The Video-Pastored Church: Is This Really a Good Idea?
09/29/2006 08:56 Filed in: Faith & Reason
A couple of years ago, I had a friend tell me that while on vacation, he and his family visited a "prominent pastor's"* church. As he told me more about his experience, I realized that he had not heard the actual pastor preach. Rather he had attended one of a number of this minister's satellite churches and saw this pastor preach via video feed. By the end of the account I was not as impressed. I mean, couldn't I just contact the ministry and order a DVD of the message to watch in my living room without having to travel a few hundred miles for the in-person in-video experience?
So a couple of days ago, a different friend emails me a link to a local megachurch's* newsletter in which they've announced plans to start four or five new churches in the surrounding area. Now, I have no problem with starting new churches--especially in areas without a local church nearby. But that's not necessarily the method or motive of this particular church. They are concerned that some of their members drive more than 30 miles to attend church, so they are going to take the church experience to them. Moreover, although the worship will be live, the actual sermon will be delivered via video to try to create the same experience they would receive if they made the 30-mile trip to the main church's campus.
In my friend's email he stated, "I am curious as to what your thoughts might be on this... I struggle with the idea of having a video/TV pastor at multiple locations instead of an actual live pastor there." Well, personally, I have no struggle with this. I just believe it's a bad idea plain and simple, and I'll give you three reasons why.
1. The Video-Pastored Church Is Impersonal. The video-pastored congregation is "McChurch" at its worst. It's an attempt to package the ministry of one church and deliver a controlled experience to another location. There's no recognition for the needs of the local community. Rather, there's an assumption that if it works here, it will have to work there as well. How many of our churches have learned the hard way that the way the Spirit moves in one congregation cannot necessarily be captured in a bottle and made to work at another location? Yet the video-driven church is simply taking this attempt at reproduction to the next level, and the negative results of "packaged ministry" merely reaches new depths.
Plus, there's no room for a minister to change the "itinerary" of the service in response to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. I observed a truly amazing event at our church a couple of weeks ago. Our pastor stood up and said that during the worship experience, he felt convicted to abandon his prepared sermon so that he might address some critical spiritual needs our church was facing. As our pastor gave an impromptu message that morning, he preached from his heart--with no notes, but with great passion--for the same amount of time that he takes during a normal sermon. And it was moving; it was stirring. In the Sunday School class I taught afterwards, I told them that the message they just experienced may be one of the closest thing they might ever come--in our day and age--to an Old Testament prophet like Jeremiah standing up and giving a word from the Lord.
But could that ever happen in a video-pastored church? If we're going to receive our sermons via video, can't we just as easily stay home and have the experience in our bathrobes in front of high-def sets while munching on toast and slurping our oatmeal?
At the risk of sounding judgmental, I wonder about the motives of a video-pastored church. On one hand, such a move might simply be the desire to spread the ministry of one congregation to other regions, perhaps without thinking through all the implications. But on the other hand, I wonder how many of these video-pastored churches aren't merely an attempt for one church or one group of people or one minister to control the experience of their church plants? How much of this is, at the root, driven by ego? I mean is one particular pastor really significant/important/prophetic enough that we feel a need to replicate him in multiple places on Sunday morning? And if so, at what cost?
2. The Video-Pastored Church Is Non-Relational. It's this simple: you cannot pastor a church, nor can you be pastored through a video screen. There's no relationship between a pastor and his congregation in a setting like this. And it works on two levels.
I've been on both sides of the pulpit. Currently, I am not on a church staff, but I have been in the past and assume I will be in the future. For the person sitting in the pew (or the cushioned chair), there's not a personal connection to be made with the image on screen. There's something about having a gospel message proclaimed live in front of a congregation that cannot be captured on on video. Everything's always better in person. But it comes down to this: when my pastor is preaching on sin, it's a good thing for him to make eye contact with me now and then to remind me that I am a sinner like everyone else.
And the pastor himself needs to see the people to whom he's preaching. I can remember one of my first preaching experiences when I was in college, seeing a friend of mine weeping during my sermon. It shook me. What had I said? I asked her afterwards if I had offended her (it's one thing for the gospel to offend [1 Cor 1:23], but it's something else for me to be careless with my words). However, she said that my message had brought up some issues that she had pushed aside for a long time, and God showed her through my sermon that she needed to face these things.
I remember a similar experience a few years ago when I was interim pastor at a small country church. It was father's day, and I preached a typical "this is what a Christian father is supposed to be like" sermon. In my mind, I thought the sermon was a bit on the "lite" side. It was pretty much a feel-good message for a special occasion. But while I was greeting people afterwards as they exited the church, I noticed the organist sitting by herself on a pew. As I drew closer, I saw that she was quietly crying to herself. I asked her what was wrong and she replied that my message made her realize that there were things wrong in her home that she had simply been ignoring. I went to find one of her friends with whom I knew she was close, and the three of us talked for a while about some of these issues. But a pastor cannot do this if he cannot see his congregation. There may be a ministerial staff on site, but there's no room for the pastor's own immediate follow-up if he preached the message through video.
We are responsible for the messages we preach; we are responsible for the words that come out of our mouth. Hebrews 4:12 states that "the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double–edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (TNIV). When God's Word is proclaimed, lives are changed. The person proclaiming God's Word should be on site to respond in follow-up to the needs of the church members.
Certainly there's room and need for recorded messages, but these should never take the permanent place of personal ministry of a pastor to his congregation.
3. The Video-Pastored Church Keeps Someone from Fulfilling His Calling to Preach God's Word. Planting new churches is generally a good thing, but those churches also need strong leadership. I certainly realize that any satellite video-driven church will have to have some level of ministerial staff--some kind of under-shepherd(s)--to function. However, with pastoral ministry comes the calling to preach God's Word (2 Tim 4:1-2). For every church that delivers the Sunday sermon via video feed or DVD, there is a pastor who is not fulfilling his God-given calling to proclaim the gospel (Rom 10:14).
The church has just as much responsibility for equipping new preachers as our seminaries do--perhaps more so. A new church plant under the auspices of a larger, parent church is a perfect context for this to take place.
Look, outside of extremely rural areas and in mission regions that are largely unchurched, I don't believe people should drive thirty minutes to church either. I've written about this before (see links below). I firmly believe that part of the reason that so many people feel disconnected from their churches and their local communities is that they've separated the two from each other. There's a great communal value from living in the same community--the same neighborhood if possible--as your local church. In fact, I suggest that your church should be within five miles of where you live. Then you can go to church with your neighbors and have random points of contact with your fellow church members throughout the week. This helps create a feeling of community on multiple levels, not driving thirty miles in the hopes of creating community with a bunch of people you see only once a week.
As I've said here, planting churches is a good thing. But if we want to build community, if we want to impact our cities and neighborhoods for Christ, we must worship locally and we must minister and be ministered to locally. The video-pastored church--the video-driven church, if you will--is not the answer.
I had a conversation this past summer with an older mentor to me in ministry whom I've known for quite a long time. The context of our discussion was not this subject, but he said something that certainly applies. He told me, "What we need in our churches today are pastors who are good communicators--without the ego--and have good people skills. It's that simple." I agree. And further, I agree that these pastors need to preach in person, not via an impersonal video screen.
*I am purposefully not naming any individuals or churches in this post. Although I disagree with video-pastored churches, I don't deny that the churches and the ministers themselves are performing valuable ministries and changing peoples' lives in their contexts. I have no desire to detract from the good that these ministries are doing. I just believe that in-person teaching and proclamation of the gospel is a much better idea.
Related Viewing:
• Rediscovering the Neighborhood Church, Parts One, Two, Three and Four
• Hank Hill and the Local Megachurch
So a couple of days ago, a different friend emails me a link to a local megachurch's* newsletter in which they've announced plans to start four or five new churches in the surrounding area. Now, I have no problem with starting new churches--especially in areas without a local church nearby. But that's not necessarily the method or motive of this particular church. They are concerned that some of their members drive more than 30 miles to attend church, so they are going to take the church experience to them. Moreover, although the worship will be live, the actual sermon will be delivered via video to try to create the same experience they would receive if they made the 30-mile trip to the main church's campus.
In my friend's email he stated, "I am curious as to what your thoughts might be on this... I struggle with the idea of having a video/TV pastor at multiple locations instead of an actual live pastor there." Well, personally, I have no struggle with this. I just believe it's a bad idea plain and simple, and I'll give you three reasons why.
1. The Video-Pastored Church Is Impersonal. The video-pastored congregation is "McChurch" at its worst. It's an attempt to package the ministry of one church and deliver a controlled experience to another location. There's no recognition for the needs of the local community. Rather, there's an assumption that if it works here, it will have to work there as well. How many of our churches have learned the hard way that the way the Spirit moves in one congregation cannot necessarily be captured in a bottle and made to work at another location? Yet the video-driven church is simply taking this attempt at reproduction to the next level, and the negative results of "packaged ministry" merely reaches new depths.
Plus, there's no room for a minister to change the "itinerary" of the service in response to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. I observed a truly amazing event at our church a couple of weeks ago. Our pastor stood up and said that during the worship experience, he felt convicted to abandon his prepared sermon so that he might address some critical spiritual needs our church was facing. As our pastor gave an impromptu message that morning, he preached from his heart--with no notes, but with great passion--for the same amount of time that he takes during a normal sermon. And it was moving; it was stirring. In the Sunday School class I taught afterwards, I told them that the message they just experienced may be one of the closest thing they might ever come--in our day and age--to an Old Testament prophet like Jeremiah standing up and giving a word from the Lord.
But could that ever happen in a video-pastored church? If we're going to receive our sermons via video, can't we just as easily stay home and have the experience in our bathrobes in front of high-def sets while munching on toast and slurping our oatmeal?
At the risk of sounding judgmental, I wonder about the motives of a video-pastored church. On one hand, such a move might simply be the desire to spread the ministry of one congregation to other regions, perhaps without thinking through all the implications. But on the other hand, I wonder how many of these video-pastored churches aren't merely an attempt for one church or one group of people or one minister to control the experience of their church plants? How much of this is, at the root, driven by ego? I mean is one particular pastor really significant/important/prophetic enough that we feel a need to replicate him in multiple places on Sunday morning? And if so, at what cost?
2. The Video-Pastored Church Is Non-Relational. It's this simple: you cannot pastor a church, nor can you be pastored through a video screen. There's no relationship between a pastor and his congregation in a setting like this. And it works on two levels.
I've been on both sides of the pulpit. Currently, I am not on a church staff, but I have been in the past and assume I will be in the future. For the person sitting in the pew (or the cushioned chair), there's not a personal connection to be made with the image on screen. There's something about having a gospel message proclaimed live in front of a congregation that cannot be captured on on video. Everything's always better in person. But it comes down to this: when my pastor is preaching on sin, it's a good thing for him to make eye contact with me now and then to remind me that I am a sinner like everyone else.
And the pastor himself needs to see the people to whom he's preaching. I can remember one of my first preaching experiences when I was in college, seeing a friend of mine weeping during my sermon. It shook me. What had I said? I asked her afterwards if I had offended her (it's one thing for the gospel to offend [1 Cor 1:23], but it's something else for me to be careless with my words). However, she said that my message had brought up some issues that she had pushed aside for a long time, and God showed her through my sermon that she needed to face these things.
I remember a similar experience a few years ago when I was interim pastor at a small country church. It was father's day, and I preached a typical "this is what a Christian father is supposed to be like" sermon. In my mind, I thought the sermon was a bit on the "lite" side. It was pretty much a feel-good message for a special occasion. But while I was greeting people afterwards as they exited the church, I noticed the organist sitting by herself on a pew. As I drew closer, I saw that she was quietly crying to herself. I asked her what was wrong and she replied that my message made her realize that there were things wrong in her home that she had simply been ignoring. I went to find one of her friends with whom I knew she was close, and the three of us talked for a while about some of these issues. But a pastor cannot do this if he cannot see his congregation. There may be a ministerial staff on site, but there's no room for the pastor's own immediate follow-up if he preached the message through video.
We are responsible for the messages we preach; we are responsible for the words that come out of our mouth. Hebrews 4:12 states that "the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double–edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (TNIV). When God's Word is proclaimed, lives are changed. The person proclaiming God's Word should be on site to respond in follow-up to the needs of the church members.
Certainly there's room and need for recorded messages, but these should never take the permanent place of personal ministry of a pastor to his congregation.
3. The Video-Pastored Church Keeps Someone from Fulfilling His Calling to Preach God's Word. Planting new churches is generally a good thing, but those churches also need strong leadership. I certainly realize that any satellite video-driven church will have to have some level of ministerial staff--some kind of under-shepherd(s)--to function. However, with pastoral ministry comes the calling to preach God's Word (2 Tim 4:1-2). For every church that delivers the Sunday sermon via video feed or DVD, there is a pastor who is not fulfilling his God-given calling to proclaim the gospel (Rom 10:14).
The church has just as much responsibility for equipping new preachers as our seminaries do--perhaps more so. A new church plant under the auspices of a larger, parent church is a perfect context for this to take place.
Look, outside of extremely rural areas and in mission regions that are largely unchurched, I don't believe people should drive thirty minutes to church either. I've written about this before (see links below). I firmly believe that part of the reason that so many people feel disconnected from their churches and their local communities is that they've separated the two from each other. There's a great communal value from living in the same community--the same neighborhood if possible--as your local church. In fact, I suggest that your church should be within five miles of where you live. Then you can go to church with your neighbors and have random points of contact with your fellow church members throughout the week. This helps create a feeling of community on multiple levels, not driving thirty miles in the hopes of creating community with a bunch of people you see only once a week.
As I've said here, planting churches is a good thing. But if we want to build community, if we want to impact our cities and neighborhoods for Christ, we must worship locally and we must minister and be ministered to locally. The video-pastored church--the video-driven church, if you will--is not the answer.
I had a conversation this past summer with an older mentor to me in ministry whom I've known for quite a long time. The context of our discussion was not this subject, but he said something that certainly applies. He told me, "What we need in our churches today are pastors who are good communicators--without the ego--and have good people skills. It's that simple." I agree. And further, I agree that these pastors need to preach in person, not via an impersonal video screen.
*I am purposefully not naming any individuals or churches in this post. Although I disagree with video-pastored churches, I don't deny that the churches and the ministers themselves are performing valuable ministries and changing peoples' lives in their contexts. I have no desire to detract from the good that these ministries are doing. I just believe that in-person teaching and proclamation of the gospel is a much better idea.
Related Viewing:
• Rediscovering the Neighborhood Church, Parts One, Two, Three and Four
• Hank Hill and the Local Megachurch