The other day, I was having a conversation with two friends of mine: One is the worship pastor at a large, multi-site church and the other is a writer in disguise as a church conference guy.
We were talking about multi-site churches and video venues and internet churches and we started wondering…
Why is there more than one internet church? Couldn’t we all pull resources together for one online church?
Why do most multi-site churches have to be video venues with the same speaker? Couldn’t each “campus” have their own campus pastor teach within the same theme or topic?
There are many a great debate over these questions and so I ask you, with all the love you have inside of you, to discuss those questions.
Let’s not debate if they are inherently right or wrong…but…let’s explore these expressions a bit, shall we?
Respectfully. Please. Of course.
(I wouldn’t expect anything less because you guys and gals are full of The Awesomeness!)
Comments
43 responses to “Of Video Venues and Internet Churches”
I’ll leave the “one internet campus” for someone else…but I’ll chime in on the multi-site all video, same speaker perspective.
We, as a multi-site church, feel it is essential to understand both the community and individual who is leading the campus. Currently we use video with our first location because its pastor excels in one-on-one/small group leadership. Now, for our next location as the campus pastor is a gifted teacher, then, as lead pastor I would ensure they are teaching weekly and not me on video. Same series, but fleshed out uniquely in their context. I see it as my honour to place people in the best environment for them to flourish, with the gifts they have been given. For some churches one video teacher works for them, for us, we need to use a hybrid approach based both on the community where it is planted and the gift mix of the leader.
Some big name mega-church multi-site pastors are seriously exploring future growth in their urban centers through organic cells or churches meeting in homes. This is another option to add to the mix.
.-= almost an M´s last blog ..Where are you going? =-.
Why is there more than one internet church? Couldn?t we all pull resources together for one online church?
I think that is like saying, why can’t we all pull our resources together in a community and have one physical church. Dogma, vision, doctrine, etc. all determine the path of a church and unless pastors wanted to set their agendas down, that isn’t going to happen. This seems to be the next movement in the church and the next set of denominations. Maybe they will be called “The Geeky Church of God”; “Assembly of God Bloggers”; “United Methodist Tweeters” of course that sounds more like basketball teams than anything else.
Why do most multi-site churches have to be video venues with the same speaker? Couldn?t each ?campus? have their own campus pastor teach within the same theme or topic?
Excellent question!!! I have wondered that myself and the only response I can think of is, if a church wants to have a single, solid vision and wants those churches to be under that same vision, then having one single speaker convey that vision eliminates any miscommunication from the pulpit. Some would say it is a power trip, others would say it is control. I simply think it’s good strategy. But it does put into question if it is a community vision or a one man vision? I think each of these church types are weighing through these same questions and hopefully in humility and openness to the Spirit, they are adjusting and growing as they continue to steer the ship that God has given them.
Unfortunately, there’s even division within a single church as to if online church should even happen. But I digress on this.
I have to agree with @Ben on this one. As much as I’d love to see one great church all coming together to worship and witness, there are too many things that get in the way.
We’ve got too many opinions.
Until the offline church can come to grips with opinions on traditional versus contemporary, wine or grape juice, ties or shorts, hymns or David Crowder, communion twice a year or every single Sunday, I just don’t think one, single united online church is in the cards.
But don’t take this as me giving up on the idea or not supporting the idea. These are just hurdles that I see.
.-= Tom´s last blog ..My First 1000 Miles =-.
i’ll first say that i am not banner-waving proponent of either side (each campus has own teaching team vs. video feed of teaching). that is, i think that there are merits to each approach. lifechurch.tv’s strong financial management/stewardship is an example of how a multi-site strategy with primarily video feed teaching is effective.
but…increasingly i wonder if the typical multi-site approach truly is the best. my view of church planting is: identify a community in need of a church plant; identify and envision/recruit a “seed” team (including all aspects of leadership to include teaching/preaching); gather financial and other resources; plan the deal, and then plant. :)
i guess my concern is that the momentum anymore is away from the autonomy afforded to new churches in the early days of the Church. i am not suggesting that there be no connection or support from a planting church, rather that there might be room to allow more independence to new church plants.
good stuff to consider…
.-= John Ireland´s last blog ..Threadless Tshirt Giveaway at jaypeeonline.net =-.
um…i have no blog, so the reference above to my last post is a mystery :)
We’ve got two campuses and 4 pastors. They all rotate preaching at each campus but we have two “main” preaching pastors that could be called campus pastors for each building. We’re trying to keep Pastor Mark (@mborgetti) who is the campus pastor at our newest campus, Celebration Campus, at the services down there to be the consistent face of that campus for visitors. We have 7 worship services across both campuses each weekend and they are all the same sermon series. So we have two different pastors giving different messages but on the same Gospel text.
On internet campuses… If my church ever started an internet campus it’s initial intended audience would be our parishioners who for whatever reason couldn’t make it to our campuses that weekend. We would also of course promote it across the interwebs and hopefully reach some people outside of our community. But I would think that our people who know our pastors would use it to hear them even if they’re traveling for business or are sick or whatever. Hopefully we’d have some people that don’t live in the area attend an internet campus as well but we’d probably use it primarily as a promotional tool to get people in our buildings.
.-= Graham´s last blog ..Reason #572 I Quit Radio =-.
New Life Church in Chicago is a multi site church (seven last I heard) and they don’t do video. They are also multi lingual. Their pastors all write the sermon together and preach at their own site. There is slight variation at each site because the preacher at that site personalizes it a bit, but basically it is the same sermon, multiple sites.
And I have to say that we have multiple internet churches because we have different people that are reached on line. There have been Anglican churches in second life for a while, but that isn’t what Northpoint or Lifechurch is about. All three reach different people, which I think is the point.
.-= Adam S´s last blog ..Free by Chris Anderson: a post about the church =-.
With the “one” internet church idea…let me rephrase…
When I was on Orcas Island there was one church building where several denominations met throughout the day.
Why not something like that – in one place – for everyone? It can be used at different times in different ways for different audiences?
Could it?
I have been wondering about the multi-site question (or something similar to it) for a while. Churches that do multi-site are typically awesome, so I’m glad they are multiplying themselves, but I still wonder about the reasoning behind it.
Why is a second (or third, or fourth) campus of Church A necessary when Church B, Church C, etc. are already in those communities? I assume it’s a matter of a theological or stylistic gap–there is no evangelical, contemporary church in that area–but the implication (bad as this sounds) can still be “we do it better than any other church could.”
As I said, I think highly of these churches, so I don’t mean to give offense, but I really am curious. I hope more people comment and respond to this question!
.-= Jessica Miller Kelley´s last blog ..The Most Important Space in the Church =-.
i think overall we are far to frequently “one speaker” minded, even at single site churches. if we lack diversity in voice from the “pulpit” (or screen, or stage, or whatever) don’t we reduce the potential of God’s voice through us (not that we would be capable of limiting God, just limiting our own usefulness – if that makes sense)?
if we are determined to video same speakers to all sites, i think it is incredibly critical that a thorough heart check is done in re: motive. how much of that decision is (even inadvertently) egocentric?
I took the multi-church question and went off on a rant with it. Check out my blog: “Are Some Evangelical Churches Creating Papal Authority? I am simply asking the question because this is an important topic that will ened to be addressed sooner or later. Check it out if you want.
.-= Ben´s last blog ..Are Some Evangelical Churches Creating Papal Authority? =-.
Anne I think there is something fundamentally different about physical sharing of buildings (which I am all for) and the type of sharing you are talking about. Some of what you are suggesting is already being done. I know Northpoint intentionally designed their platform to be used with almost no cost by other churches. So if someone else wants to use is as a base Northpoint will give their design away. I know that Lifechurch.tv already has several people using their platform. But un-like physical sharing of space, online church doesn’t need to share the same web presence because the cost of the separate presence is so small compared to other costs.
In a physical offline church the cost of the building is usually either one or two (with staff) for largest budget lines. For online presence a separate domain is a throw away. Hosting and bandwidth are costs, but not huge ones compared to staff and development.
.-= Adam S´s last blog ..Free by Chris Anderson: a post about the church =-.
Anne, I really like your thinking on having a single website whose sole purpose is to broadcast church. I think it’s got cool potential for people who are looking for an online campus experience, but have crazy hours at work or perhaps live overseas where there is little to no church presence, and want something at their time of day.
It would be really impressive if multiple churches came together to create a single site that had 24-hour church going on (with community and all). Of course, I don’t think it could be the be-all-end-all, as even within those 24 hours, you can only represent a few different kinds of styles. But I think it could be a really welcome place online where people know they can go to find church at any time. Has HUGE potential, and I’m all for it.
.-= Mikey´s last blog ..2-by-2 Strategy for Church Multiplication =-.
I have really mixed feelings about all of this. In my experience, large churches are really a group of smaller congregations who go to “worship” in big church with the other smaller congregations. It magnifies a couple of the problems of small churches. One is that some people who don’t belong to one of the small congregations come in, listen to the preaching and go home. They never get involved in the body because they fall through the cracks. Another is that people come get what they want from the small group and then never go to big church.
The fellowship and the serving are easier to skip so the church staff has to get bigger and bigger to do the things that members should be doing. Then the funding becomes an issue and the church has to get bigger and bigger and allow people to give money instead of themselves.
Internet church… in some ways it gets easier to be anonymous. There is personal challenge but no accountability.
As I read the entries above I realized that everyone has their own ideas about church size and staffing. That is good as long as we talk about it and don’t yell. Jesus don’t like yelling.
I suppose that the reason we don’t have one internet church is the same as why we dont have one physical church in each town or city. Style, doctrine etc etc. Different types attract different people to Jesus would be the benefit.
Multiple speakers? Some speakers seem to have a “greater” gift so why not maximise that. Although developing and releasing up and coming people should probably be a higher value otherwise churches will find difficulty with transition.
.-= Billy Ritchie´s last blog ..Permission to Speak Freely =-.
Fair warning: I’m somebody who does believe that internet church is inherently problematic for being what the Church is supposed to be. That said, not having one big internet church isn’t a problem. We believe different stuff and choose our worship accordingly. Jesus didn’t pray that we would be identical in doctrine, practice, and thought. He prayed that we would have unity.
I do think that multi-site churches should have their own pastors, for the same reason that I think internet churches are the wrong way to go, which is the same reason I think megachurches are unbiblical. A pastor is supposed to speak the truth in love to a community. It is impossible for someone who doesn’t know the members of the community to do that. And that can’t happen if you have 6,000 participants, regardless of whether they’re in one giant auditorium or many smaller ones.
From the outside, the internet church phenomenon seems to be a lot more about high demand for one pastor than it is about building genuine community that will endure regardless of who’s preaching on Sunday morning. I don’t say that to be hateful or mean, but rather because I wonder what will happen when one of the highly charismatic pastors of a multi-campus internet church leaves.
.-= Laura @ Texas in Africa´s last blog ..this & that =-.
I suppose it comes down to whether the “home base” church wants to be a multi-site: same vibe and message or if they want to be church planters: spin their dna in a new location. Multi-site sends marketing message that this is a new building in a new town but we’re doing church the same as home base, sermon and all. Church plant sends marketing message that home base will give funding, resources of people and ideas and then set it free when it is self sustaining. I supposed it all comes down to marketing, resources and vibe. All relative.
The internet is a whole other rhelm. I believe people shop internet churches the same as they shop real life churches…so if it were all for one and one for all, and nobody liked it, then what? I mean, then they’d have to get up, take a shower and go to a physical church, haha, but besides that, there wouldn’t be anywhere else to turn for a good flavor of Jesus and truth via bandwidth. And we all know that an internet southern baptist church would not be same flavor as a contemporary message church.
These are ultimately all ways to reach further to get to people, that is the glory part. They are all experimental in some regard, so for those that do it well, there is lots to be learned for those wading into the pool.
.-= christiefarley´s last blog ..Are we reaching far enough? =-.
Thanks for making me think! My only question on 1 internet campus is this: who decides who gets to broadcast when? If I’m relegated to infomerical hours I’m not going to be happy when the Reverend Dr. Sparkly Shirt gets the prime 11:00 Sunday morning spot. Why does he get the good spot when my equally important message is competing with the late Billy Mays and OxyClean?
Why not? We are all focused on different things. (on both counts)
.-= Kenyon´s last blog ..Are we a racist nation? =-.
Our church has a few sites. Originally we tried video teaching, but it didn’t take well in our rather conservative area. Now they teach along the same series. We’re fortunate enough to have most of our sites in close enough proximity that they can make it to our weekly sermon planning meeting. Our senior pastor sends out his sermon notes, and then the other communicators watch him preach at our Saturday night service. It’s worked really well for us, because each site gets the personality of their site pastor, and great leaders are able to really use their gifts.
Of course, we’re about to plant a site church in Tulsa, Ok (we’re in Pennsylvania), so who knows how it’ll work with the distance…
.-= Charity´s last blog ..Ahh, life… =-.
Because there are so many different people out there with different personalities and different passions who will be reached by different people with different personalities and different passions. It also ties into “community” and whatever that means to us (as Christians), to Jesus, and also the rest of the world.
.-= jill´s last blog ..my friend & my daughter =-.
Anne, your question of “Why not something like that ? in one place ? for everyone? It can be used at different times in different ways for different audiences?” ….with all due respect, I think your question is inherently flawed. It is all in one place and used at different times and reaches different audiences….that IS the internet in and of itself. Each “church” can post a message and that churches “audience” can experience it at different times and in different ways. The internet in and of itself can be that “unified experiences of churches.”
As for the multi-sites…much of it has to do with money. Its expensive to find good teaching pastors that can ALSO lead a church. It’s easier and cheaper to find a shepharding pastor that doesn’t have to teach very often but can lead a small group of people. Its also cheaper to start up a smaller “daughter” site than an entire self-supporting church plant.
Andy Stanley discussed multi-site last year at Catalyst. He indicated that it is hard to find someone that has the gift of speaking and the gist of pastoring in one person. Muti-site lets those that have the gift of speaking speak and those that have the gift of pastoring pastor. I think it makes a lot of sense.
I listen to a few speakers from other churches on line but would not subsitute that for fellowship.What I think the internet has done with people uploading there sermons to the internet has made them a commodity. I am not as motivated to gon in to the performance center of my chrurch to hear what the speaker has to say. I would rather hang out in the commons and visit.
Andy Stanley discussed multi-site last year at Catalyst. He indicated that it is hard to find someone that has the gift of speaking and the gift of pastoring in one person. Muti-site lets those that have the gift of speaking speak and those that have the gift of pastoring pastor. I think it makes a lot of sense.
I listen to a few speakers from other churches on line but would not subsitute that for fellowship.What I think the internet has done with people uploading there sermons to the internet has made them a commodity. I am not as motivated to gon in to the performance center of my chrurch to hear what the speaker has to say. I would rather hang out in the commons and visit.
I’m interested in your second question, regarding campus pastors preaching vs one main teacher.
This past week, our pastor mentioned the ‘YBCHP’ factor.
He was talking about training pastors and how lots of guys are gifted and called to be in church ministry, but he always has to ask, “Yeah, but can he preach?”
It is my deep conviction that God has called and equipped certain men to preach, and that many who preach should not be doing it.
There are a thousand thoughts in my head that I would love to delve into, but for time’s sake, I’ll just leave it at this:
Preaching and communication are not the same. Preaching is a *big* deal. If you get it wrong, you might lead *lots* of people away from God. It should not be taken lightly.
.-= Zack´s last blog ..What Does It Mean To Be Called? =-.
Hi Anne, very interesting discussion.
Just yesterday Zondervan released a new book titled, SimChurch: Being the Church in the Virtual World. I found the book to be a very informative study on the topic. It doesn’t have a ton of answers, but the author has done a great job of addressing the many questions around the validity of virtual church. I hope many people pick it up so they better understand what is happening in this new arena.
http://www.amazon.com/SimChurch-Being-Church-Virtual-World/dp/0310287847/
.-= Chad Estes´s last blog ..Look Where You Are Standing! =-.
I don’t think having the satellite pastor preach his own sermon works in that situation. People are coming to hear “the main guy.” When that does happen, the church takes on a life of its own, and becomes less like the “main” church. For those people who are following the main pastor, they generally will settle for little else.
And one church would not work, because folks feel the need to follow “their guy.” just like I love Bluebell Southern Blackberry Cobbler ice cream, and my wife will pretty much only eat Rocky Road. Different strokes for different folks.
There are more than one online church for the same reason there is more than one church. People can’t agree on theology or methodology. That one is easy.
As far as video venues having the same “speaker”, sometimes that is easier. My husband and I are actually starting/have started a network church with Lifechurch.tv. Our church is not yet able to provide salary or compensation at all for our family…so my husband works a full time job. It’s extremely difficult for someone to study and have quality/engaging messages when you have a full time job plus a family, plus all the other aspects of starting a church. Lifechurch.tv/Craig Groeschel’s sermons have been such a blessing to us and they’re free!! (unlike many others, which is a shame but I digress) The goal is to eventually get to a place where my husband is the campus pastor and speaking weekly, but right now, it’s just not feesible if you want excellence on Sunday.
oh and Andy Stanley has a great message about sharing the actual building with others and church planters and such…theres a church right down the street from us that we asked if we could use their facilities…nope. if we ever get a place where we have our own facilities, anyone will be able to use them…for very minimal costs, utilities. they wanted $1000/month for 2 hrs per week…..ridiculous. why can’t people have a kingdom mindset instead of First baptist whatever or Wherever United Methodist kingdom mindset????? (my answer to that question is pride…but I’ll let you think about that) Would you be willing to share your facilities with another church plant?
There are a heck of a lot of amazing preachers who will never take the stage because they aren’t the “main” guy and because they don’t receive a paycheck from a church, nor are they developed as such because the main guy is too busy being the main guy.
Just MHO.
Or girls for that matter. But we’ll save that for another post.
I think building sharing is fairly common in cities and places where real estate is very expensive. When I lived in Chicago most of the churches in my neighborhood had at least two church meeting there. (Or at least were sharing office space with more than one organization.)
My church in Chicago had a church plant, a community organizing group and a tutoring program all sharing the same building (all separate organizations and separate boards).
We charged either no rent or $100 a month. I will say that there were constantly issues about sharing and managing the relationships really does take work, but it is doable.
.-= Adam S´s last blog ..Fearless by Max Lucado =-.
I love girl preachers! Not loooooooooooooove, just love. If you catch what I am saying. Anyway, I will dig myself out of that hole later.
Good responses to this blog eh?
.-= Ben´s last blog ..Book Review: A Million Miles in a Thousand Years =-.
Adam- unfortunately in the good ole south, that’s not the case. A dying church on every corner…and people willing to try to start something new and no where to meet. However we are currently meeting at our local YMCA for $100/week and it’s working out very well.
Oh and the “main” guy business sounds horrible…almost like idolatry…just sayin…
My church rents from a “dying” church…it was hard to work out but it did! I think if we held on to things more loosely, things might be easier to share.
As long as there are checks and balances so that one person (or denomination or any entity) doesn’t have too much power, then I guess it’s ok to have a ‘hub-internet-church’ for a general meeting ground for smaller denomination.
and anne- i really wish you’d write your thoughts about women pastors/leaders whatever…in response to that verse that all the guys use about ” i do not permit women to have authority over a man, learn in quiet, and be silent.” and all that jazz. i was brought up in a southern baptist church- where that was/is a big no no. women are directors..not pastors. as i have gotten older and started to “own my own faith” and really discover for myself what God’s word says about things and what things are man-made religious traditions, that is one area where I just don’t know what to believe. have you written any blogs about that? or is there a book you’d recommend, other than the bible of course. ;)
i don’t know, but i do see lots of wonderful concepts presented here. not too concerned about a ‘main guy or girl’, a global internet church, sharing space, etc. Christ’s mission can and will can be accomplished in all types of ‘churches’ IF the Body wants His will and not theirs. i’ve always thought that variety is the Spirit of religion – so i like them all.
Why is there more than one internet church? Couldn?t we all pull resources together for one online church?
Why do most multi-site churches have to be video venues with the same speaker? Couldn?t each ?campus? have their own campus pastor teach within the same theme or topic?
err… what I meant to say is… (Sorry clicked to soon)
Why is there more than one internet church? Couldn?t we all pull resources together for one online church?
Combining our resources would be more ideal, but most church people don’t agree, or at the very least disagree on what is most important to emphasize.. and so on.
Why do most multi-site churches have to be video venues with the same speaker? Couldn?t each ?campus? have their own campus pastor teach within the same theme or topic?
The church I recently attended split into a multi site campus, and the pastor now rotates services. I guess they usually keep the main speaker because everyone likes that guy, and the church doesn’t want to push people into new things- which might risk losing some people.
.-= Ruby Leigh´s last blog ..Great minds think alike =-.
Why is there more than one internet church? Couldn?t we all pull resources together for one online church?
Same reason that there are multiple churches in a single town.
.-= Adam Shields?s last blog ..Stuff Christians Like by Jonathan Acuff =-.