "called" to ministry. I resisted the idea because I could see no place for someone like me. I didn't fit the mold...grew up in a small pentecostal church...I could never see myself communicating in the only style that was available at the time. The definition of pastor was well defined and pretty narrow.

After serving as an assisting pastor in a larger church (300 people), I began to feel a less than subtle pressure from friends and family that to be a "real" pastor, I would need a church of my own where I did the preaching. What if my calling were to assist the "preaching" pastor? Was there room for more than one type of pastor or did one size really fit all?

Now the discussion centers around whether a church can be in more than one location...and does every location have to have a preaching pastor on site? Is it a one size fits all question again? And are the assumptions based mostly on past experience? How would Paul or Jesus, for that matter have used today's technology? I don't know...but I think they would have used it.

I do know that the dynamics of a healthy campus are pretty much the same as those of a church plant...with community being foremost. The difference? Not so much video (it tends to be a non-issue for most attenders)...it has more to do with the fact that the campus pastor feels called to lead, care and shepherd...and doesn't necessarily feel the call or gifting to preach every week.

In a closed system...he would never be able to fulfill that call. I'm glad the system wasn't as closed as I thought it was when I sensed God's call years ago.

[fr'nklin]

Steve,
Thanks for this great post, and thanks to all the "commenters"...it has really challenged my thinking. As always, I'm torn. The Scriptures don't seem to PROHIBIT the use of a video venue (per the Piper quotes), but Bob raises great questions...is this best? What is it really promoting? How does it further redefine church in Evangelicalism and is it really moving us towards a church that makes disciples?

My context is a large church in a mid-size city where people gather to hear an "expository" preacher and then leave and go home. We hear about marital problems a week before the divorce is final. Discipleship consists of completing a booklet, or going to a financial peace class. Sunday a.m. is THE event...and preaching is the tip of that iceberg.

So, this post has raised a huge question in my mind: what is (should be) the place of preaching in the church?

[Mark Perry]

I'm a bit late to this discussion but I think there is one aspect that has been overlooked that bothers me the most. It isn't the video preaching per se; I teach video production and know there are significant limitations of "talking heads". At the same time, I have been challenged by "talking heads" in both church and non-church settings. The key is the atmosphere in which it is shown.

What bothers me the most is what appears to be the acceptance of consumerism. A key aspect of consumption is utility maximizing; a consumer will behave/consume to maximize their utility. I am suspicious of people's motives when attending large, growing churches. Are they there because it is a great way to maximize their church utility or because they have a deep spiritual need? A related question is: what would they substitute (substitution is another key economic question for consumerism) for the mega-church? I'm not sure it would be another church. I suspect it would be another consumer trend (sporting events, shopping, etc.)

I am not suggesting we turn people away, or make church an awful experience. What I am suggesting is that too often we defend our methods with results; if churches are growing, people coming to Christ, we must be doing something right. I'm not sure that is the case. I believe the methodologies we employ communicate more in spiritual formation than the content. It seems the message of the gospel (in content and methodology) ought to be challenging all of us in our worldview.

[petew]

FWIW...Mars Hill has just posted an audio version of this month's Vox Pop magazine which is solely devoted to the video venue.

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks Petew. Very cool.

[Suzanne]

I have been attending Bethlehem Baptist North campus on and off since it open. As a single profession women in her 40's (not from the midwest) I have never been comfortable at the small baptist churches I attended. I felt like I was not a member of the married persons club. So, when the North campus open up I started attending but still feel very unattached. I am finding it difficult to follow what John is saying. I know a lot of people love his teaching but how about watching a video in a room with several hundred other strangers. I wanted to talk to someones about a singles program there so I email the website. All I got back was some trite answer from a young women who does something there. I am soon wondering what the difference between tv evangelism and videos. If no one know you are their why go? Alas... my bitterness about church shows.

[Reid Monaghan]

Steve,

A young buck friend of mine named Zach Harrod put me on to your blog. I have enjoyed it. I know this is late coming but I wanted to add a few additional concerns about video churches.

First, video venues "on site" when space is difficult do not bother me as much as strategies which are geographically disperesed. Along with your concerns - more pastors and church plants I would add the following:

1. Practical - Hebrews 13:7 - how does one obey this passage, if the outcome of our leaders way of life is not and cannot be known. How can the faith of a video guy be imitated

2. Theological - De-carnating the gospel. As much as we are about the incarnation and incarnational ministry, video preaching is going in the opposite direction - it seems we are creating a docetic preacher. The man of God, standing before God's people, proclaiming the word - not watching an image whom you could never give a hug...and it is sometimes about the hug.

3. Ecclesial Reason - Church polity - elder led churches will end up having a pluarlity of elders at the central site (or scattered) who give oversight to a number of geographically dispersed locations. As such stewardship of authority could be morphed into some sort of episcopacy. Where the "elders" in one location are overseeing "host pastors" in another. This seems to be a strain, if not an outright denial of elder led - congregational polities.

Bob makes a good point - certainly this is permissible (and good churches are following this path) but why should we make a decision and prefer it?

[Chris Mac]

Video preaching is an excuse not to raise up others around you to do as well as you and even go past you (Wow theres a thought !) . Barnabas and Paul ,Barnabas and Paul ,Paul and Barnabas .Thats what I see in Acts
Come on lets make disciples not followers of our latest ways and thoughts. Ive pastored many years now and have a string of guys behindme who I took a risk with and saw them come through to beng great for God

Chris Mac

[jeffre d.lewis]

the danger is video is a medium and the media can become the message,how does a video make personal contact it seems foolish.

if you want to know a false prophet he will be the guy who turns the church into a six flags over jesus theme park, easy believism and seeker friendly churches are foolish if you got to give them t shirts, light shows and rock music to getem ,youll find thats what it will take to keep them the world does not need a cheap imatation of its self from the church ,
neoevangelicalisam is the cancer of the church .solo degloria, the just shall live by fatih, if it is not the reformed faith it is no faith @ all.

just because a man says he has a master and a teacher does not mean that man is masterd and taught jhonthan edwards.......