I respectfully disagree with David Swanson - over at Out of Ur – when he says that the ‘video venue’ discussion is not important. How we embody Christ in the world as a people – i.e. ecclesiology – is very important to the future of mission. So despite all the bloggage out there on this subject, I am prompted to add on … sorry.
I just heard of another church this morning that has changed its name so that it could in turn go “multi-site.” This church – in other words – intends to set up sites in various locations that gather people into large auditoriums to conduct the same liturgy for all sites (a 35 minutes set of music and some Scripture reading) and then turn everyone’s focus to a large video screen where the senior pastor delivers the one message. The church changed its name to a generic name with no designated locale. Instead of a name like say Barrington Christian Community, it will now be named ABC of Barrington and ABC of Palatine, and ABC of South Chicago. The name change enables it therefore to go “multi-site.” No designated locale = video-venue church. And so the multi-site phenomenon continues reminding us that the church is not local, it is a franchise spreading a certain product to Christians everywhere.
Now I define the Missional church as the church mobilized for incarnational (as opposed to attractional) ministry occupying the place of Christ’s humble servant presence in a locale (as opposed to a place of coercion and presumption) whereby we live (visibly) an entire way of life that witnesses to the salvation of God (His Kingdom) birthed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. It is natural, it is concrete, and it is above all local. In this witness, people are invited out of their lostness into a vital relationship with the Triune God and all He is doing to make the world right through Jesus Christ.
Accepting this definition of missional (admittedly this is assuming a lot. I don’t have space to unpack this definition here or defend it. I have done this elsewhere however in numerous blog posts and writings), my question is “can preaching within a multi-site venue strategy be missional?”
I think not for three reasons:
1.) In the missional context – preaching is always local.
In missional incarnational church, preaching proclaims truth for a specific locale. The man or woman gifted to preach interprets Scripture for the challenges each faces as a people. He/she fashions our imagination through unfurling Scripture via the Holy Spirit allowing us to see what God is doing here and around us in our surrounding communities. This preaching is communal, always informed out of community relationships. It is interactive in a way. (At LOV, our preacher interacts at the 9 a.m. hour and then speaks among the people in the 10 15 a.m. hour. I see this as intensely interactive whereby the community feeds into and from the preaching of the Word). And so at the preaching of the Word, we are illumined via the Holy Spirit as to where we are going, what God is doing in our midst. The less local, the larger the crowd (beyond say 200?) the less missional the preaching can be. It will become preaching/teaching for the self improvement of the individual’s Christian life. Video venue preaching de-localizes preaching forestalling its missional purpose – to fund the imagination for what God is doing among us and to invite us into that!
2.) In the missional context: Preaching always demands a response. In other words, it is not the passive digesting of information through taking notes from which we go out and try to improve our personal Christian living. Preaching is the proclamation of God’s Story into and over our lives and inviting people into it. So there must necessarily be a response at the end of the sermon. Such a response should be here and now, after the hearing, that requires – by the Holy Spirit – a commitment to obedience, an act of submission, a confession of sin, an affirmation of God’s truth in my life, a profound act of gratitude that owns our participation in God’s grace. These moments shape the believer profoundly for life in Christ and His Mission. The congregation cannot sit passive gazing at the speaker – disconnected from him/her – taking notes to be applied at a later time. For this makes the gospel something we do, not who we become (from whence it becomes something we do!). Preaching turns from a transformational encounter into an impersonal information distribution to thousands of individuals who then go home and try to do something with what they’ve heard. The latter rarely happens.
At LOV, the response at the end of preaching often takes the form of a verbal response-prayer prayed by individuals in the congregation and responsively agreed with by the whole congregation in saying ‘Amen.’ It is intense and personal yet congregational. It has become a highlight of our communal time together.
3.) In the missional context: Preaching is always better when we know the person – when he/she is one of us. Missional disciples are formed via modeling the life in following Christ. Often this modeling begins by the pastors themselves modeling when they preach out of their relationship with God in mission. This preaching will always be more effective out of authentic relationship – the being known by the congregation. In a congregation of 200, even if the actual person does not know the pastor preaching that day, he/she probably knows someone that actually does. The pastor is a real person. And the pastor, among the people, knows people and can preach the Word of God over their particular situation as one of them. The power of witness, a life lived in glaring humility and authenticity, ‘that very presence” (the Holy Spirit fills in order to) communicates the gospel. This is quite different phenomenologically from the preaching that happens via an image ( a talking head) on a screen. The first one is preaching life among us, the second is a command performance often hiding the warts and problems of everyday life. For discipleship reasons, missional preaching is most effective when the pastor is known by the congregation.
Have I missed something here? Is there actually something missional about video venue services? If so what would that be? I invite “push back”
For other reasons to be wary of video venue, see Bob Hyatt’s fine writing here and of course Bill Kinnon.
Look for my forthcoming post – A CHALLENGE TO VIDEO VENUE START-UPS – DO AN IMPACT STUDY
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Good stuff although I was just reflecting that this seems to be an American phenomena as Oz is way too pagan to make it work!
Heard a bit of practical wisdom recently that I think applies here. The wisdom is that the whole reason we practice preaching and teaching in the power of the Holy Spirit is that we expect God to DO something between the speaker and hearer – we expect and pray for a spiritual work to be done. When this happens, for the sake of ongoing discipleship, the environment should be conducive to the hearer being able to follow up with the speaker to continue discussing and discerning what the Holy Spirit is doing. Of course this can can happen with others, but there in undoubtedly something unique about the spiritual bond between speaker and hearer.
Aside from making video venues absurd, another practical implication of this sort of rationale is the size of corporate gatherings. The wisdom plays out like this… If the environment is not such that the hearer of a message has the ability to connect with the speaker of that message for coffee to talk about how God was present to them in the message, the gathering is too large.
I think this why your number of 200(?) makes so much intuitive sense.
Front end loaded – I attend a “video venue” church. I won’t deny my bias in this respect. But I would like to challenge a few of your comments in the most respectful and humble way I can, since I greatly admire you, your teaching, and what God is doing through you.
In missional incarnational preaching, I would agree, it is proclaimed for a specific locale. But I would challenge the idea that less local (I assume you mean the proximity of the person teaching to the actual location) and the larger the crowd presupposes a preaching/teaching that becomes “watered down”. I won’t promote my community of faith for sake of the argument or “name dropping”, but in my context, I would say that the exact opposite occurs.
I would suggest that the teaching I hear is quite challenging and very missional. One can encourage missional incarnational living without being in that same proximity. If that wasn’t the case, I suppose going to see a speaker, at say a conference, would become null and void, especially if that speaker was touching on the topic of the missional church. Though each local expression may have it’s nuances, it is true that when it comes to the condition of the human heart and working to live visibly as the body of Christ to those who don’t Him, there isn’t much new under the sun. We all wrestle with similar struggles, similar issues (poverty, homelessness) whether we live in Toronto or Toledo. Someone from a neighboring town can speak into my context and illuminate and ignite my imagination to live out mission. I see how you have unpacked that argument, but it almost waves an arm over all video venue expressions, and I can’t agree with that type of generalization.
In the missional context, I agree, there must be a response to what we have heard. But what if video venue creates avenue for expressions, like small group, or home church expressions to live out the teachings? What if those smaller groups live out the gospel, live out the teaching in practical missional ways?
In your argument it seems another presupposition lies that suggests that it is within a video venue church that church goers stare at a screen, take notes, and passively do nothing. Couldn’t the same be said for any church, in any venue, whether screen or live? I would humbly submit there are thousands of churches all across North America lined with passive “church-goers” instead of Christ-followers, quite content to let Sunday be their religious expression for the week, doing nothing outside of that time to live and breathe Christ. How could that argument not be suited for any church, not just one that means to hear preaching on a screen?
If that could be a possibility, then wouldn’t the model of church (video or live preaching) not be the issue, but more so the church itself? How it communicates mission, how it teaches Jesus, how it lives out tangibly the calling of Christ?
In my opinion preaching is a risk. Everytime. Every Pastor risks that those listening will take that encounter with truth and turn it into an impersonal information distribution moment and do nothing with what they have heard. I don’t see “video venues” as taking a further risk, I just see it jumping in the risk with the others. If “video venues” have no other vehicle or structure in place (outside of the Sunday morning expression) to live out the teachings, then of course, that kind of passivity will breed. But again, could that not be said of any church, any Christian meeting of any sort.
Where I will give you a point well taken is in your third arguement around “knowing” the person preaching. Again, I think this depends on the definition of knowing, and of course the work that the said Pastor takes to let themselves be known to other sites. With technology, being “known” is somewhat easier, to some degree. But I will say, I wish I knew my Teaching Pastor better. I hear of how he lives out his teachings, I hear it through those that do know him and though he is not known to “toot” his own horn, some of those incarnational moments he experiences in his life come out when he preaches.
I would love to hear your push back as well David. I appreciate your insight and being willing to continue this discussion.
Hi Dave,
I’d be interested in hearing you drill deeper on point 2. I’ve been engaging my church in reflective steps to consider (actions or attitudes that can be changed to better reflect the teaching), but I’m intrigued at the congregation-wide approach. Would love to hear more thoughts on how to achieve that dynamic in a public/interactive way.
Elle, my understanding regarding video venues isn’t necessarily the content being taught, but that the form communicates (perhaps unintended) that the “show” on Sunday is best left to the professionals, rather than seeking to engage others in the teaching responsibilities. Granted, many churches without video venues can be guilty of this too, but it seems VV may exacerbate the problem. Just my 2 cents.
One of my sons and numerous nieces & nephews attend the multi-site church of which Elle is a part. I confess that, as a Torontonian, I’m thankful these kids go to church at all – but, that being said, I’m with Dave on this.
The home church/home group approach of this particular megachurch is admirable – but it’s not missional. The Sunday morning event focus is on the preaching – and a discussion of that preaching in the home meetings. (I’ve attended a number of Sunday morning events in the past three years.)
I find it particularly interesting that this multi-site organization just parachuted a new “pastor” into their downtown location from Australia. The new leader for this particular venue was not found from within – which tells its own story.
Elle,
Thanks for the gentle push back. To respond: I think initially it might make sense to think that “when it comes to the condition of the human heart and working to live visibly as the body of Christ to those who don’t Him, there isn’t much new under the sun.” Yet by missional, I intend to mean and others as well, the very incarnational contexual engagement that requires presense, discernment and the stoking of imagination based int he stories of our own lives. Preaching funds this imagination. The further one gets from the locale the less incarnational we can become … even tonite, at a pastor’s meeting, we talked about a very real issue in our church that has to do with a repetitive kind of person who slips thru the cracks of our community. It is specific to the middle class Chicago suburb community that seeks to intersect with the poor and addicted. It has conditioned how I might preach this Sunday.
i agree that one might be able to teach on a generic level and challenge on wide range issues, but this TO ME is not preaching, it is teaching, making presentations, and collaboration … even little ol me does this at the occasional conference and I see the value in it … For me preaching is different, it is the shaping encounter with the Word in the charismatic community under His Lordship .. which shapes our lives and witness into the world. I think we often miss the local encounter in a local community gathered around the Word is .. because we have been so separated from it by the superstar preaching models of our day… Hope that makes a little sense ..
I agree … many churches, not just video venues, promote the passivization of the listner (as opposed to hearer) to the Word… to me … as I’ve explained this elsewhere in blogs and writings … this is the disease of modernity , that which Cartesianizes the church into isolated minds receiving teaching in order to then do something with it … which always implies I am in control … resulting in doing nothing and little transformation.
Kyle… let me see if I can get something up here eventually on the way we have come to preach communally within a liturgy at Life on the Vine … but there ‘s a group of preahers who have developed into gifted preachers in leading the congregation into the Word .. and then a response …
Unfortunately, there is a certain socio-cultural homogeneity in vast swaths of territory, such as suburban Chicago, which make the contextualization aspect of incarnation fairly easy. This is where video venues thrive: by multiplying/franchising themselves in contexts virtually identical to their own. In our increasingly “mass-mediated” society—again I say, unfortunately—culture is becoming increasingly homogeneous, not only from suburb to suburb, but from urban to suburban to even rural contexts. Granted, there remain idiosyncrasies to each, especially where ethnic enclaves exist, but there is much cultural overlap, and increasingly so. As a matter of fact, culture is becoming more globally homogeneous, and the “McDonaldization” phenomenon is merely one example (the influence of American pop culture is another… no offense to you Canadians).
On the flip side, there are numerous reasons video preaching is less than ideal for a church’s weekly gathering. The development of new leader-preachers is one of the biggest. Not truly knowing the preacher’s character (as Paul so frequently appealed to) from observation is another. And I would agree with you, Dave, that specificity of application is another big one. Not just individual application, but whole church exhortation and equipping for specific “incarnations” of their mission.
David,
I want to offer that I am an associate pastor at large, multi-site church that utilizes video venues. Obviously, I have an opinion on this issue that is probably less than biased. In that light, however, I wanted to offer you a perspective to consider from ‘the other side’.
David, both of us agree on one thing, at least. A significant, if not the primary, goal of all our ministry efforts is to lead people towards God in a way that transforms their lives by conforming them to the image of Christ. Once you have seen this happen in a video venue – the genuine, spiritual transformation of a person through a relationship with Christ – and understand that the realistic alternative was a dead church, or an unhealthy church or even worse, a gas station, video venues might not be as bad as some people think.
While I hardly pretend that “multi-site” is the universal answer, I think that it can be much more helpful than harmful in moving the Church forward. In truth, I think we need freedom and a variety of expressions to reach as many people as we possibly can. I am all for the Kingdom flourishing wherever it can, whenever it can, however it can. In this dark world, I imagine most of us are. I hope that provides a bit of a counter-balance as to how others might see this issue.
May God continue to bless you in all that you do! – JW
Matt,
Thanks .. I think you’re right for large parts of the culture … this speaks to the way such “forms” of communication also reduce contexts to sameness, there’s a certain “violence” there … Should we as Christians participate in that? If we do it has to be in a very discerning way.
JW
I’m greatful for each transformed life, seriously. Nonethless, I wish that good people from video venues or mega churches would engage the critique more directly. For can’t we say that God uses our most warped theologies to somehow save people. I.e. many have been saved within the most warped excesses of televangelist prosperity driven manipulative television programs, and of course many more have been harmed, Should we extol the virtues of this ministry because of the few that been made it through unscathed and even transformed by God’s grace despite the shape of the ministry?
What bothers me sometimes, is in a morass of 1000′s of souls attending church, large attractional churches highlight particular lives that have been transformed by skillfully producing video telling the (hyper)reality of the story, creating a sense that this is in effect happening on a mass scale. Then, years later, after a Reveal Study or some other form of such research, we are stunned to find out, proportionately, little discipleship was actually going on in the masses.
I mean no disrespect. I am just asking (pleading?) that we engage head on the ecclessiological issues instead of producing a case of an isolated transformed life as an apologetic for an ecclesiastical form.
Hear, hear!
David,
I appreciate this discussion very much. My home church just started a branch campus last January, and my wife and I may be involved in planting and pastoring another one within a couple of years. Right now, we’re in the praying and planning phase, teaching at a Christian international school in Taiwan while I wrap up my seminary coursework by distance.
As I was reading over your initial post and all of the comments (a lot to digest at one time!), I was struck with the idea that if a multi-site church is done right, the concerns raised would be non-issues. Why couldn’t the preacher visit each site on a regular basis, participating in many of the local activities and lives of the church? Why couldn’t the various sites meet together every once in awhile to fellowship face-to-face as one body? Why couldn’t each site facilitate a time of reflection and response to the sermon… just like any other church?
As a missionary, I see the video multi-site paradigm as strategically missional. Granted, it doesn’t always turn out that way, but here is one key reason why it could:
A church site can be established while preachers are still in training. For this to work, there must be the possibility of breaking off into autonomous churches when such a preacher is developed. If the lack of a preacher is what is keeping a new church from starting, this could be a good solution.
Consider the formation of the church in Acts. For a number of years, Paul was the only preacher many of these churches had (reminiscent of the circuit riders in the American west). The goal must always be the establishment of local leadership, but, in the meantime, we must make the best use of the resources available.
As I look ahead to the next couple of years, I may be a pastor who gets started in a multi-site church. For me, multi-site is not an end in itself but a step in the right direction.
Matt,
good food for further thought. Thanks.
If I read you right, a multi-site church enables a large church that meets in one place to meet in many different venues closer to other geographical locales? This in essence is more missional – incarnational – in other words – more local. I think you could argue that.
My concerns? One preacher applying the text … across multiple sites of people he does not really know. Again, from my point of view, it cannot help delocalize and train people into passivity. Secondly, “the lack of a preacher”? How can a church that is this big, lack a preacher for these mutiple sites, if indeed God promises the gifts (Eph 4, 1 Cor 11, Rom 12 etc.) in each locale? Rather, it suggests that this church either has been looking at leadership in a top down way that thwarts extending the gospel, but keeps the gospel under one man/woman’s papacy … or that insufficent attentoon has been paid to discipleship of leaders, or that the expectations upon a preacher are not Scriptural but attractional. I therefore urge us to consider how, in any of these scenarios, going forth with multi site video venues – WOULD AGGRAVATE IF NOT EVEN NURTURE A CONTINUATION OF A MAL-FORMED UNDERSTANDING OF LEADERSHIP AND PREACHING.
Does that make sense? (I use caps just to emphasize which is my main point because the comment got so long)
Thanks for the good stuff … I’m being pushed in these comments here in a good way.
David,
Thanks for your feedback and dialogue on this. It’s helpful for me to think this all through before jumping into it with both feet!
Let me clarify that the church I’m speaking of is far from a megachurch. There are 200-300 on any given Sunday. As the church grows, a small group is gathered from the main church to ‘seed’ a new site. Right now, there are only two locations (the main church and one other, about 20-minutes away).
I think this is why your original points don’t seem to fit. At least in my context, the lead preaching pastor is extremely relational, making every effort to connect with people on both campuses. There are unity services every couple of months, where both sites meet together for combined worship. In effect, then, it really does seem like one church in two locations. As the church continues to grow, we need to be sure to keep the number of sites low enough that the relational and local feel can still be there.
While I agree with your points about missional preaching, I want to caution us from making too many assumptions about what a video multi-site church really looks like, because, like any ecclesiastical form, it can take many different shapes–each one more or less missional than the others.
Matt,
that seems to make some sense. And I know some like Bob Hyatt are differentiating multi-site from video venue (Thanks JR for reminding me). It sounds like a further church planting- community seeding venture which is quite different from Video venue thing that I am engaging here. Anyways, thanks for the clarification!
DF
“we talked about a very real issue in our church that has to do with a repetitive kind of person who slips thru the cracks of our community. It is specific to the middle class Chicago suburb community that seeks to intersect with the poor and addicted. It has conditioned how I might preach this Sunday…”
This people and context specific response is so critical. It is shaped by a particular need, so it may be like communal “spiritual direction,” but is also often conditioned by the mission context.
Kinnon, you just assume you know where I attend…;) Just kidding. Yes, guilty as charged, ’tis me.
I appreciate your feedback David, and your push back as well Bill. I always learn from respectful discourse.
Thanks for fostering this conversation when others seem to be giving it up.
[...] is an add-on to my previous post on Video venue church. Here I want to suggest strongly that video-venue mega-church-developers [...]
[...] [25] David Fitch gives states his case against churches doing video venues. [...]
Dave:
Can you define your concept of “local church” for me? Thanks. I think once I understand that, I’ll be able to respond more clearly with my thoughts.
I’m with you!
We need more priests in the hood – (aka priesthood of believers) not clones of what works in a neighboring community.
Five years ago I might have been on board with video messages/satellite campuses, but to me you lose many of the relational aspects that should make up a church when you move towards video site.
“…multi-site phenomenon continues reminding us that the church is not local, it is a franchise spreading a certain product to Christians everywhere.”
Not stirring deliberately but what does this say about blogging? Can blogging, an inherantly translocal phenomenon, be missional?
This blog title didn’t quite fit for me, “Can Missional Be Multi-Site? 3 Characteristics of Missional Preaching”. The post is more of a critique to video teaching/ preaching, and that doesn’t fit multi-site for 3 reasons, off the top of my head: (1) some single-site churches use video teaching, (2) not all multi-site churches use video teaching, some use exclusively in-person teaching with a teaching team, (3) only few (if any?) multi-site churches use a “franchise” model, most don’t.
While video teaching may not be missional for some, perhaps video teaching can be incorporated in missional communities and local churches in other ways. Granted, differing local contexts and different leaders define the semantic boundaries of a word like “missional” and that’d yield different convictions.
And there are other ways of being missional beyond preaching alone. One example is Northland Church and how it enables house churches to be missional through video teaching — http://blogs.northlandchurch.net/2008/02/19/starting-a-northland-house-church/
For one example of a multi-site chuch that is very missional, see my interview with Charles Lee at http://learnings.leadnet.org/2009/12/how-one-multisite-church-merged-into-another-multisite-church.html
Thanks for sharing the nice post with me, an
cheap abercrombie uk,
girl who firmly follows the fashion trend,
It really brings me some fresh feelings with addtional insights into today’s world.
We meet in the night in the Spanish cafe , we give a hug for each other with pleasure, at that moment, how i wish come with U and stay with U forever,
football jersey,
this is forever!
[...] a part of. (Dave Fitch, one of the co-pastors of LOV, offers some reflections on this same topic here.) In missional communities, preaching is a communal activity which seeks to proclaim biblical truth [...]
well done!nice job!
[...] this post, there is nothing of substantial value in this post, it’s just me ranting. Fitch has an excellent post on this topic here if you want to read it, but I’m just going to wrestle out loud for a [...]