Just a question! Here is an excerpt from an article I read today:
An estimated 2,000 to 2,500 U.S. congregations now operate multiple campuses, and many of them, like Buckhead Church, are so-called video venues. The Leadership Network, a Christian nonprofit that follows these multisite churches, says there will be 30,000 of them within a few years. Already, the most ambitious pastors are predicting that, thanks to video, they’ll have branded outlets nationwide and more than 100,000 followers—twice as large as the country’s biggest megachurch today. Gigachurches are the way that next-generation celebrity evangelists are building their empires.
Read the rest of the article here
Another question is; is anyone troubled by this quote:
“Already, the most ambitious pastors are predicting that, thanks to video, they’ll have branded outlets nationwide and more than 100,000 followers—twice as large as the country’s biggest megachurch today.”
The logic of the multi-site pastor (not defending it, just presenting the other side) is that while not everyone is a gifted teacher/preacher (i.e. Matt Chandler/The Village), there may be a need in another community (i.e. Denton) and the opportunity to utilize video to pair the gifted teaching/preaching with a gifted shepherd/pastor (i.e. Beau Hughes/The Village-Denton). Many of these churches feel that if they can have the largest impact by streaming in the sermon by a gifted preacher (i.e. Ed Young, Marc Driscoll, Craig Groeschel, etc.) and pastoring on a personal level with someone who is there at that campus for that expressed purpose, then the body of Christ benefits.
While I’ll withhold my defense, I’ll say that it may not be fair to label them “ambitious” (read here: selfishly seeking their own glory) as much as they are seeking that as many people meet and grow close to Jesus as possible. I’ll also say that it would be fair to say that the sheep become “lamb-burgers” if they DIDN’T have a campus pastor there to specifically care for them… but because most do (actually, ALL that I’ve experienced), that may not be a fair label.
I hear you BMann,
But I must ask, what exactly has happened for the past 2000 years or so? How does a Chrisitan grow because of “gifted teachers”? If practice makes perfect how does a “non-teaching campus pastor” (whatever that means) get to practice such a gifting? Isn’t a Shepherd synonymous with teaching? As far as I can tell in 1 Peter 5, 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1 they are.
the most “ambitious pastors”
Talk about an oxymoron.
LBoog,
Two of your questions are in contradiction. First, it is rare for a Christian to “grow” by gifted teaching alone. While it is likely to be encouraged and “sparked” by a powerful sermon, growth takes place in an active community of faith. Therefore, I can get a Sunday Sermon from a gifted teaching pastor (i.e. Dhati) and grow in Christ with via discipleship from another pastor (i.e. Calvin). Also, Sunday Morning is not the only opportunity in church life to teach. Although I was not the teaching Pastor at Lifeline, I had ample opportunity to use/practice my gift. Most of these campus pastors do preach on Sunday, just not as often as the Lead/Teaching pastor. Then your third question contradicts your first. Shepherding INCLUDES teaching, but it is not SYNONYMOUS with teaching. Your first question suggests as much. Also, the teaching that it includes is much more than a Sunday morning sermon… it’s also a pastor/shepherd who teaches me how to walk with Jesus through his life and discipleship. Who says these two have to be the same person? I would venture to say that in most cases, it isn’t.
Hey BMann,
I have a few minutes and wanted to answer the questions more thoroughly.
1. Because it works (pragmatism) does that mean this is the way it should be? What I mean is this. Because technology has been a benefit to us can it also be a curse? As I think about it more and more I believe the later. In other words because I now have an Ipod, can I start a home church and listen to John Piper sermons because he is the “more gifted teacher”? Does this alarm you at all? If Driscoll can do what he does what prevents me from taking Tom’s message and just meeting in Aubrey?
2. What do you mean by “largest” impact? Is teaching now the plumbline of mature Christianity? Is there any difference between this and Joel Olsteen? The seeker-sensitive movement has a commodity namely programs and worship and stuff. This is no difference other than the commodity being “teaching”.
3. What makes us believe that the body of Christ “benefits” from this? From who’s perspective? I could say that the body benefits more from an interactive home church model. Are both correct or one of us wrong?
4. What makes us believe these people are growing? And what is that growth measured by? Giving more money, attending more programs, bringing more people to church? What do we use to quantify this growth?
BMann,
Great questions.
1. I dare to say that is nearly impossible for a Christian to grow much at all. Apart from community you can get a big head with an undersized heart which equals deformity.
2. I agree. So why do we feel it necessary to broadcast a sermon via satelitte or anything else? Or how about letting the campus pastor “teach” the “sunday moring sermon”? Who says the guy has to be that gifted? What does that mean anyway?
3. Can you show me a biblical example of a non-teaching shepherd. Every Shepherd that I see in scripture also teaches. Now if you are talking Pulpit then none of them do this because there were none. So again I believe this to be synonymous at least every example I find does anyway.
We have so many side conversations going that it feels like we’re kinda talking in circles. I’ll attempt to streamline our convo and address the issues that you have brought up.
First, let’s define teaching because it sounds like we’re saying the same thing. When I say “gifted teacher,” I mean someone who comandeers the pulpit on Sunday morning and effectively communicates the Scriptures in a way that is theologically sound, engaging and challenging. I feel that preaching is an incredibly integral part of church life, but it is not the only “teaching” necessary for the Christian. Now, to the issues you’ve raised:
1. Let’s see: If it works, should we do it? I’m gonna go with YES on this one. Are there downfalls? I’m sure there are, as there is with every “local church” model we can come up with. We must prepare for such downfalls. The difference between you and Driscoll would be attitude. Mars Hill Church has an elder team of over 30 Pastors who put their resources and leadership into growing Christ followers all over the Seattle area. You might just be some renegade “churchiologist” using Tom’s sermons without permission. Now, if the elders of Denton Bible Church commissioned you to Aubrey to shepherd a group of people there and gave you permission to use Tom’s messages, then I think it’s a great idea. You’re a gifted discipler, and Tom’s a gifted commuicator. Still, if the teaching is as described above, and the community is one that meets together, does life together, administers the sacraments, and executes church discipline, then it’s a church!
2. Largest impact means taking people from who are far from God and developing them into fully-devoted Christ followers (forgive me Bill Hybels). If your pastor is boring, people won’t come!!! I know, I know… HERETIC!!! But it’s true. I know how you feel about church being only for the Christians, but even a new believer wouldn’t want to sit through a boring, irrelevant sermon. We like good preachers! There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s why we have podcasts of Piper, Driscoll, Groeschel, etc. And YES there is a HUGE difference from Olsteen. Here’s the difference, Olsteen doesn’t preach the gospel… Driscoll does!
3. The Body of Christ benefits when souls are added and people grow into devoted Christ followers. We can’t have forgotten Acts 2 already!
4. How DARE us assume that these churches feel that growth = giving more money, attending more programs, etc. That’s a stigma that we place on them because they are mega churches and we all know that mega churches are EVIL!!! Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt that they know when Christians are growing and when they aren’t. My mama said if you seek the worst in people, you’ll always find it. Wise woman.
not a fan of video church.
Thanks BMann for the comments. I will respond and you can follow up and lets see if any readers want to join in. I am thorougly enjoying the conversation. I will add a number 1 to your comment and your number 1 will become 2.
1. That is not teaching by any use of the biblcal word. Teaching does not equal pulpit and you and I both know from history this didn’t come about until rougly 150 years or so later. Now you may appeal to that but we can get into some real shakey ground in a circular arguement.
2. I see your first statement but your last sentence can you show me that biblically? Sacrements (the bible never uses), executes church discipline (the bible never uses that in defining a church). If you can show me how the bible defines the church and it includes these I would be greatly impressed because in my reading of the bible I haven’t seen that yet.
3. I don’t know if that is necessarily true that if they are boring they won’t come. But that is a matter of opinion that you are free to express. Secondly I know how the bible feels about church being only for believers because only believer can comprise the church. Church being for a nonbeliever is an oxymoron friend. The church is Christ’s body and only believers are baptized into the body. So you can have a nonbeliever in a building but never the church. That my friend is the theological heresy not boring pastors. To add to that maybe believers wouldn’t be so bored if they were part of the “sermon” (whatever that is). Maybe have them interacting as Paul did in Acts 20, as the Corinthians did in 1 Corinthians 14 would be of more benefit than a monlogue. But hey people don’t want that so don’t give it to them right?
4. I am saying how are culture measures growth and how I have seen (even in biblically sound) churches the quoting of numbers or bodies in seats as a measure of “church” growth. I never said anybody was evil. I don’t think you would find that in any of my post. Unless I was referring to myself before Christ. I have never said in my life that “mega” churches (buildings) were evil. The Church is a MEGA Church my friend. Comprised of people of all walks, rich and poor, black, white, Japanese, Chinese, Iraqi, Male, Female, Bond and Free, illeterate and well educated. I only believe in one church, with many gatherings. So I never said anyone was evil, that would be a theological heresy also. All who are in the “church” are white as snow. I asked a question. How do we measure growth.
Why not Joe? You are a pastor, you aren’t ambitious enough. People don’t need to hear your great expository sermons?
Since we’re including other readers (and because I fear we are beginning to take shots), I’ll withhold my responses. However on #4 you MUST know that I was overstating the issue in jest. On top of that, it was YOU who made the suggestion that these churches measure growth by the things YOU listed. You didn’t just ask a question. You suggested the answer within your question.
What bothers me most, I think, is the term “Celebrity Evangelists”.
Just mull that around in your mouth for a while before you spit it out.
My parent’s church also felt the need to reach potential church-goers on the other side of town, but rather than raise up a new pastor within the church and send out a new church-planting team they instead set up a video/satellite service with video feed of their service across town.
Why, oh why?
Oh yeah, “Celebrity Evangelists”….
kg
I’m with you Keith! The idea of a “Celebrity Evangelists” is just repulsive. That is unless the evangelists themselves are being labeled as such and don’t see it or desire it that way.
As far as ambition goes, I agree with Piper (just don’t tell Lionel) that there is a such thing as “holy ambition” and that we can all have that.
Usher: Deak, No one has brought up the fact that the congregations are the ones to blame for all this.
Deacon: In what way?
Usher: It’s what they ask for, pay for and keep coming back for. They want to be welcomed into a “worship environment”, be coddled and nurtured and stroked. Then they want their type of worship listen to thier type of sermon and never have to answer for nothin’. I think it’s referred to as “the tickling of the ears”.
Deacon: Little harsh, but go on…
Usher: Then they want to be told how great they are and how much God is going to bless them and forgive them – and they’re stupid enough to suck it all in off a movie screen! I’m going to set up a booth in one of them megachurches and sell oceanside property I own in Montana!
Deacon: What would you do?
Usher: Kick ‘em all in the colon and tell ‘em to get off their lazy potato shaped derears and get on with making disciples (I didn’t say saving the world). Next week we’re going to hold you all accountable as to how many people know you’re a christian by what you do and no by chrome fish on your fender. You’ll all be required to define your community, learn how to reach them and stop coming back here to be “tickled”. And next week, you’ll have to bring your own damn coffee!
Deacon: No one would show up next week, Usher.
Usher: My point exactly! And may the real followers of God, please come back, all you others can stay home!
Are you serious?
Bobby,
After meditating on your comment I am confused you said:
“3. The Body of Christ benefits when souls are added and people grow into devoted Christ followers. We can’t have forgotten Acts 2 already!”
What do you mean?
2 Timothy 2:2 comes to mind.
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.
I stated: “Many of these churches feel that if they can have the largest impact by streaming in the sermon by a gifted preacher and pastoring on a personal level with someone who is there at that campus for that expressed purpose, then the body of Christ benefits.”
You asked: “3. What makes us believe that the body of Christ “benefits” from this? From who’s perspective? I could say that the body benefits more from an interactive home church model. Are both correct or one of us wrong?”
I replied: “3. The Body of Christ benefits when souls are added and people grow into devoted Christ followers. We can’t have forgotten Acts 2 already!”
I was speaking in reference the Acts 2 report of the growth and health of the early church.
Usher: Deak, I appreciate Mr. Manning’s desire, but he’s got to get his facts straight. His term of “benefits” must be defined. He seems to be using it as though it is anything “that which pleases the congregations and tickles their fancy”. In other words, the church is serving the congregation and not God.
FYI – the gospel is about furthering the kingdom and making disciples, not entertaining lazy people who want to have their egos stroked and their couch fluffed up. After all, there were only 12 disciples who made it and one of them was a traitor.
Deacon: Does he know that 90% of all converts accept Christ before they’re 16? (MR. Barna’s numbers, not mine.) How many of these people who attend these “video venues” are in that age bracket?
Usher: And that megachurches do not further the kingdom, they further the bank account of people such as this:
deaconandusher.wordpress.com
Brothers,
After reading the source article provided in the link, there are some notes of interest and more importantly the entire “multi-site,” movement is built on an unbiblical premise.
First the unbiblical premise is that the church is a building of brick and mortar. This premise is found throughout the entire article. Consider that “church” and “campuses” and “video venues,” are used as synonyms throughout the discussion. The article states video venues are “an engine of church growth.” Now in context of the whole article, is church growth in relation to buildings or people? Yet the Scriptures consistently refer to the “church” as the flock that was bought by the blood of Jesus Christ. Christ did not die for brick and mortar but for those chosen before the foundation of the world.
Second, Eddie Johnson who is a “lieutenant” of Andy Stanley clearly spoke his heart in the article. He and more than likely his “captain” Andy Stanley, view the church not as a priesthood of believers who are a holy nation and peculiar people but as a franchise just like Chick-fil-A. How can he Scripturally stand by his analogy?
Third, the article stated “Defenders of video venues note that the unorthodox arrangement relieves young pastors of the burden of writing, delivering a weekly sermon, leaving them more time to spend with their members, staffs, and families.” Hold on… how is it a burden to deliver the Word of God?
Brothers as much as I enjoy men like Piper and Driscoll, this multi-site, video venue approach has the aroma of one who desires to have the preeminence. These places have a multitude of male elders are they not capable to shepherd the flock of God as well?
The only method of mult-site is found in Acts. Read it and read it again. The apostles did not lord over new plants. They discipled, identifed elders and left. Yes also they returned to visit, they wrote but there was the implicit and explicit understanding the church belonged to God not them.
Let us finally remember this. The Church was bought by Christ blood not ours. This is His Church and when you desire to farm it out as if it is a Starbucks, McDonalds or Chick-fila-A, then I pray that you would examine yourself. The Church was bought by Christ blood not ours.
Phillip you said:
“Brothers as much as I enjoy men like Piper and Driscoll, this multi-site, video venue approach has the aroma of one who desires to have the preeminence. These places have a multitude of male elders are they not capable to shepherd the flock of God as well?
The only method of mult-site is found in Acts. Read it and read it again. The apostles did not lord over new plants. They discipled, identifed elders and left. Yes also they returned to visit, they wrote but there was the implicit and explicit understanding the church belonged to God not them.”
Brother these words are so well conveyed I don’t know what to say. Phillip this warms my heart brother. The greatest question is are these man so “gifted” that the other man are incapable of ministering the word to God’s people, but they are shepherds? That sounds so whack to me brothers. Has the Holy Spirit so indwelt them that these other men are insufficient? What does that say of the men entrusted to “shepherd” the people, they are too inferior to deliver a word. Now I know many will say that is taking too far but that is what this conveys to me. It says “hey I have a special gift to deliver the word, but since I can be everywhere in person, I will deliver my word electronically but I need you to make sure they apply it”!
If no one thinks something is wrong with that I am troubled. As Kieth says it creates “celebrity evangelist”. If a man is gifted enough to “shepherd” he is also gifted enough to teach. Plain and simple.
I usually enjoy the entries on this blog. However, I am amazed at the “broad stroking” and generalizations being ascribed to so-called mega churches. John exhorts us to “try the spirit by the Spirit,” which is quite different than stereotyping.
All mega churches do not stroke people’s egos. All mega churches are not lacking accountability and small group discipleship. If one can’t distinguish between Osteen, Hybils, and Driscoll, then one has no understanding of the Gospel.
Thank you Manning for trying to examine the logic of multi-site ministry. I am very concerned about this model and the motivations of “many.” However, I will always realize that many ain’t “all.”
Brother Woods, do you believe the “house church” model is an effective model or the ONLY acceptable NT model for local gatherings of the Church?
What is a biblical understanding of “gifted or especially gifted?” Perhaps we can benefit from the description of Apollos being “mighty in the scripture” or the fact that Paul and Peter were used by God (in scripture) in ways that other disciples/apostles were not.
How do you measure church “benefit?” Perhaps when the saints are denying themselves, taking up their cross daily, and following Christ.
By serving in a large denomination, I have seen all types of effective and non-effective congregations. Sterotypes usually break down once you see local congregation seeking to glorify Christ.
Hey Smithbaptist. I can only answer the things I said, as it relates to ego’s, not making disciples and the like, you will have to follow my post and show me where I said those things. My concern is “satelite” “churches” which are an oxymoron. But I will attempt to answer as faithfully as I can and where you feel I am wrong we can definitely dialogue about it.
1. I don’t think I stereotyped anyone. But if I did then please show me so that I can clear it up. I can’t speak for every commenter and I only delete comments with very bad language.
2. As it relates to difference between the three I still believe it is the commodity that is different. Just because we believe that “expository preaching” isn’t a commodity doesn’t change that it is. Especially when I know a grip of people personally who go to churches only for the “word” and they can’t get any meaningful fellowship and some even go to other churches for the worship and fellowship. Furthermore, I believe that I and many of the posters on this site have a keen view of the “Gospel”. Now do you believe that is a sterotype to say “no understanding fo the Gospel”? That may be a stretch.
3. Nope. My good blogging role model Alan Knox over at http://www.assembling.blogspot.com don’t meet in a house. I know many others who don’t meet in a home. So my answer is no. You can gather at a lake, park, school, a building called a church, or at a bar for all I care. The location isn’t important the gathering is.
4. No one in the scriptures are called “especially gifted”. That is why I made that claim. Unless we talk about the Apostles and they had a special gift that had a special goal which was to be the foundation of Christ’s church. Every other believer is “gifted” and Paul seems to make clear in 1 Corinthians 12 that these gifts are equal. Now as it relates to shepherd if a person has a gift to shepherd he must have a gift to teach. The bible never makes a distinction. There is an obscure verse in 2 Timothy and this is up for debate. If a man is an elder he should teach. There is no such thing as a “teaching elder”. If so can you show me one of them in scripture? Finally are you comparing the ministry of Driscoll and others to the Apostles Paul and Peter? If so we need to list some glaring and outstanding differences.
5. What makes you believe that people are denying themselves anymore in Driscoll’s church than in Olsteen’s church? Or is this not what you meant? What you mentioned is one compotnent of being a disciple of Christ the others include, but are not limited to, making disciples and being a servant.
6. I still need to see those sterotypes.
Thanks for the reply Brother Woods.
You made me laugh. I have always thought people were wierd when they went one place for “the word” and another place for the music and fellowship. Also, I am bothered by church members who arrive at service when they think it is “preaching time.” I didn’t laugh cause it was funny. I laughed because I didn’t know other people did that. Yea, I suppose that is a “commodity” approach.
You are correct – the stereotypes were not in your initial post. I had been reading through the comments of all in total.
To point #4, I agree that no one is “called” especially gifted. I’m just suggesting that people are used differently, as it regards scope and influence. Paul does say that all the members are equally a part of the Body, but he does didtinguish more-prominent and less-prominent members of the Body. No, I am not comparing any contemporary preacher to the apostles.
To point #5, I am making no claim about the maturity of saints in anyone’s church. I am saying that some mega-churches (just like some midsize and small) are diligent to the process of making disciples. Any lackness in the pursuit of Christian discipleship is characteristic of Christianity “in America” not Christianity in “mega-churches.”
Got you brother. But no I am not a pro-house church but I may be anti-mega. I think Phillip and Kieth covered the reasons why. Read there comments and we can dialgouge about it. What I am seeing is that Christianity in America is dying but churches are growing. I am pretty decent in math and that means if a+b<c and A is growing and C is shrinking then what does that say about B? A=Mega Churches, B=All other Church and C=Christianity?
Lionel – I stole this quote and linked here – BTW, I really do enjoy visiting this Blog, you write some amazing stuff and I am blessed by God because of you.