Video Preachers at Multi-Site Churches
48 comments | PermalinkTullian Tchividjian:
Multi-site churches where the preacher is live at one site but videoed in at another location simultaneously seems to be all the rage right now. One Portland church planter, however, doesn’t think so. In a recent column on Leadership Journal’s Out of Ur blog, Bob Hyatt, founding Pastor of Evergreeen Community Church, wrote:
The celebrity church must die. And doing anything – like video venues – that prolongs its life, even in the name of the lost, runs counter to the best interests of the Church in all its expressions, big and small, and its mandate to see more people not only reached, but gifted, trained, and sent.
Regardless of what you may think of everything Bob says here, I think when it comes to the whole video preacher thing, he’s on to something.
Read the rest of his post here.
posted by Andy Naselli at Tuesday, August 19, 2008
48 Comments:
I would rather listen to John Piper or Tim Keller or CJ Mahaney beamed onto the big screen, over my local church minister every time. That would be my natural preference. You just can't beat those guys. But it would be a sinful preference. God has invested his interests in the local church. It is the local church that is the centre of God's strange activity in this world. It is the minister of the local church that is God's mouthpiecce in a godless culture. That means that the local minister, for all his weaknesses, is the guy we need to be committed to, listen to and submit to. It is very difficult to fall under the authority of a pastor who is physically miles away and who you will never see face to face.
Spurgeon was a celebrity pastor. Every week his messages were printed and sent all over the world. I bet if they had video capability back then Spurgeon would have been on a live feed in churches across the globe.
It is very difficult to fall under the authority of a pastor who is physically miles away and who you will never see face to face.
This is the key. Other issues (celebrity worship, whatever) are important, but your pastor should be somebody who knows you, not just somebody you respect from a distance.
Isn't this what Piper does?
David- Piper's sermon is taped on Saturday evening (at the main location, which is the only one with a sat. night service), then played on Sunday at the other locations. On Sunday, he rotates between locations and preaches in person. They used to do the live video feed thing.
I've been able to hear some of the rationale for why Piper's church does this, and I think they were very careful in approaching this, and have the right intentions.
But, I'm still on the fence regarding the video preacher thing in general. I see the risks and the benefits.
It's not a huge leap here from the mega-church with 5,000 people, who don't know the preaching pastor, watching him on a big screen even though they're in the same big room.
I don't claim to have an easy answer here, but you do seem to be divorcing preaching from pastoring, from bringing God's Word to a particular community of people with whom you share life and over whom you're called to exercise oversight (with all the accountability that will go with that charge).
Tony - that was my recollection - I visited one of the Bethlehem satellites one time and we got the video from the night before - it wasn't Piper, it was a guest.
The reason I brought this up is that when the whole subject of video preachers comes up in a negative light it's usually Andy Stanley or someone in the Willow Creek Association who is used as an example and is therefore on the proverbial hot seat.
But it seems to me that many who would have problems with this would be people who like Piper, and he is really the one who has pioneered the use of video technology.
I'm sure that the whole video preacher thing can be abused but I'm not sure it's all that bad an idea. In rural areas of the south there used to be, and probably still are, itinerant preachers who rotate amongst three or four churches. In those cases, the itinerant preacher can't provide in-depth pastoral care to each group. But his preaching still has value to the congregations. The congregations must provide their own pastoral care on-site.
It seems to me that the whole video preacher thing is similar. I know that at Bethlehem and I assume at the churches associated with Andy Stanley, they have pastoral staff on site at the different campuses, so why not use the one who is the more gifted preacher on video?
I think the best critique of this would come from the angle of how this plays into or contributes to the celebrity culture in the church - I think that's a very valid critique and discussion.
I agree with the Hyatt article.
I am of the opinion that this multi-site video church does much to build up the celebrity status of the teaching pastor.
I thought that Bethlehem tried to do a church plant originally, and it failed because the congregation wanted to hear Piper's preaching? Is that not true?
I think that men like Piper, Driscoll, Stanley, MacArthur, etc have a cult of personality that makes it difficult to plant another church nearby.
Perhaps, the key would be to plant another church before this cult of personality develops. However, at certain times, God is going to use key men on a nationwide/worldwide basis and this cult of personality will develop as a result.
Video preachers, yes.
Video pastors, no.
(I like to listen to or watch Piper, Macarthur, etc., but they don't -- and can't -- take the place of the pastor.)
If we go to a church large than 100 people chances are the pastor doesn't know us anyhow. We need to be accountable to atleast a small group of people and have access to a pastor. Video fed churches I suspect still have an onsite pastor that people can turn to and have a recurring role in worship that they can lead prayer, lead communion etc... that enables them to be connected with their "flock" as their pastor.
Providentially, our church is in the middle of working through this very issue, and this week my husband was given several chapters of a book on this (I hesitate to use the word) trend that cited Bethlehem as a case study. We are definitely one of many families that haev been and continue to be blessed by Piper's preaching, especailly during an extended season when our own church was leaving us spiritually starving each week. So this discovery that 1. Piper's sermons are played on videotape to his own congregation and 2. that he has a Saturday night service at all were really, really surprising. I've tried to find more details on how the whole Bethlehem leadership came to the decisions they did but wasn't successful. We would really love to learn more, as it seems to be a departure from so much else of what we know of them. Prior to learning this, we would definitely have associated most video-feed approaches with the whole Emergent/Evangellyfish crowd, but the argument above re: itinerant preachers is a good one, and the fact that Bethlehm has apparently been a pioneer here certainly gives me pause. It would be great to read more if anyone can point me somewhere. My head is spinning!!
Reformed Mommy, you can find many of the materials used to present the multi-campus concept at BBC here:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/64_MultiSite_Church_Ministry/
thanks for the link! Just for the record, I am opposed to video venues for a number of reasons- mostly because they disassociate eldership from a local community, placing leadership of a congregation miles and sometimes states away. I think the issue of being taught by someone who doesn't and won't know you, and can't speak the truth of Scripture into more than very general situations in the life of the community is a critique of both the mega AND the video church.
I also feel like video venues will be the death of the gift of preaching as fewer and fewer are given the opportunity to express it and gain skill/experience in it. Preaching the Gospel in/into the life of a community is something most anyone can do, but also a skill that takes years to MASTER... My fear is that fewer and fewer will be given that opportunity.
Oh- and in spite of all this and being a vocal critic of video venues, I consider the evergreen community to be a part of the emerging church. As with most issues that touch on church consumerism, I think you'll find we emerging church folk suprisingly "conservative" :)
This is not a problem if, like Piper’s church, you have a plurality of Elders instead of the pope in every church polity.
This post has been removed by the author.
Rob N.,
If you agree with the Hyatt article and it is critical of the effectiveness mega/video churches what reason(s) overcome your disagreement since you sit near me weekly in a mega church and you call Piper your favorite modern day preacher?
I don't say this to call you hypocritical, but to highlight a point that Hyatt is missing. There's more to a church than sermon delivery. First, Biblical community doesn't require everyone to know the pastor well. Second, the pastor a small congregation can be just as prideful (or more) with a celebrity attitude. Third, consider the historical record of the early Church in Acts. On the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) it was a mega church and the first issue (Acts 4) was related to size and the solution was delegating jobs to laymen.
Bob Hyatt,
I've heard that one trait of the emerging church is that you are open theists. Is that a teaching that you/your church holds?
Bob Hyatt is telling the truth that a lot of reformed people have avoided. So much for the sufficiency of scripture. If it's too big for a man to stand in front of his congregation personally, it's too big.
And those who won't go to new church starts because their fave pastor isn't there are the heart of the problem.
Why is someone asking Bob Hyatt about Open Theism? Manner anyone?
I don't "miss" that there's more to church than sermon delivery... but it's not optional, either. The teaching aspect of a community is certainly essential.
And while the Bible doesn't require that everyone know the pastor, it certainly does describe a shepherd as one who knows his sheep. It also states that the requirement of an elder is one who is "able to teach."
(one of the main arguments for video venues is that there are many pastors who can't preach- so why not let the proven communicators carry the load?)
Every pastor is susceptible to pride (as are we all)- big or small church. My argument isn't so much that video venues increase a celebrity attitude in pastors (though I think that's true) but that they increase the celebrity mindset in all christians (the first commenter said it well).
The church in Acts quickly became many churches, spread out over Jerusalem and the surrounding region (where many of those 3,000 were visiting from for the holiday). It's nether an argument for or against mega churches- it's apples and oranges.
Yes- they had to decide how to handle their growth and it seems like they did it with smaller-than-mega-church worship gatherings- ie, in houses.
But my arguments aren't based on what the early church did- but what the Bible describes as the role of an elder, how teaching should take place in the local community, and what (IMHO) is best for the growth and maturity of the Body of Christ long-term...
No- I don't teach open theism.
As to Spurgeon (from an earlier comment)- just because his sermons were printed and disseminated doesn't mean he's necessarily endorse video venues...
He might- but we have no way of knowing.
I have zero problem with podcasts of sermons and video feeds and all the rest. In fact, the more good teaching one can get, the better-
The question to me is, are you in a community that is being taught by a group of elders who know you, love you and can apply the truth of Scripture to your life? (if you can't tell, I'm also a passionate advocate for small church- I believe in church planting, not getting bigger and bigger!)
"If we go to a church large than 100 people chances are the pastor doesn't know us anyhow. "
I went to a church with around 700 people and I knew everyone of our 9 elders personally. Not only that, but they each were in some way responsibile for smaller groups that met on a weekly basis.
Granted, there was a little bith of a personality cult as two of the 9 did the majority of the preaching and both were very good speakers in their own ways, but I think that the elder run model does a good job of combating this problem.
As a result, while I don't necessarily like the Bethleham Baptist way of things, I think that their large group of elders probably go a long way toward solving this problem.
Bob,
I agree with you when you say that the important question to you is "are you in a community that is being taught by a group of elders who know you, love you and can apply the truth of Scripture to your life?" Large churches have active small group ministries with teachers who do this very thing under the authority of the elders. Also, large churches have multiple ministries that provide opportunities to serve and a secondary benefit of serving is sometimes teaching and surely community. In your critique you do not mention that large congregations provide either of these things. Also, in large churches there can be small communities headed by pastors and these men teach, love, and apply Scripture on lives on a regular basis. There is much more to what large churches do than the Sunday service that I find missing from your critique.
The church in Acts isn't an argument for or against mega churches. It is an argument against the claim that small churches are the best for the growth and maturity of the Body of Christ.
Another growing danger is that I have observed some who are following the podcasts of the big guys and they become their primary teaching pastors rather than the local church pastor. The local church pastor can see his influence diminished and challenged for what are very debatable and local church issues.
On this topic for example: A pastor feels that God is leading him not to adopt a video venue strategy and some/many in his congregation have already been convinced through nationally influential video venue proponents that video is the way to go. The local church pastor who will stand before God for his congregation sees his influence diminished.
I love sermon podcasts, but we could use some strong teaching on the responsibility of the local church to lead their people. Then again, some local church pastors are abdicating their sermon prep to sermoncentral, so maybe they don't want all the responsibility.
Good discussion here ...
Have all of you listened to Mark Driscoll's lecture on "Theological Foundations for Multisite Church." He also, of course, attempts to justify video feeds. He makes some very good points.
I had trouble accessing the site just now, but you can find it here: http://www.acts29network.org/all-multimedia/
Matt:
Nice to bump into you through JT’s blog…
I do agree with the Hyatt article, and would much prefer our mega-church get into the church-planting business, planting churches throughout the DC metro area as opposed to expansion via campuses.
I have no reason to overcome my disagreement. Our church’s video-fed satellite campus is a relatively new thing. Prior to 2008, the only other campus has had the teaching pastor preaching live at the venue.
This is not an issue that raises to the level of breaking fellowship or switching churches, especially when I have been an active part of the church for over 7 years. I do not go around actively making my opinion known to others in our church body, as the decision was voted on and has been made. However, that doesn’t mean that I agree with the philosophy.
If I were calling the shots, I would have the campus pastor at our church’s video-fed satellite campus be the teaching/preaching pastor. People could still listen to Lon via podcast.
Despite the fact that I disagree with the video-fed satellite campus model, Piper and Driscoll continue to be the most actively listened to preachers on my ipod.
can we get it out of our heads that there was anything like a 3000 person church in the book of Acts?
The number saved on Pentecost by the Gospel- which by the way is a corrolary to the 3000 killed by Law at Sinai- is not indicitive of how the early church organized itself.
As for large churches and small groups-
1. Participation in a small group is good, but not sufficient, correct?
2. Most people are not in small groups.
3. Small groups may be led by good people, but that says nothing about what were talking about here- and that's people being led and eldered by folks who will never meet them, much less know them- some by people who live STATES away.
The. Video venue is a challenge not only go biblical eldership, but to local church autonomy as well.
Well ... i had gave the wrong link, but even this one wouldn't open for me (glad i already have it on my ipod).
Heres the link to Driscoll's defense of multisite church, entitled, "Why Multisite?"
http://theresurgence.com/mark_driscoll_2008-04-15_audio_why_multi-site
There is danger in this article, and the comments of presenting a false dichotomy.
Our church has a video venue, but has a 'campus pastor' that is much, much more than an "mc" for the service.
He meets with folks during the week, (at a "local" office near our venue) counsels, leads the service and reflects on the sermon, corporately.
There is no disconnect from our church elders (a good number of them attend the video campus)or disconnect from "pastoring" vs. preaching.
I'm just proposing that this isn't an all or nothing issue.
aaron,
I guess the question would be why does can't the campus pastor do the teaching/preaching at that campus?
My thinking would be that large mega-churches that plant other campuses would create a lot more development within their pastoral staff if they had the campus pastors doing the teaching / preaching... This would also help to prevent the church from becoming all about the senior pastor.
This post has been removed by the author.
Rob,
Our campus pastor does teach from time to time.
I think there is a large difference between having a usual teaching pastor that folks at multiple campuses are used to. . . . . and having a "celebrity" pastor. The happy middle lies in the way it is presented and executed.
I just think it doesn't help this particular conversation unless you deal with nuance, as there are many multi-site models out there currently.
I join Mr. Hyatt in being against multi-site churches that are thousands of miles away with no connection to their pastor. However, many churches are finding it easier to branch out into different neighborhoods by going with video venues that are vitally connected to the main campus. I fully support the "team teaching" model, I just don't think it's the only biblical one.
In our day of high gas prices, busy Sundays, and skepticism of religion. . . I think it's a missional step for a church to take.
Aaron
I hear the comments claiming that video feeds turn the pastor into a "celebrity" pastor. Then I read that a church is too large if the pastor doesn't know every single person thoroughly. Doesn't that turn the pastor into more of a celebrity? The idea that if you don't personally know this one particular elder you're not being spiritually cared for - doesn't that turn "the minister" into a celebrity and relegate all other elders and ministers to second-class status much more than the video feed?
I have been a member at Bethlehem Baptist Church for almost 15 years, and Nils, you are absolutely right. Even when Pastor John is broadcast to us, as his congregation, it is just different to see it on a screen. No matter how good the preaching is, it's tune in, tune out, TV watching and it disrupts the whole concept of a local church and, more importantly, a real assembly of the faithful.
I am particularly subject to the weirdness of such things, but when he's up there on the screen at 30x life size and he says, "Let's pray" and a thousand heads around me all bow forward ... Wow.
I think I last saw this in some post-apocalyptic movie from the 70s.
But it's about more than the video. Much more. There is a crisis in the relational culture of the church at BBC (see JP's sermon http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2008/3064_Teaching_and_Admonishing_One_Another_in_All_Wisdom/) and I think this is most significantly attributable to our failure as a church to resist or protect against the traps of being a celebrity church -- not a video church, a celebrity church. (And this despite all the best desires, pure intentions and hearts of gold belonging to the pastoral staff and elders).
Answers? I don't know. But smaller, community based, less polished churches may have a thousand unseen advantages over large, commuter based, well-oiled machines that we're only now starting to be able to quantify.
Bob Hyatt,
Thank you for your column in Out of Ur. You raise issues that I have expressed for quite awhile concerning "video church."
Bob Hyatt? ...
What about someone who said it better 18 months ago?
BTW, I hate it that I agree with Bob Hyatt, but I do.
Local church = biblical church.
video church ≠ local church
therefore: video church ≠ biblical church
I think the question of whether a megachurch can be a biblical local church is a different question with some similar components, but eldership is the key. There is no legitimate eldership when the one preaching is not a local elder.
Go ahead and ask me, then, what I think of visiting preachers and "pulpit supply".
Bob,
What's wrong with thinking that there was a 3000 plus person church in Acts? It says in Acts 2 that three thousand came to Christ and three verses it summarizes the church by saying "All the believers were together and had everything in common." Yeah, some of believers were from out of town because of the Feast of Tabernacles. However, it is a large assumption to think that in less than two weeks later when the festival was over that three thousand people just left daily fellowship with the apostles. The summary at the end of the chapter says that they devoted themselves to the apostles teaching. Do you think that that period lasted until the festival was over? Also, how do 3000 people devote themselves to the apostles teaching and you not call it a church?
Frank,
When you write "video church" do you include all churches that use video of a pastor preaching for the main teaching lesson of the week?
I'm with Aaron here, this isn't an all or nothing issue. It is all about implementation.
Matt --
Bob is talking about any church where the word is preached video CCTV or taped delay -- and for me, that's a somewhat painful category because it includes churches like Matt Chandler's church and John Piper's church, both of whom I admire and respect. Overall, I agree with Bob's point.
Personally, I am also uncomfortable with showing videos in the middle of Sunday worship at all - even as "sermon helps". But that's a whole other kettle of fish -- that's not what Bob is talking about here, and I don't see a reason to muddy the water as this topic is deep enough and wide enough by itself.
As seems too often the case, some complexity and minimal nuance in practical matters not dealt with in the scriptures = wisdom, Frank Turk's posting ≠ any complexity or nuance, therefore ...
Sorry, brother, but though I agree with you, the simple formulation you offer is a little silly. Sometimes I agree with you, but, I almost (nuance, see it's not that hard) always hope that my agreement is for different reasons.
jpb:
I have a suspicion that if I posted a longer thesis on this subject, you'd decline to endorse it because it was too long, and if I listed all my caveats they'd be too nit-picky. Because these are comments on a blog, I have chosen to go for the brief statement rather than the doctoral thesis.
Interjecting the adverb "almost" into a statement doesn't create nuance: it relieves one kind of imprecision with another kind of imprecision. My suggestion is that if people were a little more concerned with establishing the limits of their belief systems (based on Scripture in the case of us Christians) and a little less concerned with worshipping pandering and calling it "nuance" -- and to be specific, I mean people like you, not people like Dr. Piper or Matt Chandler -- they'd at least find out whether of not they hold onto beliefs which are worth holding on to.
All things being equal, I think Bob Hyatt did that in his post -- and love him or hate him, you gotta respect a guy when he's willing to say what he means and not try to shread it into so much "nuance" that it doesn't really mean anything.
rob n. - "I guess the question would be why does can't the campus pastor do the teaching/preaching at that campus?"
I think that's the critical question that the whole electronic issue skirts around, like the proverbial bandaid on an ulcer. In our case, and I'm guessing many others, there is a very obvious delta between the preaching of our senior pastor and his associates. It's an issue he's working really dilligently to address, but it's still there. This raises the issue of whether, how and why the local church and seminaries have gone off the rails in identifying and supporting young men who are gifted and called to preach. Let's face it - if there were more faithful, truly gifted preachers of Piper's ilk, this issue would be smaller (I hope, but maybe not?)
To be honest, I wonder if the sudden unlimited availabiliy of so-called "super-preachers" like Mahaney, Piper et al over the Internet is shining a spotlight on the issue (by modelling the kind of preaching that is transformative and so needed today) or actually magnifying the problem (by causing churches to look at their own preachers and say "hey, why can't you preach more like THAT guy?!"
I think there's also a lesson in Dr. Piper's Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry which ought to be applied here, but since Dr. Piper himself tells it so well, I'll link you to the book and you can then read it for yourself.
Frank,
Perhaps jpb was a bit harsh. . . but let me just say that I think we need some nuance here as well.
Not by inserting the qualifier, "almost" but by addressing, or at least leaving room for different applications of this methodology.
This is not a black or white issue, like it or not.
I don't think Hyatt or others left room for, nor even described the leadership paradigm/elder oversight/congregational unity that can come about at video venue campus churches.
I agree, we can't all post for 7 pages, but our comments should leave room for other applications and leave room for the fact that perhaps we don't know all the applications of a specific issue.
Far from "not really meaning anything" nuance helps us to sound like we're thinking through various points of view and being honest about complexity.
Aaron
How does the video-feed satellite campus effect visitors or potential new believers?
For example, I know when our church launched their satellite campus, that campus instantly became the second largest church in that county. However, the people attending were obviously familiar with the teaching pastor.
I would suspect this might become an issue/barrier with a new visitor or nonchristian who is interested in the church?
Rob,
We should conduct some empirical testing. ;)
Matt:
I was trying to find some information on visitor responses to multi-site campus locations. Nothing. I suppose I could ask the campus staff from our church's satellite campus? However, I don't attend that campus, still attending Frontline.
In my search, I did find this good read entitled Multi-site Mishaps and Misconceptions which focuses on The Village Church. It is interesting that:
"After two unsuccessful attempts at decreasing attendance by planting churches with other pastors in nearby communities, the space issue remained. And as the number of attendees at the Village Church continued to multiply, services were added and the sanctuary was expanded. Growth continued to balloon, and services were added again."
In this case, it appears that the congregation was following Chandler and not willing to go to a church closer to their home with a different pastor. This seems to prove the 'cult of personality' theory.
Some good info on this topic from Piper can be found reading his sermon, "Going Without Going" and in this article where John Piper gives rationale for the expansion via Bethlehem's North Campus.
Rob,
I was just goofing around about surveys. Sorry the joke wasn't clear enough. I'll see you this Sunday.
Have a good and godly week everyone.
Having observed a local church doing this, it concerns me that the church desires to expand like this without actual church planting.
I call it the "church franchise" method, for it seems like the church is simply trying to expand because they have the best product to offer. But while I'm not opposed to capitalism, I don't think it's right for "Big Church" to wipe out all the "mom and pop" churches along the way.
"All things being equal, I think Bob Hyatt did that in his post -- and love him or hate him, you gotta respect a guy when he's willing to say what he means and not try to shread it into so much "nuance" that it doesn't really mean anything."
Love him or hate him?
Do you think we have choice, Brother Frank?? :)
I wish I could give you a big giant hug right now!
As for the 3,000 church- no- look at the list of languages and peoples listed there in the crowd listening to Peter. Most of those new believers dispersed and the rest met in homes and then in the Temple courtyard. There wasn't anything like 3,000 of them in Jerusalem for a long time.
If there were they would have needed a considerable amount more than 7 deacons :)
But that's a real digression from what we're talking about here...
Like I said in the article- I don't think video venues are wrong when, as in the case of Village Church it's simply a response to needs there on the ground- but it should be viewed as a temporary compromise until God answers our prayers for more workers- more biblically qualified elders with the gift of teaching.
But those pursuing this as their strategy from the start and franchising themselves into cities thousands of miles away? I'm going to call foul on that... "campuses pastors" or no.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home