O.K. “farce” may be a little strong, yet the video above illustrates why I think video venue church is disingenuous when it comes to reaching the world with the gospel. This video records a conversation between pastor James McDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel, pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill in Seattle, and pastor Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist church on the positives/negative of video venue/ multi site churches. McDonald and Driscoll are advocates specifically of video venue multi-site. Dever is not. This conversation, I think, substantiates several things I have been saying about the video venue church elsewhere. Here are my previous concerns with video venue form of church along with some observations from this video that substantiate my general thesis: Video Venues are the antithesis of Missional.
1.)Video Venues decontextualizes preaching. I believe preaching is different than teaching. Preaching speaks into the context, interprets Scripture for what God is doing in and among a local congregation and its context. It is the work of the Spirit using the preacher to call people into God’s Kingdom now. (This is why it often is conjoined with prophecy in the NT – read the classic on this here). It is speaking the Word over and into a context. This is one of the functions of the interpretive leader. The preacher however, that is separated by miles cannot do that. By definition, this preacher never knows anybody in the community, cannot by definition speak into people’s lives in this way. Preaching by definition becomes the mere cognitive transfer of information done in an entertaining and/or engaging format.
Now, pastor James gives a nod to the contextualization nature of preaching when he says recordings of preachers’ sermons should not be played after the preacher dies. He says Vernon McGee recordings should be put to bed for this reason. If this is true, what can it mean when Driscoll freely acknowledges he’s an introvert and therefore doesn’t want to know anyone is his congregation, just let the Spirit lead and guide him to say what needs to be said in his sermon. To me this reveals the decontextualized nature of Driscoll’s (and the Neo-Reformed in general) preaching. How then does preaching for Mars Hill in Seattle not become a form of info –distribution by a preacher who is unusually gifted in being engaging. It is preaching decontextualized, detached from real life. It is one step further towards preaching becoming commodified, consumerized, a product distributed to be used by those who come seeking a better Christian life. Once this happens, “the Word” becomes a user-friendly item and it by definition is no longer the Word of the God. And since I firmly believe that the preacher’s task in the community is to be an interpretive leader, one who helps the community see God at work in and among them contextually through Scripture, this means video venue preaching is the very antithesis of missional. Tell me where I’m wrong?
2.) Video venues draw crowds to a celebrity and this attraction works against (as opposed to helps) the formation of church in mission. If the church is the living body of Christ operating out of the gifts of the Spirit ministering the gospel in everyday life among the world, the attraction of people to celebrity is by definition not church. At the very least this personality contest/video impulse works against the drive into Mission.
Yet, in this video conversation, both Driscoll and McDonald extol “draw” on celebrity as one of the advantages of starting churches with video. They seem to think celebrity is something to be used to build churches, spread the gospel. Yet is this what is actually happening? I think not.
In fact what is happening, more often than not, is merely the shifting of consumers into churches wanting more accessible/engaging, entertaining information/teaching. When pastor Driscoll says that this church in Albuquerque went from 200 to 500 in few six months with him videoing, does he think suddenly people who had never heard him wanted to suddenly hear the gospel? Does he think people did not come from other churches. So let’s just be honest here eh? This isn’t evangelism, or building churches this is warehousing Christians who want “better” teaching (whatever that might mean?) This is churches playing musical chairs. When pastor James talks about leveraging his influence to start and build up other churches, doesn’t this really say what video church is about? What does he mean by his influence? Those who know him via Moody radio? Does he really think non-Christians want to go hear him preach? Is this really building up more churches? Or is this musical chairs, people who are obviously other Christians moving from another church to come hear him? Is this church? Is this gospel? No offense, but I’ve heard of several small churches (300 or less) being shut down or taken over in the wake of each video venue Harvest moving in? Is this spreading the gospel? Or more musical chairs? When pastor Driscoll says video is less consumerist because he’s not there? Is this completely bizarre? When he says his church is mission centered not pastor centered is this just plain crazy? To me this is all talk masking how video venue preaching is the very antithesis of missional. Can someone tell me where I am wrong here?
3.) Mission requires more than words. Video venues intensify the dependence upon words. In a way, this video discussion proves a (part of a) thesis that I want to build upon in the weeks ahead; that the Reformed people possess an unhealthy overconfidence in preaching as the means to proclaim the gospel and that this itself feeds into the attractional proclivities of the Neo-Reformed missionals. Somehow video venue can be justified as missional. And what gets overlooked is that the gospel requires contextualized incarnation in post Christendom in order to be interpreted (completely). It requires the embodiment of redemption. It requires contextualization!! When Christendom still exists, where Christian language is still ubiquitous, where the Bible still has inherent authority even among those not living it, the Neo-Reformed strategy continues to work. It is a strategy that plays off of and continues to service the culture of Christendom: the culture of existing Christians and those who know about Christ but have good decisions for Christ and this is perfectly good thing to do. It will not play well however in the mission-fields of post Christendom. For all these reasons, Video Venue church is the antithesis of missional.
I first saw this video on Steve McCoy’s blog, a Neo-Reformed devotee. See this post by Steve and his excellent fair-minded views and the ensuing comments from the Neo-Reformed part of the conversation! Thanks Steve!!
———–
Notes on what’s coming next:
I still aim in about two weeks to begin a promised series of posts engaging the Neo-Reformed Missional efforts which include Tim Keller, Jim Belcher, Acts 29, The Gospel Coalition etc. I’m doing it off of reading this book here.
For those interested in pursuing the Missional conversation, don’t forget the Missional Learning Commons coming up. It’s free (except for 10 bucks to help for children’s care).
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Hey … just wonderin' … anybody done a Video Preacher App yet?
Could call it V-Pap for short, and your VAP-ID system get's you virtually connected with the downloadable discipler of your choosing.
Dang, this has got reeeeeeal possibilites … OMG! OMG! OMG!
Wow – McDonald and Driscoll are arrogant bullies!
Agreed
You know what else isn't missional?
Ad hominem attacks against your favorite targets, questioning motives and integrity which you're not privy to, and disguising it all as "missional."
Driscoll obviously knows a lot about his congregation–it's woven through all of his books and preaching. Which I guess you conveniently ignore because it doesn't suit your thesis.
You also make no distinction between local multi-site, and regional/national multi-site. On a local level (sites separated by only a few miles, but perhaps meeting simultaneously and/or throughout the weekend) it's quite possible for the preacher(s) to know whom they're preaching to–generally speaking. (Unless a preacher is preaching to less than 150 or so, he never knows everyone anyway).
Ad hominem attacks? I've reread the post and still can't see any.
Of the 3000 people baptized in Acts 2, how many of them did Peter know?
The general consensus is all three thousand went home … were dispersed… into communities. Right? This was the founding of the church's dispersion … they were largely Jews gathered for Pentecost … who knew the Story by which Jesus Christ, the Messianic fulfilment of the OT … converts from Judiasm to Jesus as Lord … i.e. similar to various Christendom conditions where decisions make sense because they know already know the Story in some way …
Why does this approach to "mega-church" arise in the land of consumerism and capitalism where enterprising and franchising is the way of business? What concerns me is the apparent "cloning" of the parent-church/epicenter of the multi-sight. Indigenous church planting is not the same as cloning and that is what concerns me…is multi-sight really just another way to establish top-down control from human pastor and/or human oversight committee?
Grace and peace,
Rex
I can see it a couple of ways.
The reason Mars Hill succeeds is not primarily because of reliance on a Christendom model (they are in a leading progressive city of post-Christendom culture) but because of the culturally savvy means they use to create a powerfully attractive alternative culture to the dominant one in their location.
I do have a problem though with McDonald’s equating the mission of the church, with “the church”. They seem to be talking about something which is personality driven, hierarchical, point in time and location specific, and mostly centered around the works of men. Christ did not establish a “church” to be governed, but a race to be run. There was no sense within McDonald’s view of the church as being ‘the people’; and the way they sling around congregation sizes like some kind of macho merit badge is dehumanizing for those under their care. If you are a congregation under 200 you won’t ever see ‘the good preachers’ because they are too busy for those churches that are ‘really succeeding’, give me a break.
Chuck,
ad hominem? I thot I was being pretty even handed … but I think ad hominem arguments make sense for missional people … what you say must in essence be part of your character in some way for there to be a truthfulness worth listening to.
Nonetheless, I don't think I attacked the character of these men n this post, I used their testimony in this recorded conversation to substantiate my earlier thesis concerning video venue forms of church. What's the issue there? Could you be more specific where you think I attacked these men's character?
Second, Driscoll knows his congregation? that may be true, but it is his own words that says he doesn't know his congregation (even implying he doesn't want to knwo his congregation). Why get mad at me for saying that?
On a local level preachers can know their congregation …? I contend that much like Dunbar's number … past 220 people or so … the pastor becomes removed from his congregation … not only does he/she know so few people … but few know him/her … at 200 or so, everyone knows the pastor or knows someone who does know the pastor … the pastor is not a hidden secluded person incapable of being "among" the body … That's my thots … on things … thanks for conversing …
Whatever number you're using .. once you have separated yourself from the gathering via a video device … you are in essence an image … a persona .. and you no longer can speak into the context in the way I amd trying to describe ..
peace
DF
I think the distinction McDonald makes between him on a video screen while living (being acceptable) and then when he dies it no longer is acceptable doesn't really make much sense. Either way it is disembodied preaching, Dave as you say without contextualization. I'm not sure a message loses relevance depending on if the preacher is alive, but perhaps only when living among his people
or the people…sorry, didn't mean to imply the pastor owns them…but hopefully you all know what I meant
I agree. McDonald didn't make sense on this point. And also he seems to too easily negate the whole "J.V. McGee phenomenon." To push back a bit, do we really want to say that the recording of preachers make no impact beyond the moment and to whom they were originally addressed? That is ridiculous.
This comment probably isn't going to make very much sense … but I hardly ever do. So I'll make it and then you can all just continue on as you were.
Anyway … I picked up "Three Cups of Tea" by Greg Mortenson the other week. I'm still trying to find time to read it. But I did find time to read a paragraph in the middle and it's really stuck with me. Greg is talking with his mentor in (whereever he is trying to build schools) and apparently he's spent some time trying to find an available village to build the next one. And the little old man said something like this to him … "Why don't you let me use my contacts to find out who is ready for you. That way you won't fly around like a starving crow trying to find scraps." And things became very clear to Greg … he could settle in and relax. Allow his close friends to negotiate some of the rocky places and let them speak for him.
How many times do we … in very well meaning ways … fly around like starving crows picking up scraps? Instead of settling into a community and making friends, then allow them to speak for us and negotiate the rocky places when church planting or creating community. I think it's because we have lived as crows for so long that we now have these squawking boxes that we think are speaking wisdom …
As you were.
I found it interesting that Dever tried to have a serious exegetical discussion and the other two shut him down so they could talk about how successful they were. That behaviour speaks louder than anything subsequently said by Driscoll or MacDonald. Hats off to Dever for being gracious in the face of such arrogance.
Dan, you just did an ad hominem argument …a missional one to boot
Thanks, I try
Multi site is the next big thing so I am glad this conversation is happening. I think this post has made some very good points especially the first two points on multi sites videos not being contextualized as well as the celebrity pastor complex. I think a critique that may be missing is that the multi site video culture takes away from apprentices or those who are in the church who may be ready to teach, preach and lead. Multi site churches are usually quite large and that means there are probably a lot of people ready to use their gifts that aren't able to because of the BIG pastor/leader.
However, with that said. I have to defend Driscoll a bit because he seems to be quite contextualized and also is quite mssional. A LOT of people in Seattle are coming to Christ for the first time because of his/Mars Hill's missional efforts and A LOT of immature Christians are growing in maturity bc of Driscoll's preaching and focus on good theology. I would argue that the A29 guys have the best balance I have seen yet between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. And Driscoll has led the way. God is using him in great ways and there are people all around the world watching his videos or listening to his audio and God is using it to change their lives. God has raised him up and I pray God keeps him humble and usable to the Kingdom.
Driscoll is a prophetic type so of course he is going to come off a bit edgy and less pastoral than all the pastoral types would like. If anyone has heard Alan Hirsh and have understood his APEST talks on Eph 4 than it may be a bit more easy for some to accept Driscoll's drive and personality and gifting. That being said he does sometime cross the line in my mind and it would be good for him to surround himself with the others gifts mentioned in Eph 4.
David – thanks for the great analysis. If only you would stop using the ad hominems.
BTW – Chuck have you heard MD speak?
Well there's a couple of things I like about the thought of being in a video venue (if and when it occurs – have yet to experience it for 'worship')… the preacher will never see me sleeping, won't have a clue if I walk out on him, and in my wildest of dreams can be switched off with a with a remote control.
Bob…is it that technology is involved that you sense irony? I don't see the connection, because Dave isn't claiming that his blog is church. I see this blog as a connection point for people in all different sorts of places, but not the primary place for spiritual formation as a local expression of Christ's body.
No, not just technology. More a parallel between a sermon (as opposed to church because I'm sure there still is an assembled physical presence of God's people who minister to each other in human ways even if the sermon is pumped in from a remote site) and the effects of a blog that focuses on exhortation/teaching/exploring religious ideas.
In both, there is instruction happening via words to a disconnected audience that will grow or shrink based on the popularity of the presenter. I know a bunch of de-churched people who get most of their teaching from blogs.
If people want *teaching* from blogs, that's fine. Teaching isn't church. That's the whole point of missional theology.
Bob …
I think I'd agree with you … i.e. most of the limitations I have assailed video venues for having apply to blogs, with the possible exception that there is a forum for dialogue in and surrounding the post … (that's what I enjoy the most). Of course, I believe the charismatic (gifted by the Spirit alive and at work in both the preacher and the gathered community) work of preaching could no more be accomplished by a blog than by video screen. On the other hand, I think certain kinds of information transfer can be done via various internet/ video technologies … including teaching .. enhanced even more through interaction (I've watched this happen with online technologies adopted for traditional seminary course work). For the various reasons I have outlined (and others have outlined more) … I think it works against the formation of mission shaped communities. Peace …
Comment part 1
I'm not sure, but I think that it is possible that the first video, multi site church was Yoido Full Gospel Church of Seoul, Korea. The best resource on it is here – http://www.joelcomiskeygroup.com/articles/worldwi…
Yoido is a different paradigm of church – they are a cell church, which believes that the life of the church is in the cell, not in the celebration or worship. That's the significant difference between that church and the conversation above. As a result of the missional community in the cells, so many disciples have been made that even with a 12,000 seat sanctuary people have had to wait in line for an hour to get a seat in the sanctuary. (Paul Yongii Cho with R. Whitney Manzano, More Than Numbers (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1984), 50.) To deal with this overcrowding, Yoido began to put screens in all available rooms in their building, and eventually extending to 19 regional chapels. This is in addition to planting churches by hiving off church plants with 5000 members and $5 million to start.
Comment part 3
So I've come to believe that "missional" is a small, sent, focused missional community thing – a cell thing – when it works, and that the size of the crowd in worship or the means by which a sermon is delivered is (for me) is irrelevant by comparison. Missional is not about what happens when we gather away from the world inside the church building.
I think your comment3 puts a lot of perspective on this conversation. If the big sunday thing is most important (if *formation* is done 'right') then the rest will take care of itself. With that perspective it is of utmost importance that you do sunday right. And you must have interviews and blogs and conferences on how to do sunday right. The cho-castenellos-adelayja et. al focuses on doing small right, and sunday feeds the beast of the small group.
Mark Driscoll's theme song is "I Love Technology" by Kip Dynamite @ the end of "Napoleon Dynamite."
[...] that is not what you get. As one commenter on David Finch’s blog said, “you get Denver trying to have a serious discussion and the other two cutting him off [...]
I think my issue with this whole debate is not how the person at the front is displayed whether it be on video or in person, but rather how the community gathers, and what they gather around and how big they allow themselves to get.
I would have a lot less of a problem with a group of 50 folks gathering in a living room, watching a sermon together on a tv and then doing the rest of the service together like eating and praying and discussing. My issue is when it clearly reflects mass consumption, celebrity culture and size as being somehow equated with what "church is." All three of the guys in the video seem to still promote a sense of "largeness" that I still can't comprehend how it is helpful whatsoever.
This video was disheartening and irritated me. Here are three dudes running large churches (two a lot larger than the one, wonder if the level of pride can be compared to the size of their churches), and the conversation was useless and full so much non critical, non-humble approaches to their methods.
If there is one thing that these videos do, I hope it is exposing the flaws in these types of leaders and helping the little guys stay little and learn to lead well without needing to look, sound or act like these celebrity pastors.
Inferring that people are Luddites must be a Gospel Coalition thing.
I think Matt Tebbe hit it on the head about how video venues spiritually form someone.
As I reflect on it, this is what I'm thinking: We are called to make disciples. That's the whole enchilada. If we make disciples, we get the church; if we make a church, we don't always get disciples.
Let's say, for a second, that video venue sometimes gets converts (I don't think it is nearly as successful as some people think that it is. most stats would suggest significant transfer growth to see the "big celebrity personality on the screen). But let's assume their are some converts.
What have they been converted to?
Because people are pre-disposed to be passive with a screen, they are significantly pre-disposed to dis-engagement…which, last I checked, was the exact antithesis of discipleship.
The problem is that because video venues are so new, we have yet to really see the unintended consequences. The fact is, growing a church with more people isn't a good thing unless those people are actually becoming disciples.
I'm inclined to say video venue stands a slim chance of truly making disciples, even if the celebrity pastor wants it to (and of course they do, I'm not questioning their motives). But the unintended consequence is creating a culture that's going to be nearly impossible to disciple.
So if the question is do multi-site/vide-venue churches grow…well yes…some of them do.
But that's not the most important question. The most important question is are they making disciples. And sadly, very few churches of any kind know how to do that.
And I'd argue video-venue churches are making it even harder on themselves.
So if they aren't making disciples…which is the whole thing Jesus was about and told us to be about…what does it even matter???
Sidenote: It's interesting to read the actual history of the Luddites – they were concerned about new technology for many of the same reasons you talked about (what will it do to our communities? etc) They weren't blindly opposing it, as is often said.
So perhaps it's an honor to be called a Luddite?
[...] Reclaiming the Mission » The Video Venue Farce: Why Video Venue is the Antithesis of Missional Share the above post on: [...]
Good post Dave.
On the flip side, some of the comments here are leading me to think that "missional" is being misunderstood and misappropriated by some from the Free Church tradition. How can the worship of a gathered local congregation be anything but crucial and central to a truly missional church? [yes, "gathered" in that Sunday-morning-sense] If it were not for what happens "in here" on Sunday mornings, gathered around Christ's Table, there would be no Christ-incarnate to do mission "out there." [If "missional" ain't Trinitarian, it ain't missional]
We are either participating in God's mission through Christ or we are merely a collection of individuals bent on social activism. We are either formed into a mission-people through Yahweh-worship, or we have simply organized around some kind of purposive intent.
I'd love to see studies about the church backgrounds of those attending video venues.
Were paul's letters decontextualized because he wasn't intimately involved in some of the churches he "preached" to?
Are more people who attend video services more or less involved in small groups and community?
Could those who attend actually feel less connected to the preacher (maybe the initial reasons they came) and more connected to community than those who attend churches of 200 who sometimes do so that they might be connected to the personality of the preacher?
Great article and response to the video!
Oh my word. I have never seen such absolute incoherence from two well-respected leaders in the church. Poor Dever. I'm thinking about writing a satirical interview with Driscoll and it would look something like this:
Adam: Welcome Mark, I'd like to talk to you about…
Mark: 26
Adam: umm, excuse me? Do you mean 29, Acts 29?
Mark: that's how many times more amazing I am than you
Adam: I agree, but let's talk about mission…
Mark: I win
Adam: you… win? what do you win? Mark, I think it would be helpful if…
Mark: I just beat you and now you are changing the topic.
Adam: …
Mark: I can recite the Westminster catechism backwards by memory and I know the 9 marks of a New Testament church.
I have a big problem with high profile leaders, period. For those of us who aren't as smart or theologically astute, there is a sense that we don't have a voice or can contribute much to the conversation. It get's to the point, for me personally, that I begin to wonder if God blessed these high profile leaders (HPL's) more than me, per se. HPL's contribute to the notion that the church should be left to the elite, who know what they're doing and have it under control. So, WHY NOT have them projected on the screen for EVERYONE to listen to them! Let the professionals handle since they've been endowed with the gift of gab.
I'll tell you another thing…hispanics (1st, 2nd or 3rd), for the most part, would not do video venue church. I preface, "FOR THE MOST PART". We want to interact with the person "feeding" us. We want to touch them, know them, build a relationship with them. I don't want to interact with a screen.
But, we'll let the HPL's, the professionals, care for us via screen. They've got the "credibility" to share with us what God is saying.
What we're seeing with the video venue and mega-church phenomena is the continued emphasis that there is really only one "expert" teacher. The rest of you…just sit there and listen. So what is actually happening in the western church is the "breeding" out of the teaching gift of the masses. One of these days a decade or two down the road we'll wake up and find that all those "expert" teachers have passed on – then what will we do?
hey smallcog,
i'm here because i'm desperate (DESPERATE!) for another post by dave. maybe that's overstating it…hopeful for another post. but seeing your new comment, i'll say that i agree with your concern about a small number of expert teachers in the community…creates a passive situation for others who may be gifted teachers. however, your rhetorical question is actually easily answered–there will always be charismatic, gifted teachers who can take the next generation of personality centered congregations. the better question (i think) is, a decade or two down the road, what will we have done in terms of spiritual formation & discipleship?
I've now seen 2 of these round table discussion videos, and I've come to 2 conclusions based on these:
1. I like Driscoll less with each one. Which is a bummer. I kinda used to like him.
2. Could we please get a 1 on 1 thing going, or at least 2 on 2 (if we're gonna see it as a debate that someone has to "win") rather than 2 guys teaming up to harp on the other guys, as both of the videos I have seen are?
What other video are you referring to? I'd be interested to see it.
Great post here. I almost fully agree with this and feel the rub of video venue in multisite. I posted this to my site at http://www.SaintEquipper.com Keep writing!
[...] This is an interesting post from David Fitch on the opposite of contextualization. Check it out and I’d love to hear your thoughts. Check it out [...]
I wonder how someone who is not from the neo-reformed camp but still a firm supporter of video venues (like Mark Batterson) would answer your questions. I have a hunch that he would agree with some of the drawbacks you mentioned but would still support the model for his local context (Washington D.C.). I don't see the mode of the weekly worship service as THE crucial element to determine whether a congregation or number of congregations has a strong missional ethos or not.
[...] pastors would disagree with this approach. Mark Driscoll for one has said (in this video here) he’s an introvert and therefore doesn’t want to know anyone is his congregation, just let the [...]