Many churches are moving to a multi-campus system where the main pastor’s sermon is streamed in to various campuses every week. Even those churches which cannot do this often wish they could. But I believe it is a serious and devastating pastoral error to assume that a man on a screen can shepherd a church. Streamed in preaching is detrimental to the church of God because it substitutes electronic images for a flesh and blood man thus severing that crucial geographical and physical connection a minister is to have with his people. We are called shepherds for a reason. I am not criticizing learning via video, though there are drawbacks to this as well. I am particularly criticizing preaching via video. Here are some of the problems with streaming the main pastor’s sermons instead of having an on-the-ground man doing the preaching every week in person.
First, the man who is streamed in has become a preacher, not a pastor. I understand that this can happen at any church. In fact, it probably happens at a lot of churches. The failure of men to shepherd their flocks is epidemic in the American church. We preach. But we do not shepherd. Our hands are not dirty. Our flock sees us once a week. But the “remotely connected” model makes a virtue out of it. Pastoring is impossible if you are one place and your congregation is in another. Of course, preaching is part of shepherding, (and in some Protestant circles takes center stage during the course of the Lord’s Service) but it is not the whole.
Second, streaming in a man’s sermon is a celebrity act. We do it, not because it is biblical, nor because it is logical. We do it because the pastor is famous. While being famous is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, why use the main pastor instead of one the elders who shepherd the church Monday through Saturday? The answer is that people want to hear the main pastor. He is the celebrity preacher they come to see. By streaming him in we buy into a celebrity oriented cultural mindset that is detrimental to the life of the church.
Third, it makes preaching a disembodied act where the congregation’s response plays no part in the preaching of the word. When a man stands in the pulpit he should scan his people to see how they are responding. Preaching is a dialogue between the pastor and his sheep. The main pastor can do this at his church. But he cannot at the other campus churches. R.L. Dabney talked about understanding the temperature of your congregation when you get into the pulpit. Are they flat? Then you need to gradually bring them up to the right heat. Are they too excited and inattentive? Then you need to keep up the heat, but focus it. Charles Spurgeon said that if he felt the congregation’s interest waning he would throw in an illustration to get their attention back. A streamed in pastor cannot interact with the congregation, which is an essential part of preaching. This makes me wonder if streaming in a man is preaching in the classic sense of the term.
Fourth, this model assumes that what happened from Monday-Saturday in a church is irrelevant to Sunday morning preaching. The streamed in pastor cannot know what has happened in all the campus churches. Again, this is probably the case in a lot of churches. The pastor does not know what happened to the Hayes family this week or to Mr. Johnson. But that does not make it right. Shepherding means understanding what has happened in the life of the church during the week. He does not need to know every detail, but he should know generally what has gone on. What if one church had a tragic car wreck and another church had wedding on Saturday? What if an elder just resigned for sexual infidelity? What if the community just experienced a great tragedy or triumph? Are these things irrelevant in the preaching of the Gospel on Sunday morning? I am not saying that the sermon must be dictated by the events of the previous week. But those events give context to the preached Word. When preaching is streamed, the Word becomes decontextualized.
Fifth, it keeps good men out of the pulpit. Many churches that stream in their pastors devote a lot of time to training leaders. They do this through books, conferences, video, hands on training, etc. If this is so, why not put these men in the pulpits of these campus churches? Why does the main pastor have to be the one preaching? Is it beneficial in the long run for these campus churches to orbit around one man? I think this goes back to the second point. Streamed in preaching is a celebrity act.
Sixth, it makes watching the main pastor impossible. A congregation is supposed to observe their pastors. Paul appeals to his behavior among the members of the church. They watched him. (See Acts 20:18, I Thessalonians 1:5-6, II Thessalonians 3:7-9). There is also the general admonition that the people are to watch their leaders (See I Timothy 4:12, Hebrews 13:7, I Peter 5:3). A church body should be able to observe on a regular basis the attitude and actions of her leaders. Leaders should not just interact with staff and elders, but with the congregation. Some might object by saying these churches get to watch their other leaders, just not the main pastor. To which I reply, then the other leaders should be preaching to them, not the main pastor.
Seventh, it assumes that every church has the exact same preaching needs. Now in one sense every church does. We are all sinners saved by grace who need to be taught the whole counsel of God so that we might grow in holiness. But churches are not clones. Each congregation has a different personality, which comes from their history, the collection of people Christ has brought to the church, their leadership, and the community they live in. Is the congregation mainly 20-40 year olds? Is it ethnically diverse? Is it in the city, the country, or suburb? Is it an old church that has been around for many years or a church planted two years ago? Is it mainly new converts or transfer growth? Are most of the members factory workers or business men? Is it in a college town? The way these questions are answered will affect the way a book of the Bible is preached. Two pastors can both be preaching through Ephesians and yet apply the text differently because of their congregation’s needs. Of course, some points will be the same no matter what. But the application can and should vary depending upon the needs and personality of the congregation. This also applies to what a pastor should preach. One church might be struggling with legalism. Galatians should be put on the menu. One church might be struggling with members leaving the faith. Put Hebrews on the list. But in a “remotely connected” model the assumption is that all churches are struggling with the same things at the same time.
Here are few questions to consider:
What is the rationale behind multi-campus churches where a single man preaches to numerous congregations in different geographical locations? Why do we think this is necessary and good? Does the Bible give us a paradigm for doing ministry this way? How is this model not a capitulation to our celebrity culture?
Why do we not stream in the worship music? (I think I got this question from Carl Trueman.)
Is it possible to faithfully shepherd a local body over many years without knowing that body? Can a minister preach sermons that apply to the people in front of him if he does not know the people who are in front of him? Can a minister faithfully preach the word on Sunday if the only people he ever meets with Monday through Saturday are church staff and other elders?
What is the long term effect on churches when a pastor is streamed in? How does this practice affect the planting of other churches and the raising up of leadership? How does it affect the congregation’s view of the average preacher? Does this model feed certain sinful hungers in American culture that we would do better to avoid? How does the disconnect between the week to week shepherding and the Sunday morning preaching influence the congregation?
Can a minister be incarnational, in the best sense of the word, if he isn’t even in the same town as the church?<>
Excellent points and great questions. In this age, should we have people in Church looking to a video image as the voice of authority?
I am not a pastor, but occasionally, I do speak/teach publicly. I have noticed a sense of when I “have the room,” and when I don’t while I’m speaking. At those moments when I don’t, I make an adjustment– sometimes a slight one, sometimes a major one. If I’m not communicating, it seems like I should just sit down and shut up. Maybe the celebrity preachers are good enough not to lose the congregation, but personally I’ve seen the need to make “real time” adjustments. That would be impossible via video. It may also be impossible while preaching to several thousand people at once. Just some thoughts…I say all this recognizing that I’m a big-time rookie.
Marc, I couldn’t find the source of that Spurgeon quote, but that was his point. He knew, even with a very large congregation, when he was losing them and he adjusted accordingly. What always amazed me about that quote was that Spurgeon could pull an illustration out of his hat. I am not very good at that.
Thanks for directing me to the Spurgeon reference in your essay. I missed the thrust of that point the first time through. He was certainly an amazing orator. Speaking of Spurgeon, I’m reminded of a biographical lecture about Spurgeon by George Grant. I highly recommend it. Dr. Grant loves C.H. Spurgeon, and that love and admiration serves to create a very exciting lecture. Here’s the link:
http://www.wordmp3.com/details.aspx?id=9657
“One church might be struggling with legalism. Galatians should be put on the menu. One church might be struggling with members leaving the faith. Put Hebrews on the list.”
This sounds like a result of the failures of elders to counsel individuals and families throughout the weeks. Who wants to listen to their pastor preach counseling sessions (with specific names usually withheld) on the most common and/or severe problems of the week…to the whole assemblies? That should wait for the last stages of church discipline and be very rare. I want to go through the whole bible—especially the difficult and hard passages—and not wonder who hasn’t matured through that passage since last year’s sermons on the same.
Regarding Mark Driscoll, his problem related to streaming is mega-compounded after he wants the elders of his church/satellites to allow in the unrepentant/unbaptized to the worship services, and then, perhaps years later, he’ll tirade on the big screens. Recall such clips on YouTube: “Some of you…have been going here for YEARS…and are still sleeping together!!”
I disagree with Driscoll’s point 3 below. We should invite unbelievers to believe the gospel, repent and be baptized…before entering worship. Until then, eat and share with them in their community. Church discipline leading to excommunication and hope for reconciliation is for the whole church, not just chosen leaders (cf. point 4).
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/24/seven-ways-for-christians-to-love-their-neighbors-even-when-disagree/
Frank, Thanks for the reply and reading the post. I think you misunderstood my point about preaching or more likely, I was not clear. I am not encouraging private counseling from the pulpit with names withheld. What I am encouraging is for a shepherd to know where his flock is struggling and to address those struggles from the pulpit. That is what application is. Paul does this throughout his letters. In Colossians he addresses different issues than I Thessalonians. Why? Those two churches were struggling with different issues. Preaching should do the same thing. Even if the elders are not seeing specific things that need addressed the nature of the congregation should shape the preaching. A congregation with a bunch of college students and few elderly will need to be addressed differently than a congregation with many elderly and no college students. My point is that flocks are different and should be preached to accordingly. In Christ, Peter
What application should be: conveying the original intent and context of all Scripture in a way that the men of the flock can best understand and teach others at home and apply themselves. All Scripture, not just the passages the counseling elders should most repeat in private throughout a particular month, not just the so-called church calendar, not just the passages someone is hoping to publish for profit, not just the passages to increase numbers, etc. Some passages are essential to the function of the worship service and should have been correctly handled before anyone becomes a pastor. For example, it’s frankly inexcusable that we’re ordaining and installing pastors who don’t understand 1 Cor. 10-11 and how that obviously necessitates feeding all the gathered lambs.
Visited a church that streamed from the main campus and we lost power. No one knew what to do. I do not favor streaming. Where is the personal touch? How can the Pator know his people if he never has a personal contact?
Peter, I enjoyed reading your post. Very thoughtful and poses some insightful questions. One thing that comes to mind as I read is that most of the failures of a mulisite model that you present in the post would also be the case with a large, single-site church.
It is impossible to be intimately connected to the lives of hundreds of people whether they are in one location or many. Even in a mid-sized church, 400-500 or so, it would be impossible to know everyone, be watched by everyone, etc.
Would you prefer a cap on how large a church should get? Perhaps once a church gets to the point that the pastor can’t know everyone, they should split and plant another church with its own pastor?
For your argument to be consistent, the number of people in a single-site church should be restricted. In fact, if your church is over 500, then most of the problems you present for multi-site churches are your problems too.
Lane, thanks for reading the post. I was waiting for this question and surprised I did not get it earlier. I do think that there are some of the same types of problems with large churches as there are with multisite churches. However, in a large church the problems can be addressed. In a multisite church they cannot be addressed. I am not saying every large church does address the problems, but at least it is possible. I think if you walk down my points you will see that a large church can deal with most of the problems I point out while a multisite situation cannot. For example, my second, third, fourth, fifth and seventh points can all taken care of in a large church. I agree it can be harder in a large church for the pastor to know his flock and for the flock to know their pastor (points one and six). But it is not impossible. The pastor could regularly visit small groups or parish meetings so the people could get to know him better. He could meet with prospective new members and those being baptized. A large church cannot function like a church of 150, but there does not have to be that disconnecte between flock and pastor that is part of the package with a multisite situation. I am also not saying that the pastor has to know every member of the flock equally well. But he needs to know some members of the flock. I agree with you that some of the same problems present themselves in large church, but I think they can be overcome. Grace in Christ, Peter
How can the 1st prophet shut up and let the 2nd prophet speak, as Scripture commands, if they’re not in the same room? (If preachers were infallible, not needing correction; perspicuous, not needing clarification; and complete, not needing supplementation, then uninterrupted sermons would be a good idea.)
Also, G12 discipling model: Jesus had 12 disciples, and if each of them had 12, and each of those had 12, etc, growth and discipleship can add up pretty fast: 12/144/1728… and each of the 1728 knows, and knows he knows, one of the 144 who can refer him up to the 12, etc.
Andrew, a revivolutionary of the right, husband of Wendy