Video Venues: The Death of Preaching
By Bob Hyatt |
| |
|
| |
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...
 | | © Oleg Gerasymenko | Dreamstime.com | Now, the preaching gift of one person has the ability not simply to reach the back row, but the next town, state, continent. And we're not just talking about Spurgeon publishing his sermons or Schuller putting his on TV or Driscoll putting his on iTunes...
NOW we're talking about not just influencing local preachers by making the "best" communicators' sermons available... we're talking about replacing those local teaching elders.
Talk about pushing something to an extreme.
The technology that once enhanced the preaching of others, influenced and enriched it? It's making it superfluous. Start up churches and smaller churches that used to have a team of three or four elders (or in our case, seven) who would be called on to teach on a regular basis now have a video screen and a "campus pastor" that gets to preach at most once a month.
The technology reverses on itself. What once extended and enhanced the gift of preaching now effectively begins to strangle it, as fewer and fewer actually get the chance to ever do it.
If we're not more thoughtful about this, soon, every city and town will have the Driscoll franchise... maybe even two or three. And the Andy Stanley, Ed Young Jr franchise as well. Is Joel Osteen too far behind? Hybels, Warren, Groeschel... the market is going to get crowded.
Sure, smaller churches will still exist, but in fewer and fewer numbers as dying churches are replaced not by vibrant church plants full of people forced to build a community from the ground up and so learn all the lessons along the way, but by video venue franchises- prepackaged church-in-a-box. And I'm telling you- there will be fewer and fewer men and women (most certainly fewer women) who ever learn to preach, who ever get the experience of working with others to discern what God is saying to their local body through Spirit and Word and prayerfully struggle through how they can creatively communicate that as well over the course of weeks, months and years of life together.
We're talking about the death of preaching in evangelicalism by all but a small handful of Celebrity Communicators who have little knowledge about those they teach from such far distances.
Sound like a bleak vision of the future? Yes, it does. But we don't have to go there...
If the Church will just learn to pay its taxes. 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.
Bob Hyatt is the lead pastor of the evergreen community, an emerging church community in Portland, OR. More importantly he is the husband of Amy and the father of Jack, Jane and Josie. He's also a contributing editor of Next-Wave. |
| |
|
We've had experience of video preaching, when we began a Purpose Driven Church period in our church history. About eight years ago. I don't see it becoming the norm in our church (and we're not a small church, at least by New Zealand standards), not just because we have at least four good preachers (good? excellent) but because the American voice doesn't relate well to the New Zealand ear when it comes to preaching. Far more importantly, there's nothing to beat a preacher who knows his congregation and can focus in on the issues the congregation has. Anything else, like using video preaching regularly, is just lazy church-work. (I'm no Luddite, by the way: I use facebook, blogger, twitter, email...you name it.)
Bob, I'm intrigued by the 'community tax' concept. Not to downplay the video 'franchise' possibilities, but I wonder if the fact that preaching (good, bad, ugly, whatever) is doomed primarily because it's a 'push-media'. Think finished CD's that we used to buy that had the 2 good songs we wanted but we still paid all $15. I'm intrigued by the change to pull media (think i-Tunes where I pay 99cents per song I like). I'm not saying this is right and or whole, just that the orientation seems to be shifting to pull versus push. My heart goes out to the local pastor, several are friends of mine in fact, because he (usually not a she) is trying to connect all the smaller stories to the big story, enhance the 'community tax' (as you put it)and do it all within 20-45 minutes EVERY SINGLE WEEK. It's enough to make anyone want to disqualify themselves. Video-ing, to me, still operates from the 'push' side (if you know what I mean)and thus I wonder about its long-term viability from a different angle.
Thanks for the article. Jeff
Your article has generated a fair bit of discussion in our family of Mars Hill members, two of whom have to watch the... 'silly?' video every week from one of the remote campuses. My son reminded us that Mark Driscoll exhorts us to turn critics into coaches, so your questions concerning unintended consequences of technology must be thought through carefully. But it is admittedly difficult to do that within your article because of its mocking tone. I would simply ask you sir, why denigrate? In the nine months since we moved here, I have been challenged weekly with the Word of God, my family is growing in Christ's love, my college age sons are maturing and making godly decisions, I am beginning to find ways to be a missionary to my world around me. This I attribute to the work of the Holy Spirit through a godly servant trying to faithfully and fearlessly preach the Word of God in the face of tons of criticism.
So why would you call that a "franchise", a term used for businesses, often with negative connotations? Why would you even sound like you are attributing the work God is doing here in so many hearts to human effort rather than the Holy Spirit - that, brother, is very dangerous ground. And "miserly"? Just this last week, Mars Hill sponsored a conference to help 800+ men from all over the world who were considering possibly being called as pastors to 'count the cost' and helping to equip them. Over 10% of our budget goes to help plant churches from many denominations, some of whom we have fairly major differences of opinion with, but they too believe in the foundational truths of Jesus' deity, death, resurrection, redemption, and salvation by grace. And surely you don't really believe that God is so flimsy that some puny humans who are simply trying hard to be obedient and faithful to Jesus (as I'm sure you are) could really kill preaching? That is hyperbole in the worst, worthy of a college newspaper, not a man of God who knows the power of preaching. Wouldn't your argument have been just as appropriate in 1930 with the advent of radio preachers? The sweet savor of your tone has drowned much of your message.
Very good article, Bob, you’ve voiced some very valid concerns that I share. I also do understand where Steve’s comments are coming from. I have great respect for Matt Driscoll because of the Acts 29 network that he started. It has had a profound influence on me and has greatly helped me on my church planting path. There’s no doubt in my mind that Driscoll values training and sending out pastors. That’s also why I am scratching my head over his use of video campuses (although I guess they allow a live sermon once in a while).
I think some insight can be gained by reading a Next-Wave article on the exact same subject from back in 2006 that was written by Darrin Patrick, who is a member of the Acts 29 network. Basically he says that he hates the idea of video campuses, but has resigned himself to the fact that people are coming to his church primarily to hear him preach (so his elders tell him), and that he hasn’t found anyone else good enough to do what he does, and that video is really the only way for his church to reach more people. Not sure how I feel about that, but if you read the article, I think it shows he does understand the pros and cons of what he is doing, so I have to respect that.
So while I share in the distaste for this type of strategy, I think we do have to remember we shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss or call “silly” a strategy that is bearing real fruit. And I do believe that God does frequently use imperfect human means to lead people to Him. On the other hand, I think it’s obvious Bob isn’t judging the *tool* of video campuses, just warning us about the use of it. I believe the very real problem is that many churches will simply emulate larger successful churches such as Mars Hill or Saddleback (and yes risk becoming “franchises”) and could as a result have a large amount of unhealthy growth. But then again, there are 1001 other ways a church can do this with or without video! The bottom line for me is that any church that chooses to invest in a video campus at the *expense* of training and sending pastors, I believe has the missed the point/example that Jesus gave us for disciple-making.
Are we discussing the evils of technology via the internet? Seems like that argument defeats itself.
I think your examples seem disprove your argument. No one, given the choice would chose a horse over a car. Yes people die in car accidents, but people died in horse accidents too. I wouldn't be surprised if more people (proportionally) died in horse accidents than car accidents.
Yes, email, mismanaged can be a burden, but can you imagine spending 2 to 3 hours a day writing letters (not an uncommon activity for the 19th century).
I think it is wildly optimistic to assume that even a double digit percentage of churches would be video venues in the next 10 years. Right now there are approximately 330,000 Christian Churches in the US. How many video venues do you think there are? I would guess a few hundred, maybe a thousand, certainly not 33,000. Even all churches over 2000 members only represent about 1 percent of churches in the US (and about 10 percent of the churched population).
Why not try the wisdom of Gamaliel. If the Spirit is blessing it, then who are we to dismiss it?
I agree with Adam. I appreciate your passion to grow your leaders. That's awesome, but please give some statistics instead of a sophomoric generalization. Give us some data of video venues and their ability to disciple it's congregation, to mature its leaders. Do the attendee's feel the disconnect? There is plenty of data out there. The 'Reveal' survey is one place you could look.
I myself am an arts pastor at a 'video venue' of over 2,400 attendee's. The community happening is vibrant, growing and most of all REAL.
It's unfortunate that you feel the way you do. It's an outlet that is changing lives for Christ and my hope is that your church is thinking of ANY and EVERY way to get the message of salvation across.
The Death of Preaching? Not possible. Preaching is proclamation and as long as people love Jesus then we will contimue to proclaim (whether live or on video). But I get it; you're talking about pulpit preaching. Did you ever consider that some of that "should" die? It's terrible! And why do you think a video church cannot be vibrant and Spirit lead. You God is too small. And shouldn't the real question be, "how can we point people to Jesus?" All I know is that video is reaching new people with the Gospel. It may not be for you but I'm sure you have embraced email, television, cell phone, microwave, a car, toilet paper...
As often happens, I think many of you are responding to the article in your head, not the article on the page. I'm not mocking- my use of the word "franchise" is meant to point to a reality that's happening- it may be a sharp-edged, but it's not "mocking", I assure you- as I said in the article: "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."
My point in the article is not to call this evil or wrong- it's to raise a very valid question as to whether this is healthy long-term for the church as a whole. Those who are urging me to chill out on video venues might apply the same bit of wisdom to me questioning them- It doesn't hurt to be as thoughtful as possible as we move into the future.
I had the thought that video preaching might help a pastor whose gift is pastoral care or training small group leaders or some other function, but not preaching. Personally, I don't mind boring sermons from a pastor I've seen minister to the needs of people. I know a lot of people want a great speaker as their pastor, and that I"m probably in a minority on this, but preaching ability is way down the list of attributes I care about. I've seen great preachers be crummy, sometimes even hateful team/committee leaders, and I've been mentored by pastors whose sermons were not all that challenging (though God can usually use some thought presented if I stay open to it). Seldom have I seen a pastor equally adept at teaching, preaching, visiting, administrating. I think many would advocate for people besides the pastor stepping up to take on other ministry roles. Why not let video preaching take on the preaching role when that's not the pastor's strong suit? Or to supplement even a good preaching pastor's efforts when needed. It's a tool that can be used well or used poorly, I think.
I think you bring up some great cautions here. And, it will be interesting to see how video delivery of sermons affects the Body of Christ. Let’s not idolize it or marry ourselves to it. On the other hand, with a spirit of camaraderie (and a tad tongue-in-cheek)…
Be honest, are you a coming out of the closet as Amish? The Amish would see technological advances as evil. But, technology is amoral, not immoral. It makes us more powerful, and we can use that power to do greater harm or to do greater good. The internet is a great example. We’re using it right now. It’s an amazing asset to deliver information, benefiting the advancement of the kingdom of God in many ways. Or we can use it to disseminate porn. Gun powder: Good for hunting, but also good for murder. Should we avoid modern hospitals because the advancements in medical technology has also led to abortion, euthanasia, cloning, etc.? You see, every technology makes us more powerful to do harm or good, and I would absolutely agree that, unfortunately, we do both. The question then becomes, since we do both and since there are unintended consequences, should we eliminate the use of that technology (as a good Amish should) or should we moderate and use wisdom in its application?
I’m guessing that you use every one of the other examples that you gave to make your case. I’m guessing that you use cars, the internet, and email. Shoot, you may even use a surveillance camera! I’m guessing your response to those examples is to moderate but still use them (unless you have indeed gone Amish on us). But, when it comes to video preaching, you switched to arguing for elimination. I don’t think you made that case.
Now, to make that case, you would have to show that video sermons are a necessarily evil use of video technology, like using gun powder for murder or using the internet for porn. I just don’t think you bridged that gap.
You certainly showed some potential consequences of the overuse of video preaching. Great caution on the development of the next generation of preachers. But, couldn’t they be developed as they preach once per month (the other 3.3 times per month being a video delivered sermon)? Dude, I’m doing the math here. With seven elders and two sites and with you and Dustin sharing the bulk of the teaching, don’t the other elders preach in the neighborhood of once per month? So, once per month is either a sufficient training ground for the next generation of preachers, or it isn’t. If it is, you haven’t identified a weakness in video preaching. If it isn’t, doesn’t your set up have the same problem?
i see the church developing in 2 ways - the large mega structures and the tiny home groups. a lot of what is in between is dying, at least in this area of the country. this is also reflected in the business world, with the rise of Walmart alongside the growth of the independent mom and pop store that focuses on a few special items -- and the death of those businesses in the middle ground, that are not specialized enough to hold onto their customers, but are too small to offer the low prices of the big box stores.
my guess is that the preachers of the future will learn the trade in the smallest and least noticed of settings, while the mega ministries will continue to offer the most famous of speakers to the large crowds.
if we continue to follow the business model as it applies to the church, we then must question whether the new preachers coming up in the small settings will ever make the jump to the big screen. most likely not. we could end up with 2 very different models of church, coexisting.
and for the record, franchise is not a bad work to my ears. it's just a description of the way something is set up. and i'm almost finished with my MBA, and have yet to meet someone who thinks franchise is a bad thing. i think the author was misunderstood ...
If we continue to over-incorporate videos and other technology into our church services, we will have provided the reason for people to stay home and watch in on YouTube.
People are craving human connections and God connections - that can only be done in person.
The Urantia Book seems to be on par with the Emerging/Emergent Church, but it is definitely on the side of the human touch.
From UrantiaBook.org: A new and fuller revelation of the religion of Jesus is destined to conquer an empire of materialistic secularism and to overthrow a world sway of mechanistic naturalism.
I'm shocked (but not) that no one is using the idea of 'particularity' to critique this phenomenon.
A preacher's job isn't just to bring a message from God's word to the people...they also bring God's people to the Word.
You see some amazing differences in sermons even from the Apostle Paul (ie,Mars Hill...why that would be a good name for a church!).
So my concern isn't that it isn't efficacious.
My concern is that a pastor doesn't have to have his ear to the ground in any meaningful sense. He can read the scripture...but can he read the people?
This is the McDonaldization of the church.
Of course, I could be terribly rude and suggest that the types of churches that employ this sort of thing are already so uniform that it really is one-size-fits all.
Oops. How terribly rude of me.
I only scanned the comments, but I don't hear a lot of cultural critique in the reactions. But if we don't take that step.. which Bob is attempting.. then our arguments have limited application. Personally, I see video teaching as another manifestation of the abstracting tendencies of modernity (de Certeau). First we abstracted people from place (drive across a city to do church) and now we abstract teaching from personal connection. Seems incredibly naive to me in that it abstracts information to formation, reinforcing our tendency to separate rational and relational, private and public, sacred and secular. ie. we reinforce the dame dualism that has profoundly subverted the gospel.
yeah...what Len said.
(reading Hauerwas?)
I stumbled across this ezine while looking for other things and was intrigued by the articles. This one especially, since I do a bit of preaching when needed. I should also state that I am in a very rural area, mostly agricultural and not at all rushing to embrace technology in the church. The point I would make is this, that ministry (or business) rises and falls on the leadership of a person/persons who is/are personally involved. Methods and materials are simply tools to be used. Any method/material can be used wrongly to the detriment of the user and the intended recipient. Refer back to the article on "Church Pirates". The goal is, as always, is the preaching of the Gospel and the discipleship of the people. It will always take a personal touch to accomplish those goals. My fear is that the use of technology will allow for to many lazy people to assume a position of importance by virtue of the fact that they can operate the equipment and thus become the "leader". They have no desire to "lead" or "teach" and thus provide no real direction other than "here watch this video". Personal involvement is often times difficult because you expose yourself to peoples problems and must help them work through the issues. Discipleship is not necessarily easy at times.
Rick McKee: i.e. how often people get to preach @ evergreen... Not all our elders are moving toward being teaching pastors. So even though those who aren't still teach, those who are teach much more often.
Sheila: Say what now? You need to run far away from the UFO nutjobs at Urantia. Trust me. Its not a fuller revelation of Jesus Christ. It's a con job and a deception.
Saying that video venues are the death of live preaching is like saying that CDs are the death of live music, or that movies are the death of storytelling.
Preaching is primarily communicating the gospel in a compelling way. Changing the medium of communication may alter the content because of its delivery, but it never kills it.
I don't think having the Jonas Brothers, Hanna Montana, or U2 in the movie theater has hurt their CD sales, or their concert sales for that matter. It definitely hasn't killed pop music. I also don't think it hurt the indie artists that pay their 'community tax'. Each speaks to a different audience.
Mass media culture has used technology to speak their message in innovative ways for a long time now. Recognizing and attempting to reverse that trend is too-little-too-late. It bothers me that the church isn't pushing the envelope to use whatever means necessary to reach the lost because while we're debating about the medium used in order to protect our ministry model, people in droves would just as soon go see 'Angels and Demons' down the street on Sunday. Sometimes I have to wonder if we just don't want to go through the pain of change to get the job done that Jesus commissioned.
There is a place for the video celebrity pastor, just as there is a place for the indie grassroots community pastor. But in this culture of options, there is less and less ministry market share for laziness, irrelevance, and mediocrity regardless of the medium used.
|
Thanks for the article. Jeff
So why would you call that a "franchise", a term used for businesses, often with negative connotations? Why would you even sound like you are attributing the work God is doing here in so many hearts to human effort rather than the Holy Spirit - that, brother, is very dangerous ground. And "miserly"? Just this last week, Mars Hill sponsored a conference to help 800+ men from all over the world who were considering possibly being called as pastors to 'count the cost' and helping to equip them. Over 10% of our budget goes to help plant churches from many denominations, some of whom we have fairly major differences of opinion with, but they too believe in the foundational truths of Jesus' deity, death, resurrection, redemption, and salvation by grace. And surely you don't really believe that God is so flimsy that some puny humans who are simply trying hard to be obedient and faithful to Jesus (as I'm sure you are) could really kill preaching? That is hyperbole in the worst, worthy of a college newspaper, not a man of God who knows the power of preaching. Wouldn't your argument have been just as appropriate in 1930 with the advent of radio preachers? The sweet savor of your tone has drowned much of your message.
I think some insight can be gained by reading a Next-Wave article on the exact same subject from back in 2006 that was written by Darrin Patrick, who is a member of the Acts 29 network. Basically he says that he hates the idea of video campuses, but has resigned himself to the fact that people are coming to his church primarily to hear him preach (so his elders tell him), and that he hasn’t found anyone else good enough to do what he does, and that video is really the only way for his church to reach more people. Not sure how I feel about that, but if you read the article, I think it shows he does understand the pros and cons of what he is doing, so I have to respect that.
So while I share in the distaste for this type of strategy, I think we do have to remember we shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss or call “silly” a strategy that is bearing real fruit. And I do believe that God does frequently use imperfect human means to lead people to Him. On the other hand, I think it’s obvious Bob isn’t judging the *tool* of video campuses, just warning us about the use of it. I believe the very real problem is that many churches will simply emulate larger successful churches such as Mars Hill or Saddleback (and yes risk becoming “franchises”) and could as a result have a large amount of unhealthy growth. But then again, there are 1001 other ways a church can do this with or without video! The bottom line for me is that any church that chooses to invest in a video campus at the *expense* of training and sending pastors, I believe has the missed the point/example that Jesus gave us for disciple-making.
Yes, email, mismanaged can be a burden, but can you imagine spending 2 to 3 hours a day writing letters (not an uncommon activity for the 19th century).
I think it is wildly optimistic to assume that even a double digit percentage of churches would be video venues in the next 10 years. Right now there are approximately 330,000 Christian Churches in the US. How many video venues do you think there are? I would guess a few hundred, maybe a thousand, certainly not 33,000. Even all churches over 2000 members only represent about 1 percent of churches in the US (and about 10 percent of the churched population).
Why not try the wisdom of Gamaliel. If the Spirit is blessing it, then who are we to dismiss it?
I myself am an arts pastor at a 'video venue' of over 2,400 attendee's. The community happening is vibrant, growing and most of all REAL.
It's unfortunate that you feel the way you do. It's an outlet that is changing lives for Christ and my hope is that your church is thinking of ANY and EVERY way to get the message of salvation across.
My point in the article is not to call this evil or wrong- it's to raise a very valid question as to whether this is healthy long-term for the church as a whole. Those who are urging me to chill out on video venues might apply the same bit of wisdom to me questioning them- It doesn't hurt to be as thoughtful as possible as we move into the future.
Be honest, are you a coming out of the closet as Amish? The Amish would see technological advances as evil. But, technology is amoral, not immoral. It makes us more powerful, and we can use that power to do greater harm or to do greater good. The internet is a great example. We’re using it right now. It’s an amazing asset to deliver information, benefiting the advancement of the kingdom of God in many ways. Or we can use it to disseminate porn. Gun powder: Good for hunting, but also good for murder. Should we avoid modern hospitals because the advancements in medical technology has also led to abortion, euthanasia, cloning, etc.? You see, every technology makes us more powerful to do harm or good, and I would absolutely agree that, unfortunately, we do both. The question then becomes, since we do both and since there are unintended consequences, should we eliminate the use of that technology (as a good Amish should) or should we moderate and use wisdom in its application?
I’m guessing that you use every one of the other examples that you gave to make your case. I’m guessing that you use cars, the internet, and email. Shoot, you may even use a surveillance camera! I’m guessing your response to those examples is to moderate but still use them (unless you have indeed gone Amish on us). But, when it comes to video preaching, you switched to arguing for elimination. I don’t think you made that case.
Now, to make that case, you would have to show that video sermons are a necessarily evil use of video technology, like using gun powder for murder or using the internet for porn. I just don’t think you bridged that gap.
You certainly showed some potential consequences of the overuse of video preaching. Great caution on the development of the next generation of preachers. But, couldn’t they be developed as they preach once per month (the other 3.3 times per month being a video delivered sermon)? Dude, I’m doing the math here. With seven elders and two sites and with you and Dustin sharing the bulk of the teaching, don’t the other elders preach in the neighborhood of once per month? So, once per month is either a sufficient training ground for the next generation of preachers, or it isn’t. If it is, you haven’t identified a weakness in video preaching. If it isn’t, doesn’t your set up have the same problem?
my guess is that the preachers of the future will learn the trade in the smallest and least noticed of settings, while the mega ministries will continue to offer the most famous of speakers to the large crowds.
if we continue to follow the business model as it applies to the church, we then must question whether the new preachers coming up in the small settings will ever make the jump to the big screen. most likely not. we could end up with 2 very different models of church, coexisting.
and for the record, franchise is not a bad work to my ears. it's just a description of the way something is set up. and i'm almost finished with my MBA, and have yet to meet someone who thinks franchise is a bad thing. i think the author was misunderstood ...
People are craving human connections and God connections - that can only be done in person.
The Urantia Book seems to be on par with the Emerging/Emergent Church, but it is definitely on the side of the human touch.
From UrantiaBook.org: A new and fuller revelation of the religion of Jesus is destined to conquer an empire of materialistic secularism and to overthrow a world sway of mechanistic naturalism.
A preacher's job isn't just to bring a message from God's word to the people...they also bring God's people to the Word.
You see some amazing differences in sermons even from the Apostle Paul (ie,Mars Hill...why that would be a good name for a church!).
So my concern isn't that it isn't efficacious.
My concern is that a pastor doesn't have to have his ear to the ground in any meaningful sense. He can read the scripture...but can he read the people?
This is the McDonaldization of the church.
Of course, I could be terribly rude and suggest that the types of churches that employ this sort of thing are already so uniform that it really is one-size-fits all.
Oops. How terribly rude of me.
(reading Hauerwas?)
Sheila: Say what now? You need to run far away from the UFO nutjobs at Urantia. Trust me. Its not a fuller revelation of Jesus Christ. It's a con job and a deception.
Preaching is primarily communicating the gospel in a compelling way. Changing the medium of communication may alter the content because of its delivery, but it never kills it.
I don't think having the Jonas Brothers, Hanna Montana, or U2 in the movie theater has hurt their CD sales, or their concert sales for that matter. It definitely hasn't killed pop music. I also don't think it hurt the indie artists that pay their 'community tax'. Each speaks to a different audience.
Mass media culture has used technology to speak their message in innovative ways for a long time now. Recognizing and attempting to reverse that trend is too-little-too-late. It bothers me that the church isn't pushing the envelope to use whatever means necessary to reach the lost because while we're debating about the medium used in order to protect our ministry model, people in droves would just as soon go see 'Angels and Demons' down the street on Sunday. Sometimes I have to wonder if we just don't want to go through the pain of change to get the job done that Jesus commissioned.
There is a place for the video celebrity pastor, just as there is a place for the indie grassroots community pastor. But in this culture of options, there is less and less ministry market share for laziness, irrelevance, and mediocrity regardless of the medium used.