Why Bother?
The Multisite Phenomenom: Here to Stay?
I’ll admit that there are moments when I can genuinely imagine throwing in the towel on traditional congregations and going house church, and this week’s Christian Standard reminded me of one of them.? If the congregation I attended ever got to the point of getting the morning’s sermon on a television feed, I reckon I’d rather just stay home and read a book.? Folks who know me know I’m no Luddite, but human bodies are real, and every member of a congregation, teachers included, should be gathered, bodily, when the Church gathers.? To have a lecturer present only visually, unaware of the people he’s talking, is not really teaching.? It’s television.? And I’ve got one of those in the basement.
As other folks have put more eloquently, this is nothing more than the continuing reification and overemphasis of paid “staff” at the expense of gift-driven community.? I’m not ready to go all-out “EC” just yet, but this sort of thing makes me realize how deep my affinity for those kinds of moves runs.
by
I couldn’t agree more – I think the multi-site/video feed is a fad with a short life-cycle – I give it 5 years tops before it collapses. Can you think of anyone from our generation who would want to lead that kind of service?
Hey Nathan –
My take on this is that the underlying problem has to do with expecting too much of large group/Sunday morning worship in the first place. I think that for most folks, that form is the center, if not the whole, of their faith community experience. Yet it’s impossible to effectively love, encourage, admonish etc. one another in a group of that size.
That is in large part what’s driving my own interest in house church and similar small forms of community. Not as an either/or, but to re-prioritize how we invest out time (and $). For example, I like to envision weekly gathering in a HC form supplemented by monthly or so large group gatherings that woud resemble conventional worship services.
If we were experiencing community that way, I imagine it would be easier to accept video-feed teaching, or “roll tape” for that matter. And beyond that, if you only needed to gather, say, a quarter of the community on any given Sunday then you wouldn’t need to be multi-site in the first place. The preacher, worship team et al. could actually do the same service four weeks in a row. (As a pastor, I like to imagine what kind of ministry I could be doing if I didn’t need to write a fresh sermon every week.)
Lots of possibilities, once we let go of large group worship as a necessity for our weekly rhythm of faith community life.
The Church I’m a member of in Northern Kentucky, Florence Christian Church (DOC), has two sites. However they have two pastors, wife and husband, who both take turns preaching at each campus. The new campus is in a neighboring town, Union, and meets in a old farm house.
In the Cincinnati area a lot of big Churches have multiple campuses. I think it is interesting that they are basically following the Catholic approach of having mission churches. One big Church is basically in charge of the smaller churches. “One church- multiple sites.”
I’ve noticed now in Indianapolis that a lot of Churches have multiple campuses. For example they’ll have a church somewhere in Indy and then one in the suburbs. This phenomenon is here to stay. I don’t really think that video feed preaching will ever work, however.
Wes, do you mean do I know of anyone with a giant ego? I’m not saying–they might be reading this.
Seriously, though, I do know some good friends from Milligan who, to the last day we were in Christ and Culture, defended televised church services as valid, so I can imagine without trouble their getting on board with this. I also have friends and former students (whom I’d like to think friends, but that’s up to them) who attend a video-feed congregation in Athens, GA, so I’m not ready to say that being part of this is a moral failing. I do have to say that I couldn’t be a part of it.
Thanks for reading, BTW. Come on back now, y’hear?
Tim, thank you for reading as well.
I know full well that I tend to gravitate to smaller congregations, and this phenomenon reminds me why. As I said before, as long as there are small congregations where I can talk to the minister about his sermons and where the minister has to look at me while the sermon’s going on, I won’t be quite ready for house church, but when the only choices are jumbotron and video feed, I fear I’ll be in line for the Frank Viola train.
Phil, thanks again for reading.
Remember that I was the last Milligan holdout at West Main Street Christian back in the late nineties–I’m a strong believer in congregations, not audiences.
As you might have guessed based on our years together, it’s the celebrity-culture angle of this whole setup that disturbs me a bit. As I’ve said before, I’m no Luddite, but I do have real worries about situations where preachers don’t have to look the parishioners in the eye when they preach. There’s something about knowing the stories and the oddities of one’s friends that makes small-congregation preaching worthwhile in ways that large-hall and television preaching just lose.
I readily and heartily agree that the video feed trend is one that is somewhat disconcerting. On the other hand, however, I have deep-seated concerns about house churches. It’s not the concept — it’s the motivation behind those who want to reject all congregational worship. In the New Testament, there were house churches. However, in areas where there where synagogues, the believers met in larger groups as well. There was also a clear line of authority in the early church. That lack of authority is where I believe the weakness of the house church lies. (I also believe there are some other weaknesses in being able to meet specific needs in the community, lin being able to support missions, etc.)
I have known a few strong house church proponents. Each of the ones I have known were people with a strong aversion to authority. Basically, they wanted a place where they could run the show and where their pet doctrines were the center of most discussion. They were also people who didn’t cope well with differing opinions. Perhaps my experience is unique, but it does seem to me that house churches would be a tremendous attractant to those with such bents.
I agree, Nathan, that a congregational setting where people know each other and the leaders know the people is the ideal.
Thanks for reading, Dan. This topic must be a wing-dinger; I’m getting all kinds of comments!
I’ve seen the same trend, Dan, and it’s been among church planters as well as house churchers. As I said, I’m not going that route yet, and I don’t think that theological disputes would drive me that direction (I’m hardly one to duck a theological dispute), but I do still think that, given the (rotten) choice between house church and jumbotron sermon, I’d go house church.
If you had to take one of those two pills, which way would you go?
(That question is for everyone, BTW.)
Given the choice, I would go with the jumbotron sermon — only because in the right situation, the inherent weaknesses in such a church could be overcome by other ministries, small groups, etc. I’m not sure there are mechanisms to overcome the inherent drawbacks of a house church.
Nathan, very interesting comments. . . I read the articles on CS and then I came back to read the comments on your FB page and your blog and thought I’d qualify my earlier comments.
Living in New England outside of Boston for the last 10 years has really changed my perception of what a culturally appropriate expression of church would be. Keep in mind that our six states up here have the lowest church attendance pattern of all 50 states – http://www.gallup.com/poll/22579/church-attendance-lowest-new-england-highest-south.aspx
So, part of what I’m saying is that multi-site wouldn’t work in New England.
Also, I think as the baby-boomers age and retire, their drop in giving (which currently funds 80 cents of every dollar given to ministry) will cause a significant contraction amongst all the churches, ministry centers, colleges. . .etc as they reconcile their operating budgets with the shortfall.
Finally, it’s just personal preference – At this stage in my life, I couldn’t be part of a multi-site – its a long twisted, story as to why.
Understood, Wes. I’ve got philosophical and personality reasons for my own rejection of multi-site and jumbotron preaching in general, so I know where you’re coming from.
With regards to giving, I reckon Baby Boomers’ giving is a function both of their sense of membership and their (relative, I know) financial stability. After all, when one’s kids are grown (and out of college, in many cases) and one has been in the workforce for 30 years, there are certainly still variables, but not the kinds of variables that a 30-year-old with two kids faces. Do you see a coming “gap” in church giving as the boomers give way to the Xers as the “old folks,” and if so, why?