Jared pointed us to Doug Estes’ piece on Out of Ur on the myths surrounding online church, and rightly criticized it. It is not his best work. All I can say is, read the book. From the excerpts I have read (2 or 3 chapters), Doug sincerely attempts to offer a reasoned case for online church that–and this is crucial–distinguishes the various meanings of the term. I found what I did read to be quite helpful.
Additionally, as I argued at the Christian Web Conference, I have yet to see how those evangelicals who adopt video sermons as normal for their weekly worship gatherings have any grounds on which to defend those who want to move such gatherings online. Certainly the same Spirit who can overcome space and time for the preacher’s body can overcome space and time for the congregations’ bodies. Unless, of course, we want to make the pastor a special category. Online church seems to be the logical extension of models we have already adopted.
But more importantly, I think the whole conversation has reinforced for me that evangelicals are people who love fads. Church growth, seeker sensitive, emerging…and now we’re on to ‘online church.’ We love getting all worked up, talking a lot about it, and then we all eventually move on and keep doing our own thing.
Of course, that doesn’t mean such fads don’t have any impact. The center gets pulled in various directions as the people on the fringe’s make their case. Case in point: video sermons are now the center, while 5 years ago they were the fringe. But we are suckers for the next cool way of ‘doing church,’ a treadmill that is difficult to keep pace with.
October 23rd, 2009 | 11:45 am | #1
May have to check out the book, then. The Out of Ur article is not a compelling advertisement for it.
Fwiw, I am generally critical of video preaching venues as well — no matter who’s doing them, and my favorite celeb pastors all use them — although I do think it’s a different ball of wax since it at least involves a physical gathering.
October 23rd, 2009 | 11:47 am | #2
Listen: don’t get me started on the video sermon and the multi-site concept. There is nothing more offensive to me than that in church today except maybe the clown liturgy:
Seriously: don’t get me started.
October 23rd, 2009 | 11:51 am | #3
Jared,
But it doesn’t involve a physical gathering for the person preaching the Word, and yet we still think it’s just as effective as if the pastor were there. Does the pastor’s body get some special dispensation that allows him to not be present with his people physically? That simply begs the question, if not necessary for the pastor, why necessary for the congregation? Simply saying that there is a difference without articulating it doesn’t help much. Think of online church as an extension of the priesthood of all believers in that regard.
Also, it’s worth pointing out (as I argued at CWC) that most proponents of online church are in favor of physical gatherings, and in fact will meet offline.
Best,
Matt
October 23rd, 2009 | 11:54 am | #4
Frank,
I don’t think you’ll need to get started. I think I can do enough damage on that one for the both of us.
To be honest, my hope is that the conversation about online church will expose the problematic anthropology the video folks have adopted by revealing the inconsistencies in their rejection of online church. That’s my big hope for this conversation–I really want to hear Piper and Driscoll (who are both on record rejecting online church) explain how they can justify video sermons without leading to online church. I really want to hear that.
matt
October 23rd, 2009 | 12:01 pm | #5
But it doesn’t involve a physical gathering for the person preaching the Word, and yet we still think it’s just as effective as if the pastor were there.
No. I don’t.
I think it is a bad idea to move toward un-incarnating any aspect of the worship gathering, including the preaching.
I’m just saying that on the continuum of un-incarnation, one guy who is virtual on video and preaching to a crowd that is physically present is “better” than everybody by themselves on their computer and everybody is virtual.
October 23rd, 2009 | 12:03 pm | #6
I really appreciate Matt Chandler’s take on some of this stuff. He’s honest enough to say, “You know, we use video b/c we it solves the dilemma nothing else solves right now, and it appears to be working fine for our church’s needs, but we’re fearful widespread use will result in America having 4 preachers in 30 years.”
A little fear and trembling would be nice amidst the gung-ho “leverage technology” gang.
October 23rd, 2009 | 12:04 pm | #7
The above Chandler “quote” is not a direct quote, in case anyone wondered. It is my summation of his remarks on the subject, most notably in his contribution to the multi-participant 9 Marks discussion on “virtual church.”
October 23rd, 2009 | 12:10 pm | #8
This is interestingly relevant:
http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/why-no-images/
October 23rd, 2009 | 12:12 pm | #9
I love Piper and Driscoll but am not fond of the multi-campus church with a video preacher.
That said, I am a fierce critic of preaching and time and again I am dismayed by what passes for preaching in a host of churches. The advantage of someone like Piper preaching to multiple sites is at least the people aren’t stuck with a quack.
October 23rd, 2009 | 12:37 pm | #10
Jared,
I’m just saying that on the continuum of un-incarnation, one guy who is virtual on video and preaching to a crowd that is physically present is “better” than everybody by themselves on their computer and everybody is virtual.
That makes sense. But I think it’s problematic that Driscoll gave up the principle, and then mocks those who take his position to its logical conclusion (as he did at the Desiring God conference). What did we expect once we said that people’s bodies aren’t necessary for communication? And no one calls him out for it–we simply laugh because it’s funny and we don’t want to take the online church people very seriously.
But I think you are ultimately agreeing with my point that its the same ball of wax. The difference is degree, not kind. But that’s what makes the arguments against online church so unpersuasive, since they don’t seem to recognize that and don’t want to specify why we shouldn’t go out to the extreme.
I like Chandler’s honesty about that too, and that’s the line my own pastor has taken it. I don’t know if Chandler’s church uses video or not (his doesn’t say), but I should qualify my own reservations about multi-site to those that use video sermons. I am a much bigger fan of those that use the additional services to actually raise up new leaders.
Matt
October 23rd, 2009 | 12:40 pm | #11
One of the questions I’ve always had about multi-site campuses where the preaching is done by video is, “Do we not believe that God will provide the spiritual gift of preaching to every congregation?”
Unfortunately, I think we make the great the enemy of the good. Piper is a great preacher, and few local pastors can compare with his homiletic abilities. So does that mean we should all just set up screens and satellite feeds in our churches and pipe in Piper so that we can all have great preaching?
Why can’t we be happy with decent—but not great—preachers who loves God and who do their best to preach the Word? It seems a bit like being dissatisfied with our wives because they are not Angelina Jolie.
October 23rd, 2009 | 1:08 pm | #12
Joe,
Robert Austell made a similar argument a while back, and framed it pretty provocatively: http://robertaustell.blogspot.com/2009/08/piper-projection-and-pornography.html
I exchanged some debate with John Lagrou on that exact issue, all of which Robert kindly linked to. John was pretty up front with that impulse–why should we listen to our local pastor when we can hear Piper, Driscoll, etc?
matt
October 23rd, 2009 | 1:16 pm | #13
In all honesty, even if a church did train up pastors and send them out into the city, suburb, etc., people will still flock to the personality they like. Video services are a realistic response to the cult of personality.
This is nothing new, but a proper way to deal with it is to have multiple teaching pastors on a preaching rotation from the same hub. Each pastor then flucuating between the church plants would offset the cult of personality idol.
Do you all consider video sites church plants?
October 23rd, 2009 | 4:29 pm | #14
Hiya Hiya,
I am not a consumer of video church, but I have seen a few online sermons [at non church times] and find them helpful to my walk.
A couple things concern me about substituting a video for a “real, Live” pastor preaching are these:
- it plays to the entertain me ethic prevalent in the US, and is an entirely passive consumption form of church.
-How does a video church fulfill the mystery of our union in Christ? Does it honor God as He intended? What relationship is formed between pastor and flock in a video church? How is that relationship fostered? What makes a video church different from a rock concert, play, symphony, or ballet? Does it fulfill Christ’s vision for the Church?
Just some food for thought…
Jake
October 23rd, 2009 | 8:20 pm | #15
Joe –
Let me tell you: after “clown liturgy”, the consumeristic underpinnings of the quest for the “best pastor” …. ARGH!
ARGH I say!
November 4th, 2009 | 10:42 am | #16
[...] – Matthew Lee Anderson (On Online Church and Evangelicals being “People of the Fad”) [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact