Multi-Site Churches

Mark Driscoll (who is making quite a splash in the blogging world and beyond the last couple of weeks) has a post up on how Mars Hill is going multi-site with video venues.  I've already discussed their plans on Reformissionary, but he now makes the arguments for video venues.

Comments

[stepchild]

Since Driscoll doesn't allow comments on his blog, I'll post my thoughts here. It seems to me that "multi-site churches" are those that grow in number faster than they can disciple leaders. Unless Mark wants his entire ministry to revolve around him, why not raise up pastors for each additional service and location?

I'm going to make fun of Driscoll's "multi-site church" for the same reason I laugh at TBN. Pre-packaged, one-size-fits all church-in-a-box is Evangelical Globalization. I'll always prefer the mom-and-pop operations where the pastor knows my name.

[Joe Thorn]

I concede that a few churches grow so fast (some by God's blessing, others by the cult of personality) that managing it all is very difficult. I will also say that mega churches can be a healthy place to grow up in the faith. But "stepchild" has caught part of my problem with this idea. Where is the leadership trained to preach? Is no one capable? Why not plant other churches, cast vision for starting other churches, with their own unique place in the community and kingdom? The last paragraph in his post is sad. Pastors who can't handle preaching need to start selling insurance (or get their PhD). ;)

[Kevin Bussey]

I agree with both Stepchild and Joe. We planted a church in metro-Atlanta and the "biggies" were doing the multi-site then. We begged one of them to help us but they were putting all of the $$ in the multi-sites. I realize that the "Personalities-pastors" are much better draws than me. I would rather hear them myself. I just wish they would pour their lives into other like Stepchild was saying.

My one question is what happens (I hope it never does!) if one of those Mega-church pastors dies? What if they are killed in a accident? What happens to the multi-sites? They are so persoanlity driven, I'm afraid they will not continue. I hope I'm wrong.

[bob hyatt]

I sum up my thinking on video venues as: “Good problem, terrible solution.”
It’s great that some churches are filled and don’t know what to do with all the folks that are coming their way. My contention is that if you have the resources to plant a video congregation, you have the resources to plant a church and it would probably be better for everyone involved if a local community was allowed to be a local community.
Steve and I talked about this before here on his blog and on mine.

[Joni]

I don't have much to add to this discussion that hasn't already been said. I agree 100% with Steve and those who believe that video-church, while maybe a permissable option, is not a preferable one. Community is one of the most important aspects of church, for deep accountability, discipleship, encouragement, and godly fellowship. In my experience, that was lost in video churches, but it was also hardly present in the mother church in this case (Fellowship Church, TX). I see nothing wrong with watching videos of sermons as an additional growth tool in your spiritual walk, but not as your ONLY means of growth. For most people, the Christian walk requires deep interaction with other believers in order to flourish. In a gigantic church atmosphere, where you've never met any of the 5000 other people in the building, and they feel like it's not even necessary to have a live person doing the teaching, that personal aspect is lost.

So I do feel like the best option is for our popular pastors to really invest in and train up godly men to share the load and divide the masses in order to give them personal care. On the other hand, when I honestly look at myself and my own church, we're facing a similar problem. We've got 3 services on Sunday mornings, all preached by our head pastor, and we're currently looking into building a new worship center to hold more. If one week someone got up and told me that they'd like everyone on my end of town to start attending a church plant with a different preacher, I'd have a hard time being willing. I'm sure I would go, but I wouldn't like it. It's not that I worship our pastor or his personality, but his preaching really is effective in my life and situation. That's part of why we chose this church in the first place. (Of course, if they asked me to attend another building where our current pastor was just simulcast onto a big screen, I'd be even less likely to go.) So that's just another thought to add to the mix. What's the answer to that?

[bob hyatt]

I think the answer (just my opinion here) is that we make it a value from the very beginning of our churches to always be growing, but through developing leaders and church planting to never allow the size of our congregation to reach the point where we are spending massive amounts of money on infrastructure and just keeping the machine working.

If people know this is a value of the community and that someday, they might be asked to take part in a church plant to multiply the impact of this community they love, I think they'll be able to handle that a lot better. Besides... they can always get the "mother ship's" messages on podcast :)

I know this is a touchy issue for many. It's hard to say "I think more smaller churches are better than fewer bigger ones" without those in the big churches feeling that as a condemnation of sorts... but it's not. Just my feelings/opinion as to what's best for the Body as a whole... I recognize that big church "works" on a lot of levels and for many people.

[Paul]

Unfortunately (not only for Driscoll, but for others doing this kind of thing) it comes off as more ego-driven than ministry driven, and Driscoll already has to combat enough criticism about being ego-driven.

[Nancy]

I applaud the intent to reach out to the unchurched. However, implicit in the distribution of the video teacher/preacher is the message that "unless you are as gifted as Mark or fill-in-the-blank, then you are not qualified to teach/preach in this church." Who's interests are served when individuals, who may have God-given teaching gifts, are intimidated by this unnaturally high expectation of giftedness and quietly remain in the pews or committee meetings.

[Joe Thorn]

You know, I have not yet met one person who likes the satellite feeds. Not one. I know a number of people who have experienced it, and all have trouble with it. Now, I know that many people do like it. (Heck, a lot of people even like the Left Behind series, but I have not met any of them either - except for Steve).

I would like to hear from some who do like it. Who thinks this is the way to go.

[Kevin Bussey]

I do think there is a place for video venues--To jump start a church. My brother attends Johnson Ferry (Bryant Wright) in Marrietta, GA.

They started a Video Venue church last year but only to jump-start the church. After a year the "Pastor" began to take over the preaching\teaching duties. They have started several churches. Bryant even said in a "state of the church" address that he would even have a different style worship and separate pastor meeting in the chapel the same time he was preaching if it reached new people.

I like his mentality.

[Stuart]

Agree with everything that's been said thus far. I would only add this simple prayer.

Prayer: Lord, please don't let the Monday Morning Insight guys find this thread. Amen.

[Anthony]

Well since few seems to be looking at this idea positively... I think that God raise’s up leaders to lead his people how he wants. We may all have ways we think things should be done, but God has a way that He is going to do it. Be that with a few gifted Pastors or an army of them. It does not seem like satellite churches are buildings with just a video screen in which people roll in watch and leave. Each location has its own worship team and team of pastors, only the teaching is presented via video. I would believe as these churches grow (though it sounds like many think they will not I guess), if God calls righteous pastors in these locations to take over instruction the main church would follow Gods will in making that transition. It seems like that would only save resources for further plants.

It also seems to me that it in some ways follows what Paul, and early leaders would have done. If Paul had the technology to send a video to his church plants instead of a letter would he have? Didn't those churches exist with leaders in place who then in turn received and studied Paul’s letters of instruction with their churches?

Leaders should be raised up if they are called by God, if they are not, and forced into something they are not called by circumstance it seems they can cause more harm by working outside of Gods will. If the preaching is righteous and Gods chosen continue to come, I just don't see how we can be against the attempt because of preconceived notions rather than be for the lifting up of the name of Jesus.

[Chris Bell]

It seems that while Mars Hill is expanding their footprint in Seatle, they are at the same time centralizing. Centralizing the teaching, the finances, personel decisions, and all the rest of the administration and leadership. I am convinced that centralization is not what Jesus had in mind when he told his disciples in Acts 1:8 that they needed to go to the ends of the earth. As a matter of fact when they didn't spread out, God allowed persecution to disperse them. The sad thing in Acts is that the apostles stayed in Jerusalem and other Christ followers spread the gospel. The leaders stayed centralized and Jesus hand picked Saul to lead out in expanding the kingdom.

There is no doubt that Driscoll believes in planting churches, but there is also something very wierd about the whole thing. I personally could not sit at home while most of the people I am pastoring watch me on video. It does not sound very incarnational.

Second, I will be watching very closely to see if video venues will out last thier personality-gifted teachers.

P.S. - It is annoying that Driscoll doesn't allow commenting (interaction) - but it seems that he is very comfortable without interaction from those he wants to communicate.

[Ryan]

Really good disscussion here, I just wanted to throw out a question and see what everyone thinks.

We live in a highly personality driven culture. I understand and probably agree with the argument that if you have the resources to do the multi-site thing you should just plant another church, but in a culture that is attracted to personalities do you think as many people would come to the new church plant as the would the video site campus? I know this is a problem and agree that if one of these guys who are being streamed all over their cities gets hit by a truck then the whole thing is likely to come falling down, but I am still not seeing any alternative given the culture we are trying to reach. So this is where we are left with the question would we rather do what will reach the most people in the culture for the Gospel (emergents should like this) or do we just say lets stick with the old format because its more personal?

[Steve McCoy]

Ryan, I'm working on a post near that issue. I don't know if it will be up today or not. It's a good question.

[Steve Walker]

This topic is being discussed at Jesus Creed too.

[Joe Thorn]

My issue is not with the personality cult as much as it is with the M.O. of these churches; with their practical ecclesiology.

[bob hyatt]

but in a culture that is attracted to personalities do you think as many people would come to the new church plant as they would the video site campus?

Which people are we talking about? Do the unchurched know who the celebrity preachers are? Do they care?

It seems that in many ways, this is another way for the larger to eat the smaller... Because let's face it: just putting up a video feed of a big name preacher won't make the unchurched beat a path to your door.

So really we're talkingabout starting things for Christians... and that freaks me out a bit.

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.

More preachers, not less. More churches, not less.
The franchizing of big name churches is (IMHO) an unhealthy trend.

[JACK]

As an outsider, I'll dare say it: I don't consider these churches. At best, they are missions. I don't mean to suggest they can't be good things, but if they are intended as a long-term approach -- versus a way to establish a new church -- I just don't see how they can be considered a church in the fuller sense of that word. The presence of the pastor (hierarchy) with the congregation in worship is more than just a holdover from the "old, unsophisticated" days. It says something about who we are as Christ's people, as the Church. I'm concerned whenever I read about these franchises that the pastors, having grown up routinely in denominations that don't emphasize ecclesiology, don't realize that they are making choices about more than just practical, pragmatic things when they opt for a video feed of themselves to an auditorium.

[Darren Fox]

Driscoll has me convinced...but since I can't get his video feed in NC I think I'll just stay home and watch some other TV preacher. Afterall, if I need pastoral care I'm sure there is a form letter (Insert Name) Ministries can send me.

Seriously though, arguing for video venues indirectly gives anybody who wants to use the above arguement plenty of credence. This kind of pragmatism isn't healthy for the Body.

[ryan]

Bob
I have to disagree with you. "The unchurched" (I hate that term) do know the influential pastors in their area. You do not have a church that is considering multi-site campus format unless they have been quite effective in their communities and become well known. Throughout much of Seattle many unchurched know who Driscoll is and that is the draw people. Not to mention Driscoll and many others and Mars Hill have done a great job at getting into the community and making themselves known.Through word of mouth, hype and friends, many want to come and here for themselves what is going on. So it is faulty to assume we are talking just about Christians being taken from one church to another, we are talking about how to get the Gospel to as many people as possible in a culture that is driven by the sensational. I am not sold on the mult-church thing either but lets not trivalize the issue to being like a Wal-Mart coming in and gobbling up all the mom and pop shops. I am most concerned about the gospel and people hearing it, if that is by video than I am open to it. Churches that do go down this route will face many obstacles in trying to forge community and foster spiritual formation, but lets not be a bunch of indy cynics and just say it will not work just because it is big.

[blake w]

Doesn't Piper have a satelite campus? I am all for letting the elders lead out, but Driscoll's personality is huge for that church.

[Eric]

I appreciate this topic, mainly because it helps me sharpen my thinking on multi-site, which we have. Thus far, I think I've discovered about 9 critiques of multi-site:

1. Personality-driven / pastor-centric [very true]
2. Evangelical globalization (?) "one-size-fits-all" [not really sure this is a reality]
3. It's not as good as church planting [may be true, but doesn't argue effectively against multi-site on those grounds alone]
4. Lack of community [pretty good start]
5. Centralization [not sure this is bad]
6. Pragmatism [potentially bad in the long view]
7. Lack of leadership development [not sure that this is reality]
8. Smaller is better, not a critique, just an opinion [biblically, not sure this is true]
9. Faulty ecclesiology [yet to be seen]

If I were in a church utilizing multi-site (which I am) and desired to lead away from multi-site, then which of these 9 would be a good place to start?

Biblically, what would be the case that multi-site is a wrong-headed approach? BTW, don't think Acts 1:8 will work. Even after the church was scattered there remained centralization in both Antioch and Jerusalem.

BTW, Joe, I have a Ph.D. and preach each weekend -- it must be God's grace (smiling).

Thanks for the thoughts, and I'll be checking this out to see the responses (and respond to the responses).

[Matthew Westerholm]

"There is nothing new under the sun." It's good to see the same people holding the same opinions as the last time we talked about this. I still believe what I said then, video venues can be defended biblically (see the Piper quote on my comment), and can be considered wise based on a church's circumstance.

Now, whether churches are making this decision carefully and prayerfully, cannot be seen. There are many WRONG reasons for having video, most of which have been articulately surfaced in this discussion.

[Steve McCoy]

I was wondering when you were going to surface Matthew. How did you like what Driscoll said?

[P.o.C.]

It seems as though there are two issues that people are weaving in and out of. The first is whether a church should have a central venue with satellites around it. This is not bad in and of itself. There have existed denominations for centuries. One could think of a multi-site church as a mini-denomination. There is networking and support between them, I'd imagine. Biblically, sure, a case can be made.

The second issue is the video feed. My own thought is that if I want to see a movie, I'll go to a theater, not a church. I'm not the megachurch's first fan to begin with, but the concept of watching a video for 40 minutes in the middle of a worship service seems like it would stifle the spirit. I'd be sitting watching a training seminar video, not experiencing a sermon. Someone mentioned incarnation earlier. The Word preached is an incarnational experience, or supposed to be. This type of model would be too passive for me.

[stepchild]

"Sorry kids, but Dad's too busy to make it to dinner. Besides, there are so many of you! But don't worry, we've got video of him eating breakfast that we can watch on the monitor we've set up in his place."

"It's exactly like a gourmet restaurant, (e.g. cooks, waiters, fancy menu) with the exception that the food is reheated after being prepared and frozen by our master chef earlier in the day."

So I'm obviously not a fan of videochurch. It has nothing to do with whether or not it "works" (is that really the standard by which we want to measure our ministries?), and I don't think it's biblically right or wrong. I think it is a bad idea because a church is supposed to be a spiritual family. I don't like the message it sends to everyone (the members and the community) about what church is.

ChurchCasting is old news. These days, the megachurches are more than churches. They are Brands. For their version of church planting, many of them are currently marketing "church-in-a-box." Ed Young has "Fellowship Connection," Erwin McManus has the "Mosaic Alliance," and Rick Warren has well, whatever they call theirs. These brands actually sell franchise licenses (they call them "subscriptions").

Want to start a new Fellowship-type church? Just subscribe to Ed Young's program, and they'll send you everything you need: Bible study materials, Ed's preaching on DVD, even a sound system and video projector! We've been approached by a couple of these churches who want to reproduce themselves this way internationally. So I'm not being sarcastic when I call them "prepackaged, one-size-fits-all" canned churches.

To me, Driscoll's post reads like he's trying to convince himself that "multi-site" church is a good idea. Or maybe he's making a sales pitch for his own brand of PrestoChurch.

[JACK]

"One could think of a multi-site church as a mini-denomination. "

I realize my background probably makes me react to this a bit differently than some, but this also strikes me as part of the challenge. I'll set aside the global issue of reconciling this with our Lord's prayer. For now, I would just like to address this quote from the perspective of experience. Do people find that these multi-venue churches start behaving like a mini-denomination? If so, what do people think of that (working on the assumption that the church was originally part of some denomination)?

[P.o.C.]

The comparison wasn't meant to be a concrete one. However, there are similarities. A denomination with a more episcopal polity (Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist) have bishops that set the overall rule and tone for the entire network of churches. A multi-site church operates under the guidance of the Personality Pastor and perhaps a group of sub-pastors. He sets the rule and tone for the whole network. Of course, Catholic churches don't broadcast Benedict's Sunday Mass during their services.

But the concept of a church network with a single spiritual guide (or group) at the helm can be traced all the way back to the apostles. There is room for the comparison.

[Stuart]

In fairness, there are seldom two church who do "multi-site" exactly the same way. While I do have a real problem with the idea of watching the sermon on video, that really isn't my main issue as it may just be a matter of preference for me (Not sure yet).

My larger issue is ecclesiological. Satellite campuses aren't churches. If the congregants are truly a community of faith being led by the Spirit, the time will come when they will catch their own vision for what their church can or should look like. They'll begin to formulate their own ideas about how best to fulfill the mission. They'll have very different ideas about how to spend financial resources. But those dreams and ideas and that vision will always be contingent of the plans of others. Others, who, for the most part, don't worship at the satellite, don't know the people, and have no idea what the Spirit is doing in their midst.

Of course, if the people worshipping at the satellite aren't a community of faith led by the Spirit, then they're just people showing up to watch TV, and all that stuff about having their own vision and dreams and ideas is probably moot anyway.

[jason allen]

Why question is, "why do it?" I agree with the Piper quote that we don't have spelled out what it is all to look like at a local level in every detail. But I just want to ask, why video it instead of planting something new? Why multiple campuses?

It would be easier to believe that satellite campus is not about the focus on one personality if we actually had live preaching from different people. For me, the issue isn't really about the video per se, b/c I would have the same questions about the pastor who preaches at one campus to travel to another. (why not multiple campus with multiple teaching pastors?)

Does that make sense? Maybe this has been discussed and I just missed it so forgive me if it has.

But has anyone seen a reason given for multiple sites instead of church planting?

This is especially surprising in my mind from a guy who is so in favor of church planting.

I know there are some who attend (even lead) multiple church campuses here. So can someone help me to understand this. Does my question make sense?

[Joe Kennedy]

I recently stayed at the house of a couple who went to North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Ga. They loved the satellite format, and praised the fact that each location had a pastor in charge of it. He doesn't preach, but he is there for the congregation that attends that satellite. It's just that Andy does the teaching. Often these churches have pretty good pastor-teachers, and think it's beneficial for all the satellites to sit under the same teaching.

Personally, it doesn't attract me. But that's personal. It's been said that this model works well. They're right. NPCC has more campuses than some churches I know have members (exaggeration, but it feels that way sometimes). If it works for them, then wonderful. For me, I say raise up leaders who've sat under that great pastor-teacher, and send them out. Plant new churches, not satellites. I'm with Joe Thorn who asked at the beginning, "Where is the leadership trained to preach?" That's what I'm wondering, and praying nobody is overlooking.

[JACK]

P.o.C., my point was a bit different. Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't these multi-site churches part of existing denominations? I know you may have not meant the comparison to be a concrete one, but I'm asking whether it in fact might be a fair one. And if these multi-site churches are part of existing denominations, I must admit it only further raises the question to me about the ecclesiology that is embodied by these multi-sites.

"A denomination with a more episcopal polity (Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist) have bishops that set the overall rule and tone for the entire network of churches..... Of course, Catholic churches don't broadcast Benedict's Sunday Mass during their services."

I wasn't going to take it there, but since you have I think it is fair to comment. To elaborate on my point before, the fact that the sacraments in the Catholic Church cannot be performed remotely says something about the Catholic Church's ecclesiology and how it understands the way in which the Church is the prolongation of Christ's mission throughout time. Catholics could just broadcast the Holy Father's mass and homily and then distribute hosts that have been consecrated previously. But the Church doesn't. There is something about the physical presence, about what that presence is all about, about how Christ is made present through our presence, that the Church understands and so constructs its liturgy accordingly. (Same with other sacraments. No confession by phone, for example, because there is something to the hearing of the words of absolution in the presence of another that is important to the understanding of the sacrament.) Even in the Catholic understanding of what constitutes a particular Church of the universal Church and the relationship of the Bishop of Rome and the local bishops and their clergy emphasizes that there is something important about physical presence in how we understand ourselves as Christians and members of the Body of Christ.

I offer all that up, not to promote Catholic ecclesiology, but just as an example of what I meant when I say that the decision to set up a multi-site church isn't a neutral one when it comes to ecclesiology. I think others have made this point as well and from different angles.

[P.o.C.]

Well said, Jack. I agree.

[Chris Bell]

At the center of this discusion is the question: "What is the best way to expand God's Kingdom through the local church?"

Eric, in response to the centralization of the chruch in Jerusalem and Antioch. It is evident that Peter, James and other apostles remained in Jerusalem. But what was the command v. 4-8. Wait for the Spirit, then be my witnesses to the ends of the earth. I see the apostles desire to centralize in Jerusalem as contrary to God's command.

In fact, in Acts 8 it says everyone was scattered except the apostles - the very ones Jesus told to go to the ends of the earth! Even when Peter was lead to Cornelius he returned to Jerusalem . . . In Acts 9 we see the conversion of Saul the very person God used to scatter the chruch and who God used to continue to expand his kingdom. And in ch. 11 we once again see that those who were scattered by the persecution were spreading the gospel and starting the chruch in Antioch. It was not the ones in Jerusalem that God used. It was the scattered.

Furthermore, I see no evidence that the church in Antioch sought to centralize Christianity in Antioch. They were the "sending" church and the first place people were called Christians. Finally, the Jerusalem church appears one last time confirming that God has indeed spread his church even among the uncircumcised gentiles. The Jerusalem chruch is left watching what God is doing instead of taking an active role.

Related to this particular post, the strategy of using video venues promotes the idea that we must centralize to be most effective.

Successful movements are formed around beliefs and not a particular person or group of people. For instance the civil rights movement was spearheaded by M.L. King but it was the beliefs he held and shared that sustained the movement not the individual. As Christians, we are the only movement that can have it both ways. We have a strong belief that sustains us, and we also have the Holy Spirit who leads us.

Wade Burson understands this. If all of the stuff happening with the IMB trustees centers on him and not his belief about being cooperating conservatives it will begin and end with his tenure as a trustee and nothing will change.

The medium of video venues tells people (believers and unbelievers)that the person they are seeing on the screen is so special that no one else between here and the mothership is capable to teach God's word to the congregation. The medium of communication sometimes says more than the actual words spoken.

I believe Driscoll could have a larger impact by training leaders and starting more churches.

sorry for rambling . . .

[Eric]

Chris, thanks for your thoughtful response. I didn't think it was "rambling" at all. I would simply and humbly suggest that Acts 15 promotes the idea that Paul and the church at Antioch understood the centrality of leadership in Jerusalem. And I'm not quite convinced that the apostles disobeyed Christ's command, since Scripture doesn't confirm that suggestion (the reference in Acts 8 was not condemnatory). I would also add that Antioch was the place to which Paul returned following His missionary journey, so there is some form of centralization in that respect as well. Perhaps your definition and my definition of "centralization" is different, and we're probably speaking of different things.

Secondly, some have equated multi-site with "no leadership development," if I am reading correctly. To the contrary, leadership development is an absolute necessity for multi-site ministry, in my (often humbled) opinion. In order to overcome the real obstacle of community, the "mothership" (smiling on that one) must develop and train pastoral leadership so that the atmosphere for community within the satellite may sustain the tight bonds of fellowship.

Also, I find it interesting that some have suggested that a gathering of believers who worship Christ together and seek to live for Him and reach others for Him do not constitute a church because of a video screen or because of their connection with the "mothership" (again, smiling). I have a difficult time finding biblical support for that kind of ecclesiology.

Also, the question arises, "Why do it?" Perhaps for some churches it is the style, content, etc. of a particular preacher. For some churches it may be that the resources of the "mothership" are more accessible to the satellite community. For some churches it may be that they believed it was the best answer to a growing congregation that had no more room. More than likely, it is a combination of these and other issues. I believe wholeheartedly, however, that the vast majority of these churches envisioned this approach to be a faithful way to exalt Jesus and expand His kingdom.

We may not "like" multi-site ministry. We may believe that there is a "better way" to do church. But these churches are doing it (moving from theory to praxis), seeking to be faithful to a "missional" strategy, seeking to follow a biblical paradigm by sending men and women to a geographical place for God's glory. That they use a video screen with a talking head, IMHO, does not diminish their faithfulness to Christ's call.

Thank you all, again, for allowing me to think through these issues. I am still listening.

[Rick Bennett]

Stepchild said "To me, Driscoll's post reads like he's trying to convince himself that "multi-site" church is a good idea."

You have hit on the head. Mark is selling himself on an idea he hates but nevertheless is doing.

At early Acts 29 conferences and other Young Leader events, Mark continuously talked about never letting his church go above 1200-15oo. If it started to get there, there would be a plant with one of the leaders from his church planting it (i.e. Gunn and Harambee). This anti-megachurch idea was central to his philosophy of growth.

This is the irony. I have no problem with Mark thinking differently than his early days. But, I think he may still have a part of himself that hates what his church has become (in this sense only). Our convictions always come back to bite us, when we act contrary to them.

The other irony regarding Mark's blog is his belief in midrash (but, I cannot blame him for not having all the Markites and Anti-Markites comment on every post, since they sit at home waiting for his next statement).

[Rick Bennett]

Stepchild said "To me, Driscoll's post reads like he's trying to convince himself that "multi-site" church is a good idea."

You have hit on the head. Mark is selling himself on an idea he hates but nevertheless is doing.

At early Acts 29 conferences and other Young Leader events, Mark continuously talked about never letting his church go above 1200-15oo. If it started to get there, there would be a plant with one of the leaders from his church planting it (i.e. Gunn and Harambee). This anti-megachurch idea was central to his philosophy of growth.

This is the irony. I have no problem with Mark thinking differently than his early days. But, I think he may still have a part of himself that hates what his church has become (in this sense only). Our convictions always come back to bite us, when we act contrary to them.

The other irony regarding Mark's blog is his belief in midrash (but, I cannot blame him for not having all the Markites and Anti-Markites comment on every post, since they sit at home waiting for his next statement).

[Alex]

It is an interesting phenomenon that BISHOP Driscoll is defending, and there's no question that the idea is spreading. I mentioned on my blog a church in Charleston SC that has "satellite" locations in several other cities, up to 3 1/2 hours away. Where does it stop?

It sure seems like personality/celebrity driven church to me (as opposed to Word centered- even if those involved are great and orthodox teachers.

[Steve McCoy]

Alex, I've said before that the next step was satellites at great distances. I didn't realize it was already happening. Thanks for that info.

[Alex]

http://www.seacoast.org/

[Chris Bell]

Steve, check out www.lifechurch.tv they have 5 campuses in OK, one in AZ, and one in Fort Worth, TX. All of them have the same video feed. I also remember an article in Vision magazine awhile back when this phenom began.

Anyway check out thier website they define in a short paragraph what they mean by one chruch in multiple locations.

[Darrin Patrick]

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.

Here are the questions our elders are wrestling with:
Do I just burn out to stay authentic with the people? Or, is this video thing a way to maximize my gift? Which is more authentic, using video or slipping out of the service early to drive to the other location we meet at in order to be with them live? Can I physically and emotionally handle preaching 4 and 5 times a Sunday? Will we be able to afford to hire more staff so I can teach less? What happens if I get in a car wreck? How can we lead our people to value other teaching gifts, even if it is not as edifying to them?

Sorry this got so long. Thanks for reading.
I’ll check back in periodically to see if I can further the discussion
Peace, brothers and sisters,
Darrin patrick

[Joe Thorn]

Darrin,

Thank you for your words. I find them helpful, both in tone and perspective. We are all very excited about what God is doing through you all down there!

[Steve McCoy]

Darrin, great comment and very helpful points. Thanks for shedding some light on how you are dealing with growth issues at The Journey.

[stepchild]

Steve, that's what I was trying to say in my last post- some of the mega-churches want to set up satellites overseas. The IMB City Strategists in at least three cities in Western Europe have been approached by churches looking for help in doing just that.

[jason]

I echo Joe and Steve, thanks Darrin, I appreciate your insight, humility, and tremendous heart to reach and people in STL.

[Chris Bell]

Thanks for sharing Darrin. I will be praying for you and the ramining elders at The Journey as they make a decision.

[Chris Bell]

What does everyone think about Driscoll's comment that, "Subsequently, the alternative to an impersonal church with a gifted preacher is a personable church with a less gifted preacher"?

[P.o.C.]

Chris, my thought is that Driscoll makes no bones about his priorities in church and ministry. Obviously preaching is much more important to him than making connections with the pastor and fellow congregants. And actually, I don't appreciate the assumption that smaller churches=less gifted preachers. I'm not clear as to how it has to be either-or.

A megachurch centers around its Personality Pastor, so good preaching (or at least charismatic speaking...there's a difference) is a must. We'd all love to have both good preaching and personable community, of course. At least I would. I know middle-sized to larger churches that offer neither, too.

All of this is to say that one does not equal the other and he sets up too rigid a contrast. You don't just go to church to hear the sermon. A church is a community and we are called to build up that community.

[JACK]

Darrin,

Your post really struck me. As much as I may have criticized the multi-site idea above and hold reservations about it, you have given a truly human face to the matter. Thank you for that. It is too easy to get caught up in the ideas and the theories of the matter, but you've brought me back to standing before a real situation and a real problem.

I've had some difficulty relating to parts of this thread, because my experience of church is very different than many of you. Some of your comments struck me, in that, I had to ask myself when was the last time I went to church because of the preaching? Has to have been a half dozen years or so. But your comments, Darrin, really hit home for me how much the experience of church is wrapped up in the preaching at your church (and presumably others). And the problem that creates is that the service then hinges on you. It's linked with you in a way that the Catholic mass isn't dependent on the particular priest, for example. Which means that this decision involves your "I" in a very intense way. (Which I think you expressed well in your post.)

Is video screens the answer? In some ways, I can see how one in your position might say, it is (to a degree). You are human, limited and finite. In some way this is an embracing of that fact of our nature, recognizing that you cannot be everywhere and that some will have to experience you through methods that don't involve you as directly (i.e., your writings, recordings of your sermons, etc.)

But in some way the solution feels as though it may just be a vicious feedback loop, because it is in some ways a running away from our limitedness and finiteness. Through technology, we can be bigger than we are, less limited and finite. But we will never be the Unlimited or the Infinite. So in some ways isn't the solution taking the approach of figuring out how to spread the same amount of butter over more bread? And doesn't that mean we have only come up with a band-aid, not a real stable, balanced solution that will generate true freedom?

I cannot answer that question. But I think Darrin, you've expressed very well the challenge of a man standing in front of this problem.

I'm often drawn back to the fact that even during Jesus' lifetime, for some, the face of Christ was not Jesus' face, but Jesus as made present by his disciples. (I forget which part of the Scriptures it is in, but you can read of Jesus sending his disciples off and they work miracles in His name.) We all know this method to be true because it is very much how Christ has been made present throughout history and how we were able to meet the One even though he walked the earth so long ago. But I do wonder whether, when we find ourselves in teaching/leadership positions, we tend to behave as if we are different than Jesus in this dimension.

Again, thanks Darrin for your post. Truly, you've helped bring some light to a dimension that has (at least by me) been a bit overlooked.

[Geoff Surratt]

Great discussion. Sorry to jump in so late, but I'd like to share a little about the church in Charleston, SC that has satellites 3 1/2 hours away. (3 hours if don't stop on the way.) I am on staff at that church and helped start our offsite campuses.

We faced a similar dilemna to the one described by Darrin four years ago. We were out of space and out of service times, so we reluctently began using video teaching at an offsite location. For whatever reason, God seemed to bless this new campus as dozens of people began to commit their lives to Christ for the first time. Since that time we have opened eight additional campuses and have seen hundreds of people come to know Christ through the foolishness of video preaching. Each campus has a pastor who shepherds the people; the only pastoral role he doesn't fill is speaking for 30 minutes on Sunday morning. He is responsible for all the other care and feeding of his flock.

Multi-site and church planting for us have been a both/and proposition. When we identify a leader with a strong teaching gift we help him plant a church (we just helped plant our 25th autonomous church in four years this past weekend). When we identify a leader with great pastoral gifts who is not neccesarily a strong teacher we help him open a campus. The reality has been that our campuses seem to fair much better than the autonomous churches, but we continue to do both.

I would agree with those who do not call video venues churches. We see ourselves as one church which meets in many locations; not disimilar to churches who have multiple services. Each of our sites and services make up the whole which is one church.

I was as skeptical as many of the others who have commented when we began using video teaching. I don't watch tv preachers and the thought of watching 30-40 minutes or more of a talking head did not seem spiritually engaging. But as I have had the opportunity over the past four years to experience the life of these campuses and to hear the stories of many people whose lives have been changed I've become convinced that teaching by video is simply another way to become all things to all men so that by all means we might save some.

[Chris Gensheer]

Great comments. Just a thought to bounce out there. How much "community" actually occurs in your churches during the Corporate Worship time?

I agree with most of us on this discussion, that I too am leary and hesitant to jump on the "lets go video" bandwagon; but I can't say that I dislike it for the same reasons. With me, its just a preference as to communication style - living breathing flesh and blood is more engaging than a video screen. I can't say that I participate in Corporate Worship primarily for community, either. For me, that happens throughout the ins and outs of life. For a brief period of time on Sunday though (or whenever you happen to meet), I come together with my community, and we direct our focus onto God through that corporate worship time. If the preacher/pastor happens to instruct via video and screen, then so be-it, as long as he is preaching the Word faithfully, pointing my head and my heart to the throne of God.

Maybe another question to ponder is: do we dislike the video/multi-site church approach b/c we are too dependent on our corporate time together to foster and build community?

What do you think?

[Rick Bennett]

My final thought is this....

just because technology allows us to do something we were not able to do in the past, is it right?

I cannot fully answer the question in this case. I know we can say yes, due to the printing press, computer, phone, all used in becoming more effective ministers.

But, do we think that technology is a god (small g)in that it should be used to grow us in certain ways, just because it is there and we can use it for growth.

As mostly reformed pastors, does this mean we assume it is our preaching and technologies advancement that causes the growth in this church? If we have an issue (such as space, number of good preachers, etc) and technology can solve the issue for us, does that mean we must always assume that technology is here to serve us and break the barriers impeding explosive growth?

I am just asking with no agenda. I have read too much Wendell Berry in my day and always have questions about these issues.

[jason]

How do you guys think the regulative principle fits here? I personally don't hold to a very strict form of it, but with the previous post raising the issue of "reformed pastors" I figure there must be some here who do. I know that at least some (like Don Whitney at Southern) would probably raise some issues with it b/c of that.

what do you think? Anyone have problems based on this?

[J.D.]

I have the pastoral care/community concerns with the idea of satellite campuses that many of the previous posters have as well. These problems crop up in any church that gets beyond a certain size (and no, I'm not picking any particular number - I believe it varies from one place to the next).

My biggest concern with video venues is this: what if the lead pastor suddenly died, fell ill, fell into serious sin, etc? Where would that leave the church?

Jesus chose 12 disciples, not one successor. When we base the worship service around the schedule and availability of one man, the way video venues do, I think we place far too much on the shoulders of one gifted, yet still flawed, person.

I think Mark Driscoll is a wonderfully gifted preacher. I think that if Mars Hill decided against video venues and planted churches with other pastors who were gifted with teaching, but perhaps not to the degree of Driscoll, there would be short-term (and maybe some long-term) difficulties.

But what if Mark would not be available tomorrow? Wouldn't that create considerable short- and long-term difficulties as well?

The gift of teaching is important - as a pastor, I value it highly. Yet teaching is not the sole mark of the church. Community, fellowship, and worship are vitally important as well. Satellite campuses simply cannot provide these to the degree that a local church, with its own covenant and leadership, can. Don't we believe that God can use less gifted teachers to bless his people in a way that more gifted teachers could not? Might this encourage people to study the Bible on their own a bit more, rather than simply "wait for the Word on Sunday?" I think these are at least possibilities.

The early church did not revolve around one man. Jesus made sure of that. I think the short-term growing pains (and there would no doubt be pains) of planting churches with less-experienced, maybe even less-gifted, teachers are definitely worth the risks associated with it.

One day, the dynamic teacher will be gone. The more teachers we have in the churches on that day, even though they may be less gifted, the healthier the church will be from a teaching perspective, and certainly from the community, fellowship, and worship perspectives.

[jason]

I think Chris raises some good questions about community in our worship gatherings. Will community happen looking at the back of someones head while someone preaches whether live or via video? Maybe community has to happen around the gathering time not during it. If that is the case then maybe the concerns about community (within the gathering time) is a bit overstated.

what do you think?

[Kevin Bussey]

Geoff and Darin,

Thanks for sharing your stories. God works in ways we don't understand. If people are coming to Christ and are being discipled, I'm all for it. I guess all of this comes down to preferences. Some will like it and others won't. As Paul said as long as Christ is preached, I rejoice. Thanks again for sharing what God is doing in MO and SC. That's cool!

KB

[Joe Thorn]

Jason,

Concerning the regulative principle - we always have to determine what constitutes an "essential" element of worship, and what is "accidental." For example, preaching is essential, the length and format is accidental. In theory, the gathering could still have elders, ordinances, singing, offering, etc. and maintain the preaching of the word via sat'. I think there would certainly be room for this in the minds of many who value a form of the regulative principle.

What did we do before sat feeds? It's a question worth talking about.

[Joe Thorn]

Oh, and "community" is not something we have or do, as much as it is something we are. Just my thoughts on that.

[Ray Van Neste]

Can you truly shepherd souls in video venues? If the oversight of souls (Heb 13:17) is the essence of pastoral ministry (which I would argue), can this be done in video venues? Isn't there something essential about the one doing the preaching of the word being amongst the people? (Of course this would be a problem with mega churches as well). Are we really seeking to build communities of faith or just drawing crowds?

[jason]

Joe, thanks for the comments about reg. principle. I think some, would disagree with you. I know Whitney is against any form of video in worship, at least he was 3-4 years ago when I spoke with him about it. He may have changed his view.

[Joe Thorn]

I am not arguing for the feeds, only showing how some would reconcile the two within the reg' principle. I tend to believe that preaching and pastoral care are intertwined. You may have onsite elders, and offsite preaching, but in my mind it seems to weaken the "care."

[P.o.C.]

Re: community, Driscoll makes a distinction between personable churches and impersonable churches. His linking impersonable churches with good preaching illustrates his priority, i.e., who cares how big the church is as long as the preaching is good?

Worship is in a sense corporate and communal, even if one is only looking at the back of someone's head. Even though our hearts are to be directed toward God, we are directing our hearts together. While there is little face-to-face interaction, we are engaging in this sacred time together. True, gathering time or class time is better suited for fellowship and conversation, but in a corporate worship setting, we need to fight the temptation to think of it as a wholly individual exercise, as if a bubble forms around us when the music starts.

This is all in relation to Driscoll's statement about impersonable churches, so ultimately it's a larger issue than worship. How deeply can people connect at a 1000+ member church during gathering time or otherwise? Can one person's need get adequately communicated to others, or is that only the concern of his/her small group?

Community is indeed something we are, but it's also something we build and to which we contribute.

[bob hyatt]

Joe said:
" In theory, the gathering could still have elders, ordinances, singing, offering, etc. and maintain the preaching of the word via sat'. I think there would certainly be room for this in the minds of many who value a form of the regulative principle."

This is my single biggest issue with satellite campuses. In many (most?) cases, the vision and mission of the church is being driven by a group of people who live three hours away. A campus pastor is one thing. An indigenous group of elders and a community able to discern the voice of God for their particular context and act on it without seeking permission from a group of elders living one state over is another...

[Steve]

Hey, I've got a great idea. Why don't we just vote on the best of all the preachers, and let him preach in all of our churches? If one guy can grow many satellites, maybe the best of the best could save the English-speaking world!

[Chris Gensheer]

While I appreciate the sarcasm and humor of your comment Steve, I would question the validity of and caution against the other extreme - namely, a church for every microcosm and facet of contemporary culture.

First off - I wholeheartedly agree that ever church (localized group of Christians) should struggle and strive together to follow Christ's call in their world. But how unique is that world? How deep do you take the idiosyncreties (spelling?) of every people group within a major metrolpolitan area, or deep southern small town, and orient the church around those groups.

While Christ didn't intend to have the weight of the Church rest on one man (apostle, missionary, etc...), I also don't believe that He intended for each & every church to be a fragment ministering to each individual microcosm either. Yes, a church should look and act differently when in totally different cultures (i.e. New York City different than Sudan Village, different than Bogota, Columbia, different than Augusta, GA), but does a church in a major city (like Seattle, Atlanta, New York), necessarily need to plant a church for every major people group in that area? Where is the body of Christ working together as one body, many different parts, coming together to celebrate and worship the God that brings them together through the Gospel?

This may be a slightly off topic here, so let me know if it should be someplace else. Just thought it to be a comment worth mentioning in relation to the Big Church/Video preaching vs. Small Church/Close Personal connection w/ preacher discussion.

[Steve]

OK Chris, that's a valid topic. But this isn't my blog, and I can't legitimately answer your question about it being on target or off here.

But still (this question is for anyone, not just Chris), if the video venue is a good way to go, the guys with the biggest churches have proven their effectiveness. We all (or most of us, I think) like reading, watching, or listening to Mark Driscoll. He probably could draw a bigger crowd on video than many of us do live and in 3D. So why not expand this concept to include all of our churches?

[Steve]

The trouble with blogs is that we can't hear each other's tone. So yes there's some sarcasm and some humor in my comment. But there is no anger or resentment.

I'm just thinking through all of these comments. All the reasons given for using video venues could be used to support all churches showing videos of the best of the best, couldn't they?

If the reasons don't work for going this direction will all churches, why do they work with a single geographical area or the multi-geographical areas?

[stepchild]

Chris- Why not have a church for every people group in a city? I say, let's have a church for every block in the suburbs and every apartment building in the city.

A few comments back, somebody mentioned that since people in big churches end up finding community in smaller groups anyway, maybe the flesh-and-blood/jumbotron question shouldn't be a big deal. The way I see it, if it's too big/distant to have community, it isn't a church. Lots of bigger churches program-in community through cell groups and Bible Study groups and discipleship groups. I believe that these smaller, more personal groups are really churches. Corporate worship times are great, but I've rarely seen them develop into "spiritual family" in a way that provides true relationship and accountability.

I say, instead of doing a video feed, get rid of the sermon altogether! If there aren't any gifted speakers, or attractive personalities in the group, maybe it's beacuse it they aren't necessary. If it's just about getting people in the door, give out door prizes, or free pizza or something.

Darrin said that one problem was that "there are very few guys who can plant a church." I disagree. I think God can use anybody to do it.

[Chris Gensheer]

Steve - great thoughts and questions. And I didn't mean to imply any anger from your comment above (please forgive my assumption of your tone).

You do bring up an interesting question. If the big screen/video is an ok avenue to go for "corporate worship", then why not just watch 1 Main Guy among every church. Just stating it outloud...I don't like the thought. But that doesn't mean its bad - just a preference. I think that's an easy line to cross in discussions like this - we all want to take up for our position when it may just be a preference instead of a principle from scripture. After all, "in those days, Peter stood up among them procalaiming the word of God."

About planting a church on every block in an urban environment - let me just say Amen! I'm all for it myself. But how many blocks are made up of just 1 type of "people group"? What I am getting at is any church in any environment is going to be made up of a diverse range of people, not just one type of group. I don't see it being healthy if every church was overly-narrow in scope. Geographic location is great; segmenting church's beyond this tends to lead to exclusivity and further fragmentation. One of the greatest joys and benefits of "corporate church together" is to get outside of ourselves and actively join Christ's visible church - as diverse groups of people who are bound together by the Gospel, nothing else.

About getting rid of the sermon altogether - bad idea, IMHO. Plus, help me see where the intent of church was to be for the fostering of community in scripture?

[Steve]

Chris,
I didn't think you implied any anger on my part. I just wanted to be clear with anyone that may read my comment that my humor and sarcasm was not prompted by anger. I'm actually enjoying this discussion.

You're rejecting the 1 Main Guy because you don't like it. Can we all be honest? We're all just going to draw an arbitrary line somewhere. We don't like video feeds anywhere. Or we think they're OK locally. Or we think they're OK within 150 miles of the main church campus. Or whatever. My point is that if it is OK locally, it ought to be OK globally...in principle. But 1 Main Guy even nationally probably gives us all the willies. And I'm willing to suggest that's because we inherently see it's not God's design for the church.

The church I pastor is not a house church. But weren't all the churches in the NT house churches? At least after they got kicked out of the Temple?

Which model better fulfills the principles given in all the "one another" commands in the NT...video churches, or stepchild's suggestions? Which model better accomplishes Heb 10:24-25?

Chris, you seem like a great guy. But I'm wondering if other people have different views? Anybody else want to jump in?

[stew]

What if the power goes out?

[stepchild]

Chris, I don't think the intent of church is fostering community. I think the nature of church is community. Things like communion (the relationship, not the little cups of grape juice), fellowship, accountabiity, encouragement, and working together of gifts, don't make sense outside the context of community.

Steve, thanks for letting us go on and on here. I'm sorry if we've taken it farther than you intended with your post. Next time, if I'm going to go off like this, I'll do it on my own blog!

[Steve]

Chris,
I just re-read my last statement, and thought, "WOW, that sounds really bad." I'm sorry for a very poor attempt at saying...

Chris I'm really enjoying this discussion with you. I wonder if anyone else has other thoughts.

Please forgive me for not being clear.

Also, I AM NOT Steve McCoy. Just want to make sure no one flames him because of me. Having the same first name can confuse people, but he is always good to use his last name.

[Charis Aletheia]

Just wanted to make everyone aware of another blog post on this topic found here:

http://idsaudio.com/blog/?p=111

I thought the author had some insightful comments.

Thanks.

[Chris Gensheer]

Hey Steve (not McCoy),

No prob my friend!

[P.o.C.]

Church is not only about fostering community, but it seemed pretty important in the NT. Jesus says to 'love one another as I have loved you.' Paul encourages different churches to build one another up, to consider the important parts of the Body of Christ and states that 'knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.' Acts 2 tells of the way the apostles and others took care of one another by having all things in common, etc.

I'm sorry that people have taken my posts to mean that that is the only meaning of church. I'm wondering how this one aspect of church can be nurtured in a 5000-member environment.

[Joe Thorn]

Check out Drew's post at his blog here.

[Chris Gensheer]

Hey P.O.C.,

Great thought, and yes community is very, very important to church, especially in the NT. I didn't mean to infer either that this what you were driving at in your posts, so please forgive me if you got that from anything I have said or commented on.

From my experience and persepctive, I have seen too many church's and ministries get so caught up into community that they end up existing for nothing more than the community itself. And this is what I have in mind when I talk about cauting against extremems. Personally, I see nothing wrong with large member church's, video venues, etc..., IF...and IF, there is life-touching, Gospel centered transformation happening throughout the church and its various members. Logistically, this looks weird or different when you're talking about 5,000 or 500 or 50 - but principally this should be happening in all our church's. But this is speaking of church as the localized group of believers, living their lives with each other on a regular and consistent basis. Another way to speak of church is to look at the visible assembly of this group of people - corporate worship, communion, baptism, etc. . This corporate assembly is important, and too often, I hear of and see people wanting to throw out this aspect of our church life together, simply b/c it doesn't tend to foster community to listen to someone preach, or to sing songs that particular way or I don't like to sit in a stuffy building with chairs/pews....you get the idea!

I think as you look at some of these larger church's, and in particular ones that are adopting or considering a Video feed approach, instead of focusing on how they do V-church (visible) for an hour or so on Sunday, we should look at how they are doing all that they can to encourage one another in love and truth, as well as ministering to the specific "world" around them. I think as we do this, we'll probably discover that these large church's primarily got that way because they have a very strong and healthy sense of community, leadership development, equipping of the saints, care for the broken/hurting/downtrodden.

Or, P.O.C. to answer your last question - the care and nurture of the flock may be occuring in ways and in places outside of that corporate assembly time of the church.

Does any of this make sense, or am I way off base here?

[Dan Harper]

I found this post as was looking at ways to reach new people. It is unclear to me whether or not those who have posted here are senior pastors, as it does make a difference. Most of this blog centers around video-church. What I am not hearing is your heart to reach the lost in our world. I grew up hearing that the only reason mega-churches are big is because they preach an easy believism. I have attended a number of them and they are anything but. in fact, I was impressed by the level of commitment and expectation presented.

Since I have become a senior pastor and started to research this growing phenom, I realzed some of the critics of mega-churches would have criticized Jesus as he had a staff of 12, services that reached 4000 to 5000 or more; the diciples - they had over 3,000 saved on one day & the Lord was adding to their number daily.

My point is this, you're blogging about what these large church pastors are doing rather than going to them (mt 18) and asking them what their heart and passion is. It also is apparent in this blog that many of you are not leaders. If you were, you would understand how hard it is to pass on vision, and call people to action. It seems they are still being able to accomplish that and yes that transends personality. Personality will draw some people, but it doesn't lay the ground work for developing new leaders. That is a tough row to hoe.

Rather than criticizing there style, why don't you gather up a group of people, disciple them and start a new ministry trend. It will be harder than you think, especially when you get naysayers blogging about how you don't have it right.

Leadership 101: If there's a problem, don't come to me and complain about it, have an action plan to do something about it. Monday Morning Quarterbacks are a dime a dozen, mere pretenders rather than contenders.

My question to all of you...what are you doing about reaching and discipling the lost? These pastors may not have the perfect solution, but at least they are trying.

[Micah]

Dan,

First, this post is 3 months old and really should be left alone.
Second, if you would take a few moments and read through other post on this blog and from the blogger himself you would realize that many of us are pastors. And as a matter of fact, many of us love Mark Driscoll and what he is doing in Seattle to reach the unchurched. There are many here who probably lift Driscoll up higher than we should in the church planting world.
Third, your analogy of the mega-church to Jesus is ridiculous.
Fourth, no one here is critiquing Driscoll on the fact that he is to big or to popular. They are saying that these venues don't seem to be the best option IN LIGHT OF THE SCRIPTURE.

Micah