Is this a good thing?

I think when this happens churches - at least one of them ceases to be a true church. The pastor needs to actually pastor (guide, shepherd, lead, know, love, and understand) his people. If this is not possible or achievable then he is not doing biblical ministry.

I don't know if the paradigm outlined in the link below is still followed but I believe it is entirely flawed. See especially # 13. Even if it is "his" church!

http://www.bbcmpls.org/documents/GoingWithoutGoingFAQ10.13.02.pdf

Well-said Reid. I know you and I have discussed this and I have had much discussion about this outside of our conversation and I have used the phrase you told me, “decarnating the Gospel”, a lot in this conversation with others. I struggle with this initially because a couple of my pastoral heroes both do video preaching and the multi-site deal; which when I first heard it deeply saddened my heart. I first encountered this with a visit to the Mecca of mega churches, Willowcreek. It rubbed be raw then and it still does today.

There are a couple of issues for me, the first is what you brought up – what is the role of the pastor? One of the things I deeply appreciate about Mars Hill, out in Seattle, is that from the front Driscoll often talks about training and raising up men that are passionate about the Gospel, their families, and the lost. Thus training competent ministers. If this is going on why doesn’t one step up to the plate and move across town and plant a church that is fueled, at first, by the parent-church?

This brings me to my second concern – that being this video preaching and multi-site formula often times seems to fuel the personality-cult behind a particular preacher. I saw this first hand in my hometown, their was a family that would drive an hour and a half every Sunday to go to Willowcreek because it had better teaching and everything else they did was better than the local church so they commuted 90 minutes each way to get what they wanted. Then the satellite church opened and it gave them what they wanted the preaching (the Preacher) and everything else 40 minutes closer (this is whole different post, but we will leave it at that). I bring this up because, it appeared, they were actually clamoring for the pastor and his preaching not the Lord or the Gospel.

I’m also reminded about a missionary friend of mine that told me a story about a friend of his who was trying to convince him to start a satellite church of a mega church here in America in Prague. I know this seems comical but the man was dead serious and if it could happen it might. So here is a church that would beam its preaching across the pond to a culture completely different than the one that the church is part of. See any problems here? I think this could be true of individual cities as well. The north side being different from the south side and the preaching and ministry needs to be contextualized to that particular culture. I share this story not to bring up another topic, but to further point out that personality cults all too often form and we fuel them.

So when I see these satellite churches I often ask, “What if that church were to plant a separate church on the north side of town that didn’t have the big name pastor on a video screen preaching?” I often times fear the answer would be a church plant probably wouldn’t work because people would then continue to drive to the church with the big name pastor. Thus fueling the personality cult that surrounds that particular man. My two heroes, Driscoll and Piper, don’t seem to want to build a cult following of themselves, but it is something that needs to be asked and considered within this discussion and a church choosing to do so. After all church isn’t about the pastor and his abilities but about Jesus, the Gospel, and the sheep being shepherded.

This quote from BB's position paper resonates with me... "People attending each site would be returned to worship in their neighborhoods, which strengthens the ability to do friendship evangelism, to have fellowship with other congregants, and to do ministry in the community...." Even though Paul was "teaching globally" through his letters and visits, the church was still a local body engaged in ministry within their own geographical community.

BB's paper goes on to make several valid points for multi-site ministry as well:
1. It makes a way for a large group of people to leave the [current] site, without 'leaving' [current church home] for a more localized ministry closer to home;
2. It capitalizes on the maturity of the elders and staff and mature ministries of the church;
3. It strategically positions us for future church plants by utilizing new leaders, and new preachers;
4. It is efficient (administration, staffing, mission, etc.);

Although it my desire that our family could stay closer to home, we are deeply connected to our church family. Our teens identify with this church "home", and we are thrilled that they are exposed to the passionate teaching of the Truth. We chose this church several years ago because of its vision, passion for sound teaching, core values & ministry focus. Unfortunately for us, the church campus moved north and our family moved further south. We now live 30 miles south of campus in one of the fastest growing communities in the state. We see a potential benefit for this option in our community because of the large number of our fellow church members already living here, the continued growing pains on the main campus, and the lack of a church presence here with the ministry distinctives of our church.

With careful examination of the unique needs and challenges of each church growth opportunity in mind, this paradigm may be a great stepping stone toward multiplication of effective ministry, addressing some of the difficulties inherent in "starting from scratch". I think there may be some geographical/cultural limitations to multi-site (broadcasting to all 50 states or Prague, for example). This is where the first poster's concerns ring true. A teaching pastor must have knowledge and understanding of his people and be able to engage them with the transcendent Truth in a culturally relevant way. AND, I believe, that there must be live music/sacraments, etc. to effectively engage the gathering of worshippers and local pastoral leadership to shepherd the body.

This quote is great...

A teaching pastor must have knowledge and understanding of his people and be able to engage them with the transcendent Truth in a culturally relevant way. AND, I believe, that there must be live music/sacraments, etc. to effectively engage the gathering of worshippers and local pastoral leadership to shepherd the body.

I don't know how we can pastor people we do not teach, instruct, exhort - this seems to be very important in the New Testament and in church history.

Also, there is a missional leadership aspect to preaching - where a people are "going somewhere together" on mission in their locality. We know this is a problem for "vast distances" - say in other states...but we do not see any problem with being in another nearby city.

I think this model is "permissible" - and in no way "wrong, sinful etc." but I do not think it is as beneficial to things central to Christianity:

• Developing young pastors/preachers/teachers


• It can develop a personality cult where people rate preaching like they do top 40 music. I like "him" but don't think it would work with "him" - it makes the Word itself seem subservient to the messenger. Now I am for "good" preaching - but rather it come from a multitude of good preachers than just one


• It seems like a pragmatic short-cut rather than developing men and good cooperative church networks in a city. For example - how would 4 local churches in a metro area work together in mission, service, etc. This requires humility and mutual submission between church leaders - which is good for these men who can fall into "church comparison" - yes even pride/envy.

Anyway good thoughts on all fronts!

Thanks

A key distinction is to be made between teachers and pastors. Dan Wallace's take on the Granville Sharp rule (one Greek article governing both pastors and teachers in Eph 4)is the right one. Not pastor-teacher, but pastors as a subset of teachers. All pastors are teachers but not all teachers are pastors. Pastors are shepherds with elder-authority, who know the sheep by name, who encourage, admonish, comfort, rebuke, etc. (Think Psalm 23... feed, guide, care and protect.) This cannot be done by video. So Rick Warren ("America's pastor") can be a teacher to many but only a pastor to those with whom he has shepherding contact.

Just heard a church member died. Gotta go...

Hasn't Rick Warren been piping videos of his sermons to African churches for several years? I remember some story of him being in Africa when a young African stranger ran up to him and said, "Hello!" Rick was somewhat confused since he was pretty sure he'd never emt the guy, but the young man said, "I have been studying your teachings from your videos for years." It would seem that video preaching works excellently as video teaching (in the same way we might use a commentary or read Augustine).

As for replacing a Sunday morning homily, that is ridiculous. That would (likely) mean the teaching isn't directed towards the local needs of that church, since the pastor is not ministering to the local needs of that church. So, in short, video preaching seems somewhat dubious though video teaching doesn't sound that bad.

I don't think I added to much to this discussion, but I'm just a kid! In any case, I've gotta go do some studyin': Desidiae valedixi; syrenis istius cantibus surdam posthac aurem obversurus. -- I bid farewell to Sloth, being resolved henceforth not to listen to her syren strains."