I feel like I’ve got my foot in my mouth from comments on the personal devil post.  So I’ll just say that the papal comparison you make seems valid (in many instances).

I’m dreadfully uncomfortable with the whole video broadcasting thing, but that’s just me.  I’m not saying it’s wrong or right for others.  but this is a new and interesting way of looking at it.
I think sometimes, some people only want to hear the one guy and it’s a matter of keeping everyone happy.  Perhaps he’s a fabulous speaker.  The most entertaining.  That sort of thing.

I understand your frustration, Shaun. I’m not a fan of video-feed preachments.

However, let’s take what you’re saying a step further. If a church of, say, 300 people uses an overflow room with a video screen piping in the sermon, should we hose them, too?

Would the problem be solved if, instead of having the pastor appear via satellite to another room or to a sister campus, they simply built a larger main sanctuary? Bigger buildings to accommodate the crowds would eliminate the need for video feeds.

Or, would you bust him for pastoring an impersonal church because it seats 5,000 people? IF size is the issue, what are we to do with Jesus preaching to 5,000 on a hillside?

And, not to be difficult, but why not pitch this same question to the occasional CCM artist who performs in arenas that are so massive, video screens are needed to pick them out of the sea of humanity.

Just wondering.

Shaun, this type of post is what makes your blog the most refreshing and challenging “Christian” blog I’ve ever read.  I had to re-read your comments just to let your points sink in deeply.  You are so right and as much as I agree with you, I hope the church ultimately recognizes the irony and hypocrisy and truly does foster discipleship.

Kevin

I hear what you’re saying, but I think the blame is not completely at the feet of the “pope pastor/leader.” We buy into the cult of personalities so often, that it’s hard to want to follow someone else who is not quite so charismatic. We make value judgments that say, “since so-and-so can’t speak/sing/whatever as go as that guy over there, he must not be as blessed and as usable by God. Therefore, I’m going to place myself under the discipleship of this other, better looking/sounding guy who’s already got 14,000 people under him he’s trying to feed.”

Never mind the fact that sometimes these great communicators surround themselves with perfectly capable men and women full of the Spirit of God, but yet they aren’t looked up to as much because they just don’t have the right “personality.”

We’ve got to realize that there’s a whole lot more to discipleship than sitting in the pew and listening to a good communicator. We have to place ourselves under mentors who care about our spiritual well-being, surround ourselves with peers who we can build up and who build us up, and then pass that along by discipling someone else.

Jimmy: Good questions.  They deserve equally good answers.  Anybody want to take first stab at them?

Jeff: Agreed.  I never will place “blame” for anything wonky happening in church solely at the pastor’s feet. We’re all culpable.

This is a very tough issue and not one that’s likely to be solved quickly.  I think there are times and places for all sizes of congregations and mulitmedia presentations certainly have their place.  Using a big screen or whatever to make seeing who you’re listening to easier isn’t wrong.  Satelite campuses may be the only option for some at the moment.  Descipleship of an individual isn’t something that happens overnight.  Christ spent 3 years with his desciples and they spent hours a day with him in small group and individual teaching.  He was God afterall and certainly had the “upper hand” when it came to descipleship.  I do feel however that overall, little time is spent in the true descipleship of individuals in church today.  We need more small groups, more Bible study time, etc.  I currently teach the 2-5 year olds on Sundays.  While the arguement could certainly be made that I’m not “descipling” this age group, I would argue otherwise.  This is when it begins for some.  It’s a life-long process and mentoring these little ones is just as important for them as my pastor’s teaching is to me.

Beth

Shaun: I didn’t think you were, I was just venting. This is somewhat a touchy subject in our neck of the woods.

I guess there’s a growing frustration that some of the “big” ministries around us, rather than lending a helping hand to the “little” churches in the area, instead are starting up these video venues because they can. The argument can be made, “well, if you were capable of getting the job done, your church would be a big as ours.” That just doesn’t wash. The real truth is, people are fickle and are by in large (I’m speaking in generalities here, specifically about our area) just following the “new, cool, big thing.” A year from now they will have moved on to the next one. It’s a self-perpetuating circle that only creates a shallow faith as long as the church-attendee is only following the flash and not the substance.

The good news is that a lot of these “big” ministries really are preaching the gospel and doing their level best to teach and disciple. IMHO.

Ah, I’m ranting again. I’ll shut up now.

Hey, I ran across this discussion going on through Ragamuffin and I have a little bit of insight. I used to lead at a Satelite Venue where we pumped a “live” pre-recorded feed of our pastors message after live music and live announcements, etc. What happened was that the pastor was being lost in translation figuratively and literally.

1. People at the venue felt they were watching television. Why not simply go home and watch Joel Osteen.
2. The message was lost among the people we were reaching out to. We were reaching out to a poor neighborhood and so when the preacher spoke about money of any kind or family issues it was directed toward middle upper class “normal” families.

I’m a recovering video venue director. I’ve since left the church. We asked and asked for somebody to come preach live and eventually I was lucky enough to go with the “church” plant. I think it was because they weren’t seeing the results that they hoped for. I’d love to talk more about this, but I don’t want to hog the blog.

peace,
ron

I don’t have a problem with video-feed preaching.  If nothing else it maintains the focus of the message across all sites.  I can definitely see the potential for abuse where one pastor feels that are the only one qualified to preach to the flock, therefore the videos are needed.

I can also see a model of multiple pastors at multiple sites.  However, for that model to work in my mind I would want the pastors to meet each week to hold each other accountable: 1. in their personal relationships and 2. in the message they are communicating to the flock. 

Something else to think about in terms of church history, but roughly one-third of the New Testament as we know it is comprised of letters written by one man and sent to many churches.  Hopefully that isn’t too apples to oranges.

Shaun Groves said:
“Jimmy: Good questions.  They deserve equally good answers.  Anybody want to take first stab at them?”

Knowing Shaun’s viewpoints, Jimmy’s last question about the CCM artist with video screens combined with the Jesus speaking to a crowd of 5,000 with no video screen question (see upcoming book from Shaun about Sermon on the Mount), begs an inherent comparison.

Jesus cared for people personally and his message was for all 5,000 people regardless of what they thought of Him.  The CCM artist (or pastor) with the video screen needs to be reflecting that same Jesus or I don’t want to see or hear them.  The fine line of Rock Star, Popular Pastor and singing or speaking to the masses gets to Shaun’s posts last year about “celebrity” and is it about the speaker’s or singer’s ego or about Jesus?

Shaun, All I can say to this is it seems to work for our church here in Burlington, and I was wondering what your perspective is on DVD studies from Rob Bell (Nooma DVD’s), Andy Stanley, and many many others.  Wouldn’t that sort of rank right up there next to the preaching sermons on big screens rather than having that disciple live?  Hmm...Interesting thought.  Love the topics you bring to the blog, and I also love the discussions it stirs up among your blog viewers.  Thanks!

I think Jimmy’s and Shawn’s questions can best somewhat answered by this part f the post…

[Note: I’m all for using modern methods to communicating to modern people.  My questions don’t center around whether we should but why we do.]

Technology is neither good or bad.  DVDs are neither good or bad.  Why we choose to use them can be good or bad...or, even more frustrating, mixed.

Good discussion guys.

I hope we can all get past the right/wrong about technology and focus on the point of this post. I think it is very good.

I agree that we cannot solely place the blame on each pastor/leader because as a society we “pick” churches to attend based on certain criteria and one of those is who is preaching. If we don’t “like” the preaching we don’t go back (at least that’s how my church “shopping” generally went). Preaching is as much an art as music and people have different tastes when it comes to preachers just like they do with musicians.

So this situation definitely has ties to our church culture. “Pastor A” has more people is different places that attend his church than he can fit into one room at one time. More than likely a large number of those people prefer his preaching to others’ since they attend that church. How does Pastor A accommodate all of the people? Or maybe the question should be “Does Pastor A try to accommodate all of the people?”

I dunno. I’ll shut up now.

We have a church that is not led by an “alpha male” or a “pope”.  There’s a team of teaching pastors (4 full time, 3 part time).  However, we do have a clear leader in our senior pastor who is one of our teaching pastors.

We also use video in 5 of our 14 weekly teaching times in 12 worship services on 3 campuses. 

Why do we have a teaching team?  Because our pastor developed vocal cord nodules years ago and had to share.  Why do we use video?  Because even 7 guys can’t cover 14 teaching times each week.  Why do we have 14 teaching times?  Because we have a small building, because we wanted to give people many times to come and worship, and because we have started campuses in under-served communities in our area.  One campus location was a night-club and the other was an 80 year-old church about to fold. Both feature live teaching.

I personally don’t like the alpha-male church though I have met a few of those pope-like leaders that were MUCH more appealing than the norm (Rick Warren and Bob Coy for instance). I feel, for the same reasons as above, that video is often just a way to extend the influence of a great communicator.

Still, when Jesus was around Peter let him teach.

my church:  http://www.visitoasis.org

I think the issue of the pope/pastor is one that affects churches of all sizes and styles. Its just that with the large “video venues” its easier to single them out. Also let’s be realistic here. We are primarily talking about an event that consumes maybe 25% of total church activity throughout the week. What happens on Sunday morning is important, but making disciples happens everyday outside the building we call church. So regardless of style or presentation the key is replication. How are the individuals who show up on Sunday going about their lives replicating Christ? AND how is the local body know as _______ church helping to reproduce disciples? I think if we could be unbiased we would actually see that most of these “alpha males” are simply great leaders. They are confident enough to surround themselves with people who may or may not be better than them and give them ownership over various parts of the mission (eg. making children disciples, teaching disciples how to worship, creating opportunities for the disciples to serve, etc...). Man I love the church and I love these discussions!

I think this is a trend right now because we always model corporate america in our churches.  (We’re always behind, but it’s what we model.) Churches are finding ways to kill out the competition, which means the draw of a better personality, better programs, more entertainment, parking shuttles. 
I fully expect a swing back to home churches with local emphasis and all of the opposite problems that come along with that in the next generation.

I’m trying to post a thoughtful comment with some relevant links, but I keep getting this message:

The following errors were encountered

* You are not authorized to perform this action

Have I been banned from the shlog?

third post attempt with all links stripped:

We look for the best alpha male leaders, because we’re afraid to lead.  Jesus wants to replicate in us what he replicated in his first disciples.  Ironically, this connects with a nooma video I saw today about what it means to a follower of Jesus for Jesus to say, “Follow me.” If Jesus didn’t think you could do it, he wouldn’t have called you.  We don’t live like Jesus, because we don’t have faith in our capability to follow him (in Him or by His strength, of course; see next paragraph).  I was at a retreat last year where the speaker said that all the men at the church should be preparing to be elders.  Most people don’t think this way.

Another contrast: the awesomely bold alpha male video visionary leaders are trying to be everywhere at once, but they obviously can’t be.  Jesus promised to always be with us, and he fulfills this promise for every believer through the presence of the Holy Spirit.

i have been reading a new book by Frank Viola & George Barna called Pagan Christianity.
the book proposes that many of the things our churches hold dear aren’t necessarily Biblical, but are “add-ons” from pagan culture.
chapter five is called “The Pastor: Obstacle to Every-Member Functioning”
the title says a lot, but the idea is that a set apart clergy can cause the church to function outside of the priesthood of all believers that Jesus came to establish.
interesting… thoughts?

I am also going through Pagan Christianity as well.
Initial thought is, wow.

Weird, keith.  I have no idea why that happened.

(FYI, I don’t ban folks without a warning first.)

P.D. - you say wow…
that could mean, “wow, this is ground breaking!”
that could also mean, “wow, this is heretical!”
that could also mean, “wow, this is a stretch!”
i’d love to know what you are thinking.
i guess i am thinking all of those things at different parts of the book (although, i wouldn’t go so far as to call it heresy).

i dont think discipleship can ever happen from a stage - whether it’s video or flesh and blood. i really don’t think the method matters. i like what kenyon said. so thanks, k.

i am all for discussion but i think a majority of our opinions about how things should be done is just a waste of time and an expression of bitterness toward something beautiful. i am often guilty of this and have been extremely convicted of it lately.

”...Alpha Male churches.  These are churches led by an Alpha Male, singular head honcho guy who is thought to be irreplaceable.  He’s great and everyone else is just pretty darn good.”

The above description is exactly why these alpha males are not popes in the traditional sense of the word (pope in the Coptic, Catholic and Greek Orthodox of Alexandrian usages).  ***Please, note that I am not saying a pope is a good thing, I’m simply saying that a pope is fundamentally different than the CEO pastors in Protestant congregations, especially those of the non-denominational flavor.  End disclaimer.*** In the traditional usage of the word pope, the position is everything and the person is nothing.  The pope isn’t great while everyone else is just good.  In pretty much every generation there are much holier people than the man who is pope.  To Catholics, Peter wasn’t the first vicar of Christ because he was perfect or even because he was better than John, Andrew and the rest of the apostles.  He was the first vicar of Christ, because it was to Peter and Peter alone that Christ gave the keys of the Kingdom.  A Catholic would no sooner leave the Catholic Church if a scoundrel was pope than a good Jew would leave Judaism because a scoundrel was made high priest.  If a scoundrel is made pope, Catholics pray and trust God that He will take the keys of the Kingdom from that man and give them to another.  In the OT God took the key of the Davidic kingdom from the corrupt Shebna and gave it to Eliakim, giving him authority and making him a father to the House of David (Isaiah 22).  If God deposed and imposed according to His will back then, He can certainly do the same today. 

Hybels and the like are much more like CEOs, because their authority extends merely to the extent of their own organization and they know it.  Also, their congregants/employees are free to leave and go work for the competition.  In fact, such a reaction would be expected if they did not perform as well as the competition.  Not so in traditional churches with popes.  If there was a string of publicly corrupt popes lasting 100 years, one *might* see mass attendance drop by half in the Coptic, Catholic and Orthodox churches, and the people who left would be those who fundamentally disagreed with the doctrine of the church.  If there was a string of publicly corrupt pastors at Hybel’s church lasting 10 years, there would be nobody left, and of those who left all would be in perfect agreement with their congregation’s doctrinal statement.

Beyond that, I would assert that the CEO pastor is primarily an American phenomenon that exists most commonly in the non-denominational world or in denominations were any authority beyond the local congregation is nearly nonexistent.  In such an atmosphere, there is capitalistic competition for customers/congregants.  Even in main-line Protestant world, such competition is limited, because individual congregations do not want to compete with other congregations in their own denomination and congregants are more or less divided up on a geographical basis.  There is no motivation to build grow a megachurch.

Growing up I attended a very large Calvary Chapel church for about a decade and several times heard my pastor talk about how he left the Methodist denomination because they would not give him control and let him grow a church the way he wanted to.  In mainline denominations, growth is practically irrelevant on the congregational level and often leads simply to another building being built nearby for another pastor to share in the fruits of one’s labor, or in a transfer of the “successful” pastor to a struggling congregation to work one’s magic again.  It almost never results in the building of a giant mega-church for the pastor who started the growth.  In the case of my former pastor, after leaving the Methodist denomination, he eventually built a church that over a decade ago had regular attendance on the order of 1% of the entire city (where less than half attended church) and was broadcasting services to another campus every Easter.  He tried timidly to expand that practice and eventually decided to build a much larger building and try to avoid the television worship service experience.  While I think God probably used my old pastor to touch more lives in his new role under the Calvary Chapel umbrella, it came at the cost of him becoming the primary focus in a much greater way than would have happened had he remained a Methodist (or even if he had become the Coptic/Catholic/GOofA pope).

MB

aren’t we supposed to be making disciples of jesus, not of our pastors?  if so, doesn’t that kinda puch a hole in that argument about pastors “not making disciples”?

for that matter, is watching a message on a screen tat different than listening to music on a CD.  maybe instead of recording CDs, you should just teach a bunch of people your songs and they can go to peoples’ houses and sing them for them.  point is, you have a message you want to get out in your music.  the CD gives you a means.  the pastor has a message he feels God wants his people to hear.  the video campus gives a means for this. 

let’s relax a little and stop bashing every new and successful idea that comes along.  i’m as cynical as the next guy, but seriously, don’t we have bigger things to think about?

[SHAUN: Ryan, I think you might have missed or misunderstood this part of the post.  Here it is a third time: “I’m all for using modern methods to communicate to modern people.  My questions don’t center around whether we should but why we do.” An idea that is new or successful is not exempt from kind scrutiny.  We’re to be discerning and we do that best as groups, not as individuals, I believe.  That’s what we’re attempting to do here: discern, kindly, what leadership, church, disciple making and communication are and could be.  That’s “big” stuff to think about...for me anyway.]

Hey Shaun!

Long time, no see.  I thought I’d cruise over and check your blog out. Whoops, I mean your Shlog.  Glad to see you are continuing this discussion from Los’ post.

Ryan,
I would agree, but I don’t think being a church is about listening to sermons, where I do think being a music fan is about listening to music.
Point taken though.

Let me start off by saying “I have found extreme joy in reading two books as of late. ‘Revolution’ by George Barna and ‘Pagan Christianity’ BY Frank Viola footnoted by George Barna.” Just two good referances to how I tend to lean.

Could the real question be - Why do we place such emphasis on the weekly sermon?

A friend once stressed that the weekly sermon is not the meat, it’s the dessert following the meat we feasted on throughout the week.

i agree, katherine.  however, the main focus of this thread was about pastors showing the message via video.  most of these places will have a campus pastor in place to shepherd the people.  shaun’s post seemed focused on the message/sermon aspect.  that’s why i focused my response in that way as well.

a sermon and music are both ways of getting a message across.

I am not sure which Wow.
It’s a lot to process, and you really have to dive into it and check sources.
Right now I guess its like Wow, overwhelmed.

Shaun,

This is a great discussion.  My comments would revolve more around the Spider/Starfish concept - I think (and have gotten in trouble over it) that the church isn’t functioning properly if the “head” (at least, locally) could be cut off and the church ceases to function.

I think it’s a leadership/systems issue.  And I think many churches are doing it because it’s the next thing to do, and we’re always about doing whatever the next thing is.

I do think some of these churches are doing their absolute best to ensure that this doesn’t happen.  I think this is the very thing Stanley is talking about in “7 Practices of an Effective Ministry” when he talks about the practice of “Replace Yourself.”

Absolutely, Travis.  I like that about him.  He seems to get it and, from what I hear, tries to live that mantra as well. 

I want to clarify: My opinion is this...Big isn’t bad.  New isn’t bad.  Video isn’t bad. Pastor isn’t bad.  Church isn’t bad.  Technology isn’t bad.  Multiple campuses aren’t bad. Those aren’t the issue here and it’s my fault entirely if that’s not been made clear.  Those are the pieces, not the picture.

Shaun,

I understood your point completely. There’s a disconnect between trying to re-create yourself and broadcasting yourself instead of giving the opportunity to someone who needs the experience and has the passion.

Keep thinking out loud for us.

Seems like an awful lot of questions and assumptions.  Did you ask anyone at the church these questions?  Seems like the leadership of this church could provide some meaningful answers.  I am curious as to why you would jump to the assumption that the head did not want to replicate himself. Perhaps the video teaching was a strategy for this church to communicate the gospel as effectively and clearly as possible.  Maybe the reason for showing the video teaching on the main campus was to communicate the mission/vision of the multi-site and it’s effectiveness with video teaching.  I know you are not making a judgment about video teaching but it sounds like you are getting close to making a judgment or assumption about the character of the head of this church or any other church that choses to communicate this way.  Seems like a huge assumption especially when you haven’t taken the time to try to understand the hearts of the people you are referencing.

I don’t think Shaun is making a judgement, he’s asking a question. 

In my job, I have to ask myself constantly, am I doing this the best way possible?  Am I serving my students the right way?  Is the way I’m phrasing this make sense to them in a way it hasn’t made sense to them their whole lives up till now?  Do they feel understood, comfortable, and safe? 

I’m just teaching English and reading improvement.  Not God.

And every year someone comes in and watches me and asks these same questions and why I make the decisions I do.

So I would naturally expect that those who are “leaders” in the church would be really used to this line of questioning.  I would think they would have carefully thought through and prayed through the important and strategic decisions they make.  I would imagine they know that it is God to whom they are accountable ultimately, but that God speaks through the voices of His people.  And I think they would be thrilled that people want to dialogue about the church and how it operates rather than ignore it altogether. 

I grew up a PK.  I still have family members in full-time ministry.  I have watched people wrestle with decisions about what the best thing to do is.  It seems to me in the healthiest environments, dialogue is welcome.

Shaun,

You said technology, pastor, “church”, etc. aren’t “the picture”, their just “peices”.

I was wondering, in your opinion, what is “the picture”?

P.S.- Your blog is really encouraging.

I know at first glance this sort of Video Conferencing may seem rather sterile, I would say it really depends on the situation here, i.e. it is highly subjective.  Think back to the days of long ago, when a preacher might have stops at 3 or more churches over the course of time (circuit riders), how much easier and cost effective given gas prices would it be to vid-conference simultaneously? 

The main problem I have with it, is the person who is using that material to spread his message in this fashion, is at risk of losing touch with the most important folks in the church: The lay people.  Let’s be honest, without the lay people there would be no church.  There is also a confusion I’ve found in some Christian denominations.  There are essentially two “Churches” in the bible.  The universal church, of which all true Christians are a part, and then there is the Local church.  The Local church is the one that most concerns me.  I grew up in a rather small church, maybe less then 200 members if you included all the kids.  Back in the late 80s and early 90s a trend popped up that I never really liked.  That trend was for the Pastor to become more of a discussion leader on Sunday Nights.  The Session of the church would approve these “videos” and we’d watch them and then discuss them.  Now on one hand I can understand how having those discussions helps tie the fellow believers together, but we must always be careful not to let just anyone into our pulpits.  I’ll be honest, I became a Christian during this time, and I watched a number of families I was close to migrate to other churches because of it.  Technology should be used where it can be most helpful believers, but it should never be relied on as a crutch on which without it the message does not get out.

Take the following example, Pack in 1998 I attended a revial service for a particular evengelist at the church I was attending.  One sunday evening, he got up to preach and suddenly the power cut out.  There was no enhancement from the sound system, the tape record of the message was thankfully on battery backup, but everything from the lights to the sound system was out.  Now this preacher did what you’d hope every preacher would do, speak a little louder and continue his message so that the message he was bringing could be heard.  Now let’s reverse this.  How often has your internet gone out?  How about cable?  Now think about this, how extremely upsetting would it be if during a Video feed like described, the screen went caput.  It hardly matters whether the server crashed and died, whether the connection was broken, or if it was the transmitter that had the problem.  When that happens the message is not getting out.  What do these churches do if such a thing arises?  And how annoying would it be for during a live simulcast to suddenly have the message restored with about ten minutes left in the message.

My point on this is clear, what is the purpose of preaching? Preaching is useful for many things, but above all I’d say that preaching is intended to encourage us to strive to live up to Christs standards.  Yes it can instruct, it can help us heal, it may even encourage us when we have fallen, but ultimately the point of preaching is to bring honor and focus onto Christ.  Because of that no matter who the preacher is or what technology is used, the decision on whether it is “right” or not really is subjective.  I don’t know enough about the church in question to say whether it is wrong or right.  I can only speculate how I would feel in such a situation.  Do these satellite churches have staff pastors that do the work of a normal minister on every day but this Vid-Conferences?

I encourage everybody to check out the song “Happy,” by Ross King. It’s a brief, but honest, retelling of this exact situation that’s in so many churches today.

Shaun, thanks for starting this discussion. It’s obvious that everybody has strong feelings on every side of the issue. Appreciate your honesty.

@ veretax. 
yes, they do have campus pastors that do all the other duties of a pastor.  what you also don’t know (and probaly wouldn’t wouldn’t know as someone who isn’t a part of one of these churches) is that the campus pastor does get opportunites to speak from time to time, for example at other services the church does throughout the month, special prayer gatherings, and certain sundays whenthe campuses do their own thing (and yes, the campus pastor is equipped and prepared to preach the message if the screen, the message DVD, or the backup message on the computer were to go out).

what you also probably don’t know is that at least some of these churches have a TEAM of teaching pastors whose messages get broadcast to the campuses.  the point is not so much for the head pastor to be the “Alpha Male,” but for the church, in whatever various cities they may be in, to be growing and learning TOGETHER, as one body.

as far as the apha male concept of leadership, i would be curious as to how many of the ooutsiders who bash this system have actually seen the government of one of these churches in action.  do you know that it’s an alpha male government, or does it simply appear to be one from the outside because one pastor does most of the teaching?  i would be willing to bet that there are teams i place to hold the pastor and the church accountable.  yes, there is a senior pastor, but there’s also accountability there.

there’s a lot more to pastoring a church than preaching a message, and the fact that we make assumptions about the whole church based on the fact that the message is on a video screen seems a little closed-minded to me.  i find it funny that we argue here that a church should be more than just a message, but our whole argument seems based on the fact that we don’t like the way the message is presented.  just seems a little hypocritical is all.  sorry…

Hey Shaun, I just wanted to thank you for this blog post, because it finally made something click that I had never quite understood.

I graduated from Bible College (specialized in youth and music ministry) and was offered a full time position in a church that was, basically, to the letter, exactly what I had been praying for. I would have been under a pastor who was an experienced worship leader and preacher, the church was in the 300-500 people and growing, I would be mentored in worship, get to help out in youth ministry, and also put my computer skills to use by helping out the church with some IT stuff.

But I never got the green light from God to go ahead with it. Something about the situation just didn’t feel right. And even 6 months after turning down the job I didn’t know what it was. But after reading this… I’m pretty sure it was the whole sense of the “Alpha Male” that I got underneath it all. This senior pastor was the top dog, and if he suddenly disappeared, or even when his time at the church came to an end… the church would likely cease to function as the congregation knew it. Don’t get me wrong, he was a great guy, but knowing myself, I could only minister under that if God had specifically directed me to do so.

And thanks for the question at the end of your blog. It is particularly thought provoking for me, especially if (more like when) I actually do enter ministry, either on a daily basis or in a typical “clergy” position.

My earlier comments are not intended to imply that questions are not important...but are we asking the right questions and are we asking them in the most effective way.  Regarding the technology discussion, I think Jesus would have used whatever he could to share his message in the most effective way possible.  To me the real question is how do we communicate the Gospel in the best way possible and with the utmost in clarity.  In Luke Chapter 5 Jesus asks Peter to push him out in the water while he sits/stands in a boat to teach.  Why did Jesus do that? Don’t you think he was using the best tools he had to communicate in the most effective manner?  Why didn’t Jesus say to Peter, James, John, etc. to split everyone up into small groups and everyone teach the same lesson?  Because of the proximity and the size of the crowd he chose to communicate in the most effective way he knew how. 

On another note, regarding asking the questions in the most effective way and my judgment statement.  I am always curious if someone would ask the same question in the same way face to face to the people they are questioning.  I think blogs are a great way to communicate but I don’t think it gives us the right to drop statements about character unless you really know the hearts of the people.  I also think we have to be careful about making blanket statements like this one from the original post:

The connection in my head between the two thoughts is this: The pastors I’ve met who launch video campuses, the ones generous enough to explain the logic and theology behind the decision, are admitted Alpha Males.  I usually call them “popes” though.  The pope is thought to have special standing and a special role no one else in the Church has.  You can’t replicate the pope.  There’s only one guy who gets to wear the funny hat.

Why’s any of this matter?  By contrast Jesus was not a pope...and he was, you know, God.

I have had this discussion with my pastor and it led to an hour long discussion that felt more like a business meeting than anything else.  He definitely gives that “CEO” vibe, although I know he doesn’t intend that. I just don’t think that this model works for me at all.  It doesn’t communicate the message of Jesus to me.  Maybe it works for other people.

I am curious as to why you would jump to the assumption that the head did not want to replicate himself.

I didn’t make that assumption.  Why’d you make the assumption I did?  Read the post. I asked a question, didn’t make a statement.

Tim, you quoted me so let me, now allow me to add emphasis to parts of that quote to bring out meaning I fear you may have missed.

“The pastors I’ve met who launch video campuses, the ones generous enough to explain the logic and theology behind the decision, are admitted Alpha Males.”

No generalizations.  That’s pretty specific first hand knowledge.  You can’t disagree with my experience - but I welcome you to teach me by sharing your own.

And, Tim, it is easy to misuse a blog to attack others without having the balls to speak to those folks in person.  I assure you I’m the same on and off this blog.  Invite me to your church, put me in a room with your pastor, and I’ll ask questions every time.

Tim said, “Why didn’t Jesus say to Peter, James, John, etc. to split everyone up into small groups and everyone teach the same lesson?”

He is THE alpha male, so to speak. It’s all His vision. Can we really compare His methods to a preacher MAN’s?

When you have an alpha male pastor - no matter how good of a man he is, he’s still a man who can become intoxicated by the power trip - sometimes his vision over shadows Jesus’ vision. I know this is not always the case, but I think it happens much more often than many would admit.

I guess we just look at the language of the post differently.  Just curious, did you ask the question of the Pastor of this church?

So, I know of a church that said no to the video campus.  They wanted to start something to connect with more and different people, so they started a new and very different service, but they gave it it’s own speaker.  As far as I can tell from the outside, things were going well.  The group grew and the students in the area were responding to the leadership there. 

And then, the home church got nervous.  They said they had planted a service, not a congregation.  So they pulled the plug.  Good-bye to the speaker, good-bye to the service.  But those who attended were welcome to come join the original church in their previous worship venues and styles.  But as far as I know, no one did.

To be honest, I’d rather a video campus than see something like this happen to anyone.  But I think the root of the problem is fear.  Leadership of the original church is afraid of passing the baton to someone who mishandles it.  It makes them look bad, and even worse, they may feel responsible.

I totally understand. I worked at a church that did video streaming and there this sentiment many other pastors on the staff. I also think that many pastors don’t know how to disciple…

Can be completely honest?  Shocker:  I don’t know how to disciple.  I try.  I’ve tried lots of ways.  But I’ve not found the golden goose yet.  Thus the reason I post about it so often, not as an expert but as a fellow figurer-outer.

I’m learning though that blogs are horrible places sometimes to think out loud.

Thanks for letting me this time.

Interesting Shaun.

What do you mean by “tried lots of ways”?  Just curious.

I like when you think outloud Shaun…

Great discussion, Shaun and thank you for thinking out loud.  Wrestling with this stuff is good, I think. 

Thanks for stopping by my blog and I can’t wait to hear about Uganda!

God has blessed me with incredible men in my life that have disciples me, walked along side of me though crap, and we have just done life together. I know that I am only 21 years old, a recent graduate of college, and don’t know a whole lot… It is though the process of me being disciple that I have learned to, in turn, disciple.

With my graduation I have left the church that I have grown up at and work at for 4 or 5 years to help plant a church in Orlando. We want to do church based on relationships and not programs. Come visit if you are ever in Orlando…

Sorry for my typos on my previous comment…

"If Jesus were a rabbi in a Protestant church today would he bother training eleven guys to do what he does in the places he can’t be?  Or would he just have community pastor Peter press play on the DVD?”

do protestant churches have rabbi’s?

Shaun there are some of us that can go with your thoughts and really process them without assuming that they are always negative. Its hard to speak your thoughts sometimes without feeling attacked for it. I found this out when we started our adoption blog. I never knew there was so many people who disagreed with adoption until I started voicing my passion for it. Love your blog and your honesty. Thank you for being willing to think outside of the box and voice those thoughts. We really appreciate you and your heart.

it’s funny how we put things up “for discussion” and then get offended when anyone disagrees.  i don’t think blogs are a bad place for thinking out loud.  i think this is only the case if you can’t accept the fact that some people are going to disagree, some people are going to misunderstand, and some people may call you out for something, even if it’s something you didn’t really realize you said or thought.  but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t utilize the forum.  just be prepared that not everyone’s going to agree.  then sit back and enjoy the ride instead of getting all upset about it.  that should go for everyone here.  what’s the fun in “discussion” if we all have to agree and coddle each other instead of actually discussing?

6 one way 1/2 dozen the other?  To quote Bill Murray in Meatballs, “It Just Doesn’t Matter.” There’s people being fed and led via video and via a live pastor.  It’s just a taste issue.  I think to spend time on this is fruitless.  I wish I had your free time to think about this crap.  I think discourse and thought are important, but I think this is a waste of time issue and discussion.  People are always trying to build a better mousetrap with the church and from what I see, these new mousetraps don’t do any better than the church did 25 years ago without the benefit of bad drama, music that didn’t make Jesus cool, but rock worse, and Chuck E. Cheese-esque youth centers.

Good discussion.

I have a question/comment. 

Is there one good way to disciple?  A corrolary question to that would be, what is the most important aspect of discipleship? 

Here’s an idea to throw around.  Perhaps, the most important thing about discipling is the attitude of the person being discipled: their own docility to the Holy Spirit.  It may sound weird, because at first glance it cuts the disciplers some slack, but I don’t intend to cut them free from all responsibility.  God certainly will hold people accountable for leading others astray.  I just think that if the people being discipled really love God and are seeking Him, then He will bring about effective means for them to be discipled.  It may be a multi-layered approach in style with everything from large group lectures to one-on-one interactions, all of it littered with rampant human imperfection and sin, but maybe that’s all part of the lessons God wants to teach us.

MB

I just happened to stumble across this blog.  Some really cool ways of thinking about technology issues in the church and how they related to making disciples.

I planted a church several years ago.  Recently, we transitioned from a “traditional” structure to a network of house churches.  One of the challenges was preaching/teaching.  My leadership team ran through several scenarios, and after a lot of prayer and thinking and brainstorming, determined that video was the best way to go.  So that’s how I preach--through in-house produced DVD’s.

We’ve seen some real benefits from this format--and it works hand-in-hand with our new structure as a house church network.  Our churches are going in the same direction--they all view the same video each week.  The video is followed by application-based discussion (led by the host).  We also post the videos online (and also a blog) so that our people can view them ahead of time and not come to church “cold.” While there are always things to improve, we found this format plus the “community pressure” of the house church environment has really contributed to the disciple making process for us.

I think it depends on the church. If they want to replicate themselves into a satellite campus that’s cool on occasion. Each campus needs to have it’s own community pastor to be head over that satellite. The main issue really comes down to what are they doin’ besides that Sunday mornin’? are they doing the small groups to deepen the understanding and discipleship of the church? if not, then it will come across as extremely shallow… there’s a lot of variables that will depend if this works or not.