Okay, I'm not going to shy away from the elephant... As I was watching Perry Noble deliver his One Prayer message on video yesterday, I glanced at the other people around me. They were laughing hysterically at times, totally focused at others, and pushing deeper into their seats with spiritual conviction by the end.
It was awesome. But let's be honest... This doesn't happen in most churches. Usually, when people come to our services, it's for a message that goes on too long, hangs itself up on points that are only debated in commentaries, and fails to divert anyone's conversation after the service away from lunch plans.
Let me ask you a question... If you have the technological capability to download the best teachers available [ie: an internet connection and a video projector], and the willingness to do it three times in a row during the summer... why wouldn't you do it every week?
I'm not asking because I think we should, but because I can't shake a nagging and completely irrational conviction that the small church pastor who bumbles through his message and preaches too long matters. And I need some push-back. The only spiritual gift we can simulcast is teaching... so why wouldn't import the absolute best teachers in the kingdom every week? Discuss...
Ben,
I get that same feeling sometimes. But then I feel challenged to step my game up even more when it comes to teaching. That's why I've completely changed the way I preach, study, pray, and prepare for Sunday.
We aren't doing One Prayer at TCC. To be honest I do have some regret. We chose to wait because we felt like it was a timing issue. Our church JUST moved to a new bigger building and went from 3 times to 1. We just felt like throwing in another BIG CHANGE for 3 weeks could have been too much change all at once.
Moving to a new place is challenging enough. The volunteer shuffle that we are having to play right now is tough as it is.
The good news is that churches can do the One Prayer series any time. Terry Storch let me know that the resources will be up on the site to stay, so maybe we'll do it this fall.
And yes, I think most definitely, the small church pastor who bumbles through his message and preaches too long matters. It adds another barrier that a church like our has to break through.
Posted by: Zak White | June 09, 2008 at 10:28 AM
I think it's Keller who says you should "throw out" the first 100 sermons of a preachers experience. His point is that it takes about 100 till you find your own voice and can start feeling effective in your preaching.
The problem is you have to "bumble" through those to get to that point. Isn't that a piece of the sanctification/maturing process? And if it is isn't it worth it in the grand scheme of who God is transforming us all to be?
Posted by: Jason Roberts | June 09, 2008 at 10:29 AM
There are several churches out there today who are doing just what you described. They aren't campuses or partners, they are simply churches that were started by guys with a heart to reach people and realized their gift wasn't teaching so they use video teaching from all over.
Velocity Church in your old stomping grounds is one of those churches.
Posted by: Gary | June 09, 2008 at 11:09 AM
I'm personally torn on this issue. I feel that things are certainly moving towards a "best of breed" preaching experience via video. However, I wonder how the next generation of teachers are going to get the experience they need if they aren't allowed to bumble around a bit.
It's an interesting trend and one to be watched closely over the coming years.
Posted by: Tony McCollum | June 09, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Here are four possible reasons:
I follow on the comments of Jason Roberts. Perry Noble himself probably would admit that he was not the communicator he is today when he first begun. Preaching is a practice that we hopefully improve on with each passing week.
Moreover, if everyone listened to a few of the "absolute best preachers", what kind of impact would this have on the future generation of preachers who have no experience in preaching?
Additionally, who better to ascertain what message a congregation needs than the pastor who is present in the life of the flock?
Finally, is teaching really a spiritual gift that can be simulcasted? Is not a part of teaching actually modeling what you teach for the congregation?
Jesus said in Matthew 28:19-20, "Make disciples...teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."
Is the observation part of this command left to those who cannot teach well?
Posted by: Jason M. | June 09, 2008 at 11:33 AM
I'm with Jason and Tony on this - the only way young men are going to learn to preach with power, conviction, and passion is by being given a platform to work out that gifting. People have to have a ground in which they are allowed to learn and grow.
Posted by: Subversive Pastor | June 09, 2008 at 11:33 AM
I would also challenge the assumption you make when you say, "They were laughing hysterically at times, totally focused at others, and pushing deeper into their seats with spiritual conviction by the end.
It was awesome. But let's be honest... This doesn't happen in most churches."
I believe aside from laughing hysterically (which is not required) in every church this coming Sunday around there world you will have God's children focused and under conviction.
Posted by: Jason M. | June 09, 2008 at 11:39 AM
I think it all depends on who you're trying to reach.
Don't get me wrong...I was able to experience Perry's message live and there were some things even before and after he spoke for tape which were awesome. Craig is another example of a terrific communicator.
Yesterday, I went with some friends to their church - which is a smaller (a few hundred) less tech-savvy (intentionally, I believe) church where the pastor spoke for maybe 45 minutes? An hour? It was long. Exegetical. And fascinating. He wasn't the best teacher I have ever heard, but you could tell through the unpolished fumbling and occasionally getting lost in his notes or to find the verse he was on (he covered a chapter and a half of an OT book)...
What was cool was to observe the people there...my friends, who are hurting after being let go from another church staff...the people who don't fit in to the trendy, suburban church...all there.
No iMag, no cameras, the sound guy had to walk up to the pastor to fix his mic. No colored lights. No dimmer packs.
But God moved in a powerful way and I felt honored to experience it.
I am NOT a public speaker. I can do it, but it's pretty terrible. And I've only done it a few times. And I know I have to do it more and pray for Grace.
I have a feeling it's the same way with the less-glossy speakers and communicators. We really have nothing to rely on but unadulterated grace.
Posted by: Anne Jackson | June 09, 2008 at 11:39 AM
I wonder if possibly we don't put too much emphasis on the human element of communicating sometimes. Yes, God gives some men extreme talent and gifting to communicate His Word. Others have more meager gifts. But apart from God Himself doing something in the life of the people who hear, not even Perry Noble can accomplish true life change.
I trusted Christ in a small church with a preacher who couldn't hold a candle to Noble or others. But God that man faithfully "communicated" a message God promises will not come back void but will always accomplish His purpose. God used a donkey in the Old Testament... he can use the bumbling small-church preacher this Sunday.
Posted by: chris | June 09, 2008 at 11:46 AM
If a pastor truly has the spiritual gift of teaching then I think he should be afforded the time and opportunity to bumble and develop his gift. But if a pastor doesn't have the gift what's the point? At best he may go from bad to not so bad. Teaching will never be become a strength for a person who does not have the gift. And if they spend time trying to teach when they don't have the gift they will drain themselves out and never work within their sweet spot of giftedness. As Bill Hybels once said-"Let the teachers teach and the administrators administrate and the leaders lead."
Posted by: Mark Malin | June 09, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Ben, I think you are working with many different issues here. For my input I am going to assume that the pastor is gifted to teach. He may be young and inexperienced but he is in fact gifted to preach. In that case then I believe each pastor gives a message relevant to his community and their specific culture. That is what the idea of being "missional" is all about.
In my opinion, broadcasting a great communicator to communities in which he does not exegete would be a mistake.
On the other hand, if the pastor is not gifted and called to preach then I think your thought process could be warranted. If people are hungry and there is no called pastor to teach them then they should watch or listen to sermons in order to be fed.
Posted by: Matt P. | June 09, 2008 at 02:08 PM
I'm with Jason R. on this too, but I'd like to add the comment that what you do with the teaching is a reflection of what you think of church. If you're prescribing bringing in the best speakers every week then to me it seems that you see the church as a place to get "fueled" for the week, or as a place to sit and listen to great Bible teaching for an hour and a half. Which is fine...but not Scriptural.
My understanding of the Biblical church is that it is a local expression of a people on mission. While possible, it is very difficult for a teacher hundreds of miles away to lead a people on mission in their local context. I know for a fact that while Perry is a good Bible teacher, it would be impossible for him to lead Harmony Church on mission here in downtown Greenville.
So we will bumble on. :)
Posted by: Derek | June 09, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Ben,
I have several thoughts on this...I'll try to be brief.
The "video venue" is definitely a trend...A cultural ideal that I think has limited potential. Ultimately, this will trend toward online downloads of custom series before people begin to clamor for the teaching in their homes on their schedule much like a DVR. Then what's the point?
People need relationship. It's the very thing God created us for. Small group does this to some extent but without gathering for worship, you might as well just Home Church and save the building expense. (which works for some).
There's a need for a local pastor to preach in person to his congregation. He knows their needs, where he wants them to grow, etc.. He is personally responsible for seeing to it that they are discipled, be it in small groups, by others leaders or whatever, he is still responsible. You don't get to know your people if you don't spend time with them. Video teaching is fine for things like One Prayer but I doubt it would work in the long term. People just aren't programmed that way.
Posted by: Scott Cheatham | June 09, 2008 at 02:45 PM
Man, I love the push-back! I'm feeling good about the small church pastor again. =) But how is this not an indictment on the video venue church?
Posted by: Ben Arment | June 09, 2008 at 03:23 PM
Who said it wasn't an indictment?
I'm not sure how the video venue is going to help us continue to plant autonomous local churches and develop gifted young preachers either.
Posted by: Subversive Pastor | June 09, 2008 at 03:46 PM
Subversive, thanks for the comments, but you're going to have to start signing your real name bro. Put your name on the theses you nail onto doors.
Posted by: Ben Arment | June 09, 2008 at 03:57 PM
I don't think (sans false teaching) we have the right to indict anybody. Maybe I am taking it out of context, but Phil 1:15-18 seems to suggest we celebrate...?
Posted by: Anne Jackson | June 09, 2008 at 04:34 PM
I'm not ready to issue an indictment on the video venue strategy.
No matter how big your church is it becomes hard not to have the church based on your (the pastor's) personality. Ben, I know you have heard Dever talk about this idea. I realize some of it is just the nature of our sinful flesh, but how do you strive to make a church venue not personality driven when you are only there via simulcast?
I don't have any answers really ... just a lot of questions.
Posted by: Matt P. | June 09, 2008 at 05:09 PM
Ben,
I wonder if we don't have to choose between the two?
For some (not all) video venue would work. Say a suburban pastor from Dallas preaches via video venue to suburbanites in Phoenix. Most of those messages will still connect. (family, money, kids, theology etc)
I think the key is having a local pastor tend the flock and create a local presence for the church.
That being said we still have to raise up effective communicators of the gospel. Also, we can't forget that their are many pastors who don't preach GREAT but love in such a way that they reach their local community.
Posted by: Chris Marlow | June 09, 2008 at 05:21 PM
Ben, sorry if there was any harshness in my comment - indictment is probably too strong a word. Caution would be better...
I didn't mean to nail any theses to the door... I'm just a guy trying to figure out what the heck I'm doing, offering my opinion to the conversation. My bad if I came across wrong - I'm out.
Posted by: Subversive Pastor | June 09, 2008 at 05:45 PM
Here's where I am. Preaching not only God’s truth, but God’s truth in this context. I still believe there’s more to a sermon than information transfer (even when it's done really well)– there’s the vision part, and what God’s doing in this context might be different than what he’s doing over there.
That's where I am right now. But I am more of a church planting than video venue guy, so you can filter it through that lens :).
Posted by: Jon | June 09, 2008 at 06:30 PM
The biggest challenges (in my mind) to the video venue concept are the things that are supposed to make it great: true cultural relevance and authenticity.
With regard to the first, I have some questions as to exactly how relevant a pastor from Dallas can be in Phoenix. Those are two completely different cultures. So, in order to be communicate via video, it seems we have to make one of two decisions: (1) Only plant satellites in cultures that are similar enough to the pastor's home culture that he can speak relatively directly into that culture without being detached in any way other than geographically; or (2) move our messages up on the ladder of obscurity to the point that they spray truth rather than rifle it in, if that analogy communicates.
As far as authenticity, it's very difficult for me to have confidence in the authenticity of a man that I know I'll never run into at Wal-Mart. I don't doubt their character, but I don't get to see the other half of the message - the part where the pastor practices what he preaches.
Posted by: chris | June 09, 2008 at 06:30 PM
Perspective from lifechurch.tv member who is criss-crossing the globe: This is about access, leverage, content and creativity that can nurture and develop leaders. Leaders.
Here's a bit of perspective that comes straight out of Bangalore:
The biggest fundamental development in the Software as a Service (SaaS) market over the past year has been the evolution and increasing importance of Platform as a Service (PaaS). This has important positive consequences for growth and market opportunity for businesses. No different in ministry.
What lifechurch.tv has done is create a platform.
I leverage this platform as a 'service' for me to access truth that my team and I embed in a culturally relevant manner. This mechanism distributes a Truth that needs more than one delivery model.
Because I have gone to Africa, the Middle East and India ......so have Craig Groeschel and Brian Kruckenberg. More importantly, so has the Truth. Bollywood is not Hollywood. Cricket is not the NFL.
Ben, you're on to something.
There is a quote (can't remember from who) - 'innovation happens at the interfaces'. Platform * Leaders + creative direction from the Holy Spirit = how the whole world will hear the Truth.
No push back here bro.
Posted by: J Mathews | June 09, 2008 at 08:38 PM
The Apostle Paul would have been one of those bumbling small-church pastors. He preached so long that Eutychus nodded off and fell out of a 2nd-story window. His preaching was "not in excellency of speech or of wisdom" but was "in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling." (1 Cor 2:1-4)
The biggest problem I see is too many preachers step into the pulpit without a message from God.
Posted by: Ken Row | June 09, 2008 at 09:35 PM
This good conversation reminds me of a new book out that I want to read soon,
"Memoirs of and Ordinary Pastor-the Life and Reflections of Tom Carson" by D.A. Carson.
I believe it will 'deeply encourage many pastors in their life and ministry'.
Posted by: Terry B | June 09, 2008 at 11:07 PM
The crucial thing to remember is that there's not one right answer that should be applied across the board. Perhaps God needs *each* kind of church to do his work - small and huge, portable vs. sprawling campus, gifted teacher and the beginner who's still finding his way. Every church has a unique story and each one should be on a continuing journey to become who God created them to be, which is going to look different, according to how God leads. Until we don't have any unreached people in our communities, there's room for all of us :)
Posted by: Lori Bailey | June 09, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Along the same lines...
This conversation reminds me of a church I know that does their worship all on video. They have about 700 people coming and they just use these worship videos each week.
Always seemed odd to me, but apparently it works for them. I would never dis-credit anything that God is using!
Posted by: Zak White | June 10, 2008 at 12:36 AM
Ben,
I agree with you...excellent feedback here.
As an indictment, I won't go that far. I have a good friend who's videocasting himself to a new campus while he preaches at the old one. I only wish I had his funds! *S*
Putting down another's idea isn't constructive to me. I think the video thing is working in some areas and I do believe some people are being touched. My concern is over the long haul. How that person is discipled. Getting to know the person in whom he puts his trust. I just think a leader needs to be accessible to his people in order for him to have an impact in their lives.
I held an elderly lady's hand as she took her last breath a few weeks ago. She mustered enough energy to squeeze mine to acknowledge her comfort in my being there. Her husband, held my other hand and nearly crushed it as she died. As I read scripture to him while they took her vital signs to officially pronounce her dead, he cried on my shoulder (at nearly midnight). No offense here but the video venue pastor will not have time for these things. As a result, the family is now considering our church and if nothing else, I was able to share the gospel with them all at the funeral. I believe God wants it that way.
Blessings to you my friend! Thanks for bringing an important topic to bear and for handling it with grace and humility!
Posted by: Scott Cheatham | June 10, 2008 at 01:13 AM
Hey Ben,
Just thought I'd toss in my 2.5 cents.
I think there's an error in that thinking and it's this...
It's thinking that having better preaching will make things better - that we'll automatically have better Christ-followers/churches.
I don't think that's true.
For most of us Christ-followers, our problem isn't that we don't know the truth or get it in an entertaining enough format.
Our problem is that we don't live out enough of what we already know! :) (I mean that about myself too.)
Simulcasting the best preachers won't necessarily make better Christ-followers/churches.
They'll just be entertained more.
That means there's no real advantage.
Posted by: Scott Aughtmon | June 10, 2008 at 03:01 AM
!!!
GREAT POINT! Huge!
I wondered the same thing myself. I think it's because the old model allows pastors to:
- have more value, to themselves and "their" people
- for them to earn their keep and gain respect
- When you outsource the preaching, you outsource your influence, it's not about you anymore.
I think we should move in the One Prayer direction, but there's an ego and self-preservation pushback that may take decades to overcome.
I don't think this is how church was intended from the beginning, for sure. Jesus would not have done video teaching with his 12 disciples - what's the difference between this and popping in a Nooma each week at your small group? Same idea, same problems, perhaps.
I feel this hilights the impersonal nature of how church is now, which I feel is a shame, a loss and a mistake.
Posted by: Jesse Phillips | June 10, 2008 at 08:56 AM
I just happened upon this site this morning and am loving this discussion! I was going to comment about the Apostle Paul, but thought I'd read through to make sure I wouldn't be repeating what anyone else might have already said - Ken Row, you said it all, pretty much exactly what I was going to share! Thanks!
I look forward to reading much more here!
Posted by: Denise | June 10, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Objectively (as one who has been in both multi-site churches and not)...simply having your teaching coming from a person should not EVER replace your relationship with God and with others.
In the case of LifeChurch.tv, since I'm here and interface daily with the leadership team, I can assure anyone that Craig and those surrounding him pray for, lead, and listen to what God has for this local expression.
On campus levels where Craig is not present in teaching, the same passion and vision God has gifted the campus leaders with is what makes this work in this case. Each campus has a team of people who are there reaching out in their communities and context; and because communication is key...Craig and the leadership team are in constant knowledge of what is happening in all of the venues, attending when they can travel, and when they are not, because of technology can see an entire experience live regardless of where it is.
Even with the best teacher, or even the best pastor...if the church is simply there to consume and be fed, it won't work. It has to be a relational and providential gathering of ALL believers and ALL parts of the Body.
Posted by: Anne Jackson | June 10, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Well, I'm not a pastor, that's for sure-but I do have some thoughts on what you posted. I think that the trend seems to be focusing on 'how' we get the message out, rather than making sure that the message going out is one that is Holy Spirit annointed. Maybe I'm being overly alarmist-but I have a dear friend who mused aloud about something that I can't seem to shake. She asked-what if something were to happen in America and our churches were forced to go underground? Would be able to go on and function as the new testament church? What if we no longer have the capability to hook up globally with each other....would we have the people in place locally that would be able to step up and take over and lead the church in its new format? Would we turn out to be too dependent on our media to be able to get back to the basics and learn from the Word? Having a teacher broadcasted in each week would definitely be super cool-but would it be best in the long run?
All that said, I think ultimately that it is God who does the calling and tugs on our hearts-and He can do it through any means He wantsm. He is God, after all. It could be through that small church's bumbling pastor--or through a simulcast message--or, if no one is there--wouldn't the very rocks cry out?
Posted by: Shawna | June 10, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Excellently stated Shawna...
Your friend's question is quite thought-provoking. If something happened in America, and the church were forced underground, I think we'd be in a state of shell-shock for a time, but then out of that I feel certain would rise a new and glorious church. Christ's church has always grown and become stronger during persecution, after all. It would really force us to "become real" with ourselves and others.
I do agree with the thought though of using all means possible to reach a lost and dying world. If the technology is available to you, by all means use it! AND the small church with the less-polished preacher, weekly "plowing the furrough" so to speak, he has his own special part to play, as do we all. As Paul so aptly states in 1 Corinthians 9:22 "I am made ALL things to ALL men, that I might, by ALL MEANS save some.
Posted by: Denise | June 10, 2008 at 12:25 PM
quick clarification on my above comment. When I talked about "worship videos" i meant they do their MUSIC all on video, but the teaching is all live.
Sorry, just realized after posting that the word "worship" is too loose to use as a description of what I was trying to share about.
Posted by: zak white | June 10, 2008 at 04:51 PM
Interesting that Michael McKinley at 9-Marks has posted today about NOT using video at all in church. Both sides have made good points. I posted a link to it in my blog while writing about the topic.
It's definitely worth discussing!
Posted by: Scott Cheatham | June 11, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Ben, I think some commenters missed the point of your post.
"Would You Step Aside?" implies that being the main speaker at my church does something to stoke my ego. And I'm glad you called it out!
The reality is, being the communicator for a congregation can be a drug for a lot of us, and some (not all) of us get a bit defensive about our drug. We say no one else can speak to our people because they don't "know the culture of our town" or "journey with these people through the week."
Really? Your congregation is THAT unique? Amazing.
Yet you don't think your kids are that unique, because you use a national curriculum for them. And you don't think your wife is that unique, because she is really learning from that Beth Moore.
And YOU'RE not that unique, because you need the church to pay for you to go to Catalyst (had to get the plug in).
But YOUR PEOPLE... yeah, they are that unique.
Posted by: Rich Barrett | June 12, 2008 at 10:12 PM