The "Video Pastoring" Phenomenon

Sue, over at Heart Soul Mind Spirit posted a rant the other day about "satellite" churching. I knew that something like that was being done (I had heard about it, somewhere), but I get the impression now that its becoming a new "thing." A Trend. Maybe a Movement.

There are those who think its a great idea. Sure seems good on the surface. You got a guy (no gals, yet, apparently) who's "great up front," so you make the most of it. We have all this modern technology, so why not beam his (and someday, her?) image to other churches in town (or for that matter, anywhere) and let as many people as possible benefit from this presumably great teacher/preacher's insights?

The naysayers, of course, respond that its George Barna/Marketing 101 and therefore, intrinsically bad.

What's interesting is that this is not a new phenomenon. The so-called "televangelists" do this every day, and the congregation doesn't even have to leave the house. When you think about it, your Aunt Edna in Alaska,who tunes in to Billy Joe Bob's tele-ministry in Pensacola, Fla. is actually ahead of the curve, being one of the earliest "post-congregationalists." So the satellite church idea could be seen, actually, as a step backward. If you want to see this shining star in the Christian firmament, you've actually got to crawl out of bed Sunday morning, wash behind the kid's ears and haul them off to satellite church.

OK, I know I'm being kind of flip about it, but I'm taking that tack for a reason. Personally, satellite churching, as presently conceived, makes me very nervous (just so you know where I stand), and I'll get to my reasons why in a little bit, but first I want to say that I don't find the concept intrinsically bad or that it indicates that madness has finally overtaken us.

"Church," whatever we may imagine that to be these days, has survived televangelists and megachurches and will surely survive McChurch, including the satellite churching variety.

And I think we need to be careful here, when we pick up that stone. More than once, lately, I've heard a fellow blogger refer to a recent sermon, reprinted on a church Web site, that really did them a world of good. I see no fundamental difference between broadcasting a sermon in print on a Web site and broadcasting a live sermon via video on a big TV screen. Same for a columnist you can read on the Internet. Or a blog for that matter. What I'm doing right now is an attempt to reach a wider audience than I can reach when I get together with my friends, face to face, in our little post-congregational unofficial unHome Group unchurch church thingey.

Technologically, it's all in the same category. If there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a Blog, or the Internet (and there isn't), then there is nothing intrinsically wrong with satellite churching.

That said, any of these technologies can become a serious problem for the church if misused. It's all about what we do with it, and why, and what, ultimately, is likely to be the result. And that's where I'd like to weigh in.

Sue was so right to ask "What's the fruit?" That question is a "big picture" question. It's also hard to answer. Satellite churching -- and blogging, for that matter -- are new enough that its hard to gauge the real fruit of it all. But Jesus was clear that the fruit we were to bear was to be good fruit that would last. So I think that in any decision, particularly one of this magnitude, a church needs to consider whether the morally neutral technique of closed-circuit broadcasting will ultimately produce a lasting legacy: Specifically, communities of mature believers.

We're challenged by the "fruit" question to take our eyes off the immediate problem, look around, and try to imagine, down the road a bit, whether there may be unintended consequences awaiting us.

So, for what its worth, I think the problem with satellite churching is that it lives or dies on the talents (formidable as they may be) of a single individual. Critics of the megachurch have made this argument, and satellite churching as currently conceived is simply megachurch to a higher power (no pun intended).

The "big picture" question is this: What happens when that charismatic teacher/preacher/leader dies? And we can't assume that'll be when he's 80. Or just quits? Or has an affair? It could be next week. Not one but many churches will be without the primary motivation for their gathering. If we resort to satellite churching, we haven't solved the problems of the megachurch, we've exacerbated them.

The intrinsic double wrong here is for the church to put any leader in the position of carrying that much weight, and for any leader to desire to be in it. Sue linked her blog to an article about a Disney Co. exec who has begun a foundation to promote training of doctrinally conservative men (not women) who will go out and be the sort of charismatic "people magnets" that build megachurches. One of his stated goals is to counteract the effect of the "2,500 church deaths that occur each year" in the U.S. That's an interesting statistic, and I believe it's probably accurate. But I also know, from my long involvement with people in the so-called "church growth" movement, that most of those churches fail because the "dynamic" guys or gals who had the up-front job either weren't very dynamic or left for better pastures, where their dynamism would be better seen and compensated ... or worse, they crack up, have affairs lose their faith or kill themselves.

The first reason I don't like the idea is that we already live in a culture defined by the cult of the personality. It's everywhere. Are you a Leno fan or a Letterman devotee? Such things can provoke heated arguments between what otherwise appear to be sane, well-meaning people. Why buy into that, when we already know how dangerous it is? Paul saw this in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 3). Apollos, in Paul's own words, is an eloquent preacher. A great up-fronter. Paul admits he can't hold a candle to him. But he insists that those who "follow Paul" or those who "follow Apollos" are worldly. "What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul?" he asks. "Only servants ..." he says. But please note that he heaps no blame on the Apollonian superstar who has created such a stir. Paul himself is, after all, one of the all-time most successful "up-fronters." His admonition is for the church, which has, since its inception, been sorely tempted to focus its attention on things that can be seen rather than keeping its spiritual eyes on the "things not seen."

Paul was categorically against the idea of singular leadership, and I think he was for that very reason. He would not have been willing to be Pope. (Sorry, Catholic friends out there. Let me add, however, that I believe John Paul II was an exceptionally great saint and a marvelous pastor in many ways, despite being an imperfect man in an imperfectly conceived system. But I use the word "exceptionally" because he was an exception. Because God can circumvent a flawed system to do his will does not validate the system.) The church, according to Paul, has one Head, which is Christ. In the letter to the Ephesians he calls for an earthly approach to leadership quite different -- a multiplicity of leaders (apostles -- plural -- teachers, prophets, evangelists and pastors) to equip the saints for the work of the ministry.

Paul always traveled with a team. He trained and sent others out to do the work precisely because he knew it was madness to try to do it all himself. Frankly, he had a lot of competition. He spent a lot of time defending his apostleship, in fact, to parts of the church that weren't so sure about him. (And there's a lesson in that for those of us who feel we've not yet been given our due opportunity to serve in the church in our called capacities. It was no easy road for Paul either.) Paul did not evangelize the Roman world by himself, and if we think that, we're just not reading what he wrote. Most important, when Paul was imprisoned and when he died, the church went on and, by all accounts, flourished. He made darn sure it would.

My question, then, is Will a satellite church system survive the loss of its video pastor? I'd say the odds are against it. If he goes, the thing collapses like a house of cards. What about this system will ensure the community's survival? As far as I can tell, the concept actually militates against formation of a mutually supportive and instructive community. Most of the people who come to the satellite churches do so primarily to experience a virtual relationship with a video image (just ask them). It's not just he message they're longing to experience. It's the package. And since they never actually meet the human being behind the package, there's only well rehearsed Light (we hope) but no Shadow. And that makes the relationship a lie.

The aspect of true Christian community is secondary if not entirely absent. The system actively encourages an unhealthy attachment to one person, and only part of a person, at that. And if that community cannot survive -- if, in fact, its formation and growth is set aside or derailed by our devotion to an image with little reality -- where is the fruit in that? What, exactly is there in it that might last?

On the other hand, Paul was all about attempting to reach as many people as he could. He traveled extensively and wrote letters. The New Testament is the "Blogs heard 'round the World." He made no apology for it. If he was alive today and had a chance to speak to many communities at the same time, via closed circuit TV, I think he'd jump at the chance. (No more shipwrecks. Awesome!)

But his message would be and always was, Don't look at me. And he wouldn't want to be the only image you saw. His would not be the only words you heard. He'd be all over it because then the eloquent Apollos and the plain-spoken Paul and the hesitant, young Timothy and "I'll die trying" Epaphras, and Silas and Peter and James and John and Philip and many others would be accessible. Not to replace the pastors who care for your souls in the community where you live, work and love. But to fix it so all those weary pastors wouldn't have to do it all alone every week. And what would be so bad about that?

Billy Graham used TV and large stadium events to evangelize millions. Would we take that back? The only thing wrong with it was that, for a long time, we've let Billy and a few others do it all alone. God, Jesus and Paul never intended for it to be that way. Jesus left the earth because, as a living breathing man, he could NOT DO IT ALONE. He said, "It is better for you that I go." His explanation was that if he went, the Spirit could come, and live in all of us, to do the work through us that no one person can accomplish (John 14).

Glorifying a single "up-fronter" is not only bad for the church, it's deadly for the glorified. Putting one person up front, week after week -- no matter how good he or she may be, whether it's a satelliting megachurch or just a dozen friends meeting in someone's living room -- is not only misguided, it's downright dereliction of duty. It discourages other voices that need to be heard. It puts a weight on one set of shoulders that was never intended to rest there. It almost guarantees the development of professionalism and the pursuit of paychecks, and it permits many of us to kick back and avoid the risk of opening our mouths and risking eating our feet. And that is the great wrong in the organized church today.

That brings me back to satellite churching and blogging. What will be the fruit of each? I've made a guess at the former. It don't think the prognosis is good. And I think I'm right. But who knows? Only God does, and time will tell. Same for the phenom of blogging. But I'd like to hazard a guess as to its eventual fruit, as well.

Both are bully pulpits of course. But the satellite church is only a bully pulpit for one. The blog, on the other hand, is a pulpit anyone can occupy. There are no schools to go to. No tuition loans to repay. No Pastor Search Committee to win over. NO paycheck ... but hey, I'm saying that's a good thing. More important -- and because no paychecks are riding on it -- those who care to can be themselves, Light and Shadow. It's permissible rant, whine, pray or even teach, preach, prophesy and praise the Lord. (Paul, the apostle, could rant with the best of them. I offer the letter to the Galatians as only the most notable example. And David's psalms would have made great posts and probably gotten lots of comments.) Even better, blogs are not endorsed, officially recognized, supported or otherwise deemed sacred, inspired, authoritative or required reading by any Christian organization, denomination or local church board. Things said from this bully pulpit then, can be be ignored with impunity if we, attempting to exercise the gift of discernment (which is available to us all, if we but ask for it and them exercise it), chose not to receive the contents of posts. So its a safer medium as well.

Best of all, those who preach from the blog pulpit have only the power that they earn (just like Paul) -- only what you and I give them. No more and no less. Power can never be possessed, unless it is first given. That's the way God intended it to be. That's why he does not impose his will on us. That's why we are responsible. Actually, the folks that occupy megachurch pulpits and other positions of professional church leadership also have only the power we grant them. If we, in ignorance of that truth or out of fear of reprisal or even through sheer laziness, grant them more than their due, that's still our problem. We can blame it on the "church," if we want, but we is it, so it's still something we must remedy from our end. And we can.

For that reason, I think the blog has a bright future as a fruitful medium. It's no substitute for face-to-face church, mind you. But it's a technology that can help build the church -- a community of believers who, because they have access to many voices, can better hear the One. There is the danger, of course, that it will become BlogChurch, when a few brilliant bloggers begin to attract all the attention and we, like sheep, let them. But it doesn't have to be that way. In the meantime (my humble opinion), blogchurch, imperfect though it is, is a better option than satellite church.