I have followed Bob Hyatt's blog for awhile now, and greatly admire the work he's done in planting a church in Portland. I think we'll probably use the Lent prayer guide he put together as an aid to a fruitful Lenten season at Christ Community.
Bob has an interesting post up (Franchise Ahoy!) about the idea and practice of video-venue churches, where "franchise" churches are planted in various cities with video sermons preached by a pastor in another location (often now another state). His post is about the possibility of Mars Hill planting a video church in Portland, piping in Mark Driscoll's preaching every Sunday, despite the fact that Mark's church-planting network (Acts 29) already has 2-4 churches in Portland that have been planted already.
Bob predicts that if it goes unchecked, this "franchise" mentality of church planting will eventually lead to the complete Wal-Martization of the church and the "death of preaching." I love the comment he made on a Facebook group dedicated to getting a Mars Hill video church in Portland:
Portland started by the Acts 29 network. A video church of Mark's
teaching is not only redundant (it's all vodcasted, right?) it's kind
of an insult to those who have worked hard to plant the churches that
this video venue would most likely draw people from.
"As someone
who has planted and is planting churches in PDX, I can assure you- my
problem isn't thinking that there are too many churches in Portland.
I'm passionate about seeing as many real churches planted as possible.
But a franchised video church with elders who live in another state, 3
hours away? No- thank you."
What do you think? Video churches? The death of preaching, really? Begs the question of what a "church" is, too, don't you think?
I like Luther’s defimition of what a church is:
“Where the gospel is preached in it’s purity (and the people believe it)
and where the sacraments are administered in accordance with that gospel.”
There…is the church.
Thanks!
For the most part I agree wholeheartedly. However, there are some good uses that I can see for the franchised church. For example, rural churches have been suffering for decades now without much pastoral leadership. Not that I am advocating a video franchise per se, but I do think there is some sort of multi-site model that could be of real help to rural churches.
Franchised churches seem like one small step up from watching church on TV (which might be of value to shut ins and others who can’t physically get to church). But what’s the point? I don’t know if it marks the end of preaching; it does seem to mark the end of church as participation in the life of the Body, breaking what little relationality might be involved in a face-to-face encounter with the preacher.
I agree with many of the comments made here, but I’d add a further one.
Have they not read Neil Postman’s ‘Amusing ourselves to death’ where he addresses the problem of the media { his word is “conversation” by which he means the method of putting across the message )verses the message.
He is picking up a bit on Mcluhan’s the media is the message. And all this back in 1985!
My point is that certain media can distort, miscontrue and even prevent the message getting across.
So to use video is to select a method that will impede the teaching or preaching of the gospel.
For those who want to say as many preachers today say “that the method can change but not the message” i would suggest that they are ill advised. they have bought into a view that they haven’t thought through. See my blog where i address this.
In Christ,
Gary
Gary, you’re right – Postman’s book is required reading on the subject, and ought to be taken into consideration when thinking through the medium of preaching. It was an amazingly prophetic book.