Archives For Video Venues

Review: Sim Church pt 1

bob —  November 5, 2009

51C6no2-kQL._SL500_AA240_ It's really difficult for me not to come out swinging when a book I've been promised deals with real questions in an even handed manner begins with breathless statements like "Today a new community of the people of God has begun… A change is occurring in the Christian church the likes of which has not happened in centuries…This type of church is unlike any church the world has ever seen. It has the power to break down social barriers , unite believers from all over the world, and build the kingdom of God with a widow's mite of financing . It is a completely different type of church from any the world has ever seen."

And that's just the first page. 

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

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

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

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

But it's not Church

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

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

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

If you are new to this discussion you can catch up by reading my article There Is No Virtual Ecclesia here (part 1 part 2 tyle="font-size: 25px; ">, Doug Estes' response here, and my response to his response here

Dust Up at UR over Virtual Chruch!

bob —  October 28, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

Here's my response to Mr. Estes:


October 27, 2009

Virtual Church is STILL a Bad Idea

Online churches are missing a few essential ingredients.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’d say those are pretty substantial concerns.

Second, this article repeats what I see as the major scriptural argument in favor of virtual church‚Äî‚ÄúNowhere in the Bible does it preclude online church.‚Äù The argument from silence, as we all remember from high school debate class, is the weakest. And in this case, I believe the Bible isn‚Äôt silent. Let me ask very plainly…

READ THE REST AT OUT OF UR 

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

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

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

Yes!

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

Double yes!



There Is No Virtual Ecclesia

bob —  October 2, 2009


In the early 50‚Äôs when Robert Schuller and others across the nation combined a growing car culture with ‚ÄúChurch‚Äù they believed they were reaching a segment of the population traditional church wouldn‚Äôt or couldn‚Äôt. Drive-In church allowed parishioners to attend, hear a sermon, sing some songs, even receive communion and give- all without the fuss and muss of face-to-face interaction beyond a passing usher with elements and a communion plate or maybe being greeted by a through-the-window handshake from the pastor as they rolled away. 

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

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

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

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

Virtually ‚Äúrais[ing] a hand‚Äù? 

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

Absolutely. 

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

When Shane Hipps earlier this year said of virtual community ‚ÄúIt‚Äôs virtual, but it ain‚Äôt community‚Äù he set off a mini-blog storm of posts and comments, many agreeing, many defending their Facebook and Twitter time as real community. Now, here on Ur and in other places, the advocates of internet campuses and virtual church are lining up to defend this growing phenomenon. 

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

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

No, in an internet campus I never need to see that person I ‚Äújust don‚Äôt get along with.‚Äù I don‚Äôt have to listen to so-and-so tell me about their hard week (again). I see NO needs around me and so feel zero compulsion to move to meet them. 

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

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

Luther‚Äôs definition of ‚Äúchurch‚Äù is where the Word is preached, the sacraments are received and church discipline practiced. 

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

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

And while Internet Campuses provide a great sermon delivery vehicle, and even allow you to virtually raise your hand in response, what they don‚Äôt and will never be able to do is allow you to be missed. And to be known- to have someone who knows what‚Äôs happening in your life read your body language, see your tears in worship and know it‚Äôs time to come alongside you. You can‚Äôt stand at the end of the gathering and ask for help moving. You can‚Äôt help tear things down and clean up afterwards. You can‚Äôt look after someone‚Äôs kids while they pray with someone else. You can‚Äôt take a visitor out to lunch. You can‚Äôt be the Body in so many necessary and vital ways.  

Missing from virtual church are these vital things

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

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

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

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

In the same way that internet campuses lack the mechanism for true discipline and accountability, they also lack the mechanism for true service. While I may be encouraged to serve other by a virtually-delivered sermon, and while some internet campuses have even organized short-term service trips abroad (yes, they found it necessary to actually all show up physically for those), what I can‚Äôt be encouraged to do in an internet community is take a meal to someone in my church community who‚Äôs sick or just had a baby, help someone else move or paint a house, babysit for a couple in need of a date night. How can our community be a sign and foretaste of the kingdom when our method of gathering keeps us from ever physically serving, loving, being present to one another? I know how participating in a congregation begins to make me more like Jesus. I‚Äôm unsure how that happens with an internet campus. All the little pieces that go into making the ecclesia ‚Äúlife together‚Äù are missing from virtual church. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How could it not?  

DrivebyvenueI have an admission to make on Video Venues. 

But first…

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


He wrote on his blog:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah, yes…

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


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

And if "community" were the only consideration, I'd say "go for it!" 
The problem is, it's not. There are other, bigger issues (as I've outlined above and in other places) involved. 

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


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

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


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

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

Multi Site yes- Video Venue no

bob —  July 17, 2009

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Death of Preaching

bob —  February 19, 2009

21church.span
It's a pretty bold statement to say that video venues will eventually mean the death of preaching… but I think I can make the case. 

In his new book, Flickering Pixels (which I encourage you to check out!), Shane Hipps makes this point:

"Every medium, when pushed to an extreme, will reverse on itself, revealing unintended consequences. For example, the car was invented to increase the speed of our transportation, but having too many cars on the highway at once results in traffic jams or even injury or death.
The internet was designed to make information more easily accessible, thereby reducing ignorance. But too much information or the wrong kind of information reverses into overwhelming the seeker, leading to greater confusion than clarity. It breeds misunderstanding rather than wisdom…
In the same way, surveillance cameras, when there are too many that see too far, reverse into an invasion of privacy."

In other words, what was originally meant to make us go fast now slows us down, what was meant to make us smart now increases our ignorance (well, never our ignorance… just other peoples', right?) and what was meant to make us feel safe now makes us feel exposed. 

This is the rule: Technology, taken too far, creates the opposite of what it was intended to create. 

Still doubt it? Ask yourself- Email was meant to keep you in touch and ease communication, right? But when you are trying to process 100 emails a day, you don't feel in touch, you feel crushed. You're not communicating- you are wading through spam, forwards, fyi's… Your emails get shorter and shorter, more and more terse, and mis-communication happens more often than not. 

Reversal.  

So, what about technology in preaching? 

First came architectural improvements to increase the range of a speaker's voice. Then microphones to throw the voice even further. Then radio, television, tape and CD ministries, podcasts, vodcasts… and the seed of the video venue, the "overflow room."  All with the goal of taking the gift of preaching and extending its reach and impact. 

So far, so good, right?

But now, we have all this technology. We're not only recording the sermon, we're video taping it and we have discovered we can send that video, not just to the next room, but to a building across the campus, across town, across the state, around the world…

Now, the preaching gift of one person has the ability not simply to reach the back row, but the next town, state, continent. And we're not just talking about Spurgeon publishing his sermons or Schuller putting his on TV or Driscoll putting his on iTunes… 

NOW we're talking about not just influencing local preachers by making the "best" communicators' sermons available… we're talking about replacing those local teaching elders. 

Talk about pushing something to an extreme. 

The technology that once enhanced the preaching of others, influenced and enriched it? It's making it superfluous. Start up churches and smaller churches that used to have a team of three or four elders (or in our case, seven) who would be called on to teach on a regular basis now have a video screen and a "campus pastor" that gets to preach at most once a month. 

The technology reverses on itself. What once extended and enhanced the gift of preaching now effectively begins to strangle it, as fewer and fewer actually get the chance to ever do it. Raphael - Cartoon for St. Paul Preaching in Athens

If we're not more thoughtful about this, soon, every city and town will have the Driscoll franchise… maybe even two or three. And the Andy Stanley, Ed Young Jr franchise as well. Is Joel Osteen too far behind? Hybels, Warren, Groeschel… the market is going to get crowded. 

Sure, smaller churches will still exist, but in fewer and fewer numbers as dying churches are replaced not by vibrant church plants full of people forced to build a community from the ground up and so learn all the lessons along the way, but by video venue franchises- prepackaged church-in-a-box. And I'm telling you- there will be fewer and fewer men and women (most certainly fewer women) who ever learn to preach, who ever get the experience of working with others to discern what God is saying to their local body through Spirit and Word and prayerfully struggle through how they can creatively communicate that as well over the course of weeks, months and years of life together. 

We're talking about the death of preaching in evangelicalism by all but a small handful of Celebrity Communicators who have little knowledge about those they teach from such far distances.

Sound like a bleak vision of the future?  Yes, it does. But we don't have to go there…

If the Church will just learn to pay its taxes. 

Stay tuned to see what I mean by that

to be cont'd.


(And since I know it will come up in the comments, let me just address it now: No, I don't think preaching is the end-all, be-all of ministry. I don't think it's even the most important piece of ministry. But I do think it's vital and necessary for the continued health of the Church.) 

Franchise ahoy!

bob —  February 18, 2009

I've been predicting for awhile that Mars Hill Church in Seattle would try to plant a video venue here in Portland, notwithstanding the two to four (depending on how you count) Acts 29 planted churches in the metro area. 

Then today, I got this Facebook invite: ""Hey guys for those of you who have enjoyed the teaching of Mark Driscol (sic) we welcome you to join this group and invite you to pray about the possibility of a Mars Hill Church Portland Campus ".

Now, truth is, this may simply be an overeager fan boy. Or it may be someone who's actually doing something "official." Who knows. 

I do know this- Mark needs men. 900 men to be precise. Recently he posted this:
"We are deadly serious about the great commission and loading all guns to storm hell with the gospel of grace. And we need more men. Nine hundred men. Not boys—men. Real men. Men who care less about padding their resume and getting their vacation days than about seeing lives transformed and legacies altered for generations. We need men who love their wives, pastor their children, submit to Scripture, bleed the gospel, and have steel in their spine, love in their hearts, and the lost in their sights."

I'm all about men loving their wives, pastoring their children, submitting to Scripture, bleeding the Gospel, etc, etc. But truthfully, I have a feeling that when we talk about it, it tends to come out differently. And don't even get me started on the where the women are in this picture. Keeping the home fires burning while the men storm the gates, I assume.

Anyway, this invite to discuss a video venue or Mars Hill was sent to the wrong guy. Not sure how someone could be my Facebook friend and NOT know my thoughts on this, but in case you need a refresher, check here

I feel badly, but I did "join" the group and posted a thought… we'll see how long it stays on the page :)

I said: "Look- not to be a jerk- but there are already three churches here in Portland started by the Acts 29 network. A video church of Mark's teaching is not only redundant (it's all vodcasted, right?) it's kind of an insult to those who have worked hard to plant the churches that this video venue would most likely draw people from.

As someone who has planted and is planting churches in PDX, I can assure you- my problem isn't thinking that there are too many churches in Portland. I'm passionate about seeing as many real churches planted as possible. But a franchised video church with elders who live in another state, 3 hours away? No- thank you."

Please understand- If you want to listen to Mark's podcast/watch his vodcast, I think you should go for it- I subscribe to his podcast for crying out loud. But where we're going with this is eventually a Mark Driscoll, Andy Stanley, Ed Young Jr, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, et al Video Franchise in every major city, the further Wal-Martization of the church and, I kid you not- the death of preaching.
 
Think that's hyperbole? 

Stay tuned. 

Multi Site the Low Tech way….

bob —  September 26, 2008

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

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

 Multi-site the Low-tech Way

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

by Bob Hyatt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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