Found: a church history book written 100 years from now!
You won't believe it, but I found a page torn out of a church history book written one hundred years from now--in the year 2109. It comments on the present multi-campus "church" phenomenon. Here's what the page reads:
...the principle difference being caused by developments in technology. In the first millennium of the church’s existence, a heterodox bishop could corrupt the churches within his ambit in decades, maybe years. Even then his influence over other congregations was indirect, occurring through its leaders. In the twenty-first century, however, the bishops of so-called multi-campus churches could exert greater influence over entire congregations instantaneously via video-feed. No longer did the multi-campus pastor have to persuade the leaders of other congregations over years. He could project his own face before numerous assemblies week after week, and do untold damage in seconds.
Few anticipated how quickly these pragmatic, seemingly inconsequential shifts of polity would corrupt the churches throughout an entire nation. Ninety-six percent of evangelical Christians in America belonged to approximately one hundred multi-campus “churches” by 2030—the franchises swallowing up the mom-and-pop shops. Some of these franchises were originally orthodox. Yet many of them were not, which meant that the wolves now had a mechanism for multiplying their influence exponentially. Furthermore, the orthodox bishops were often replaced within a generation or two by less orthodox successors, in a way that unorthodox bishops are seldom, if ever, replaced by faithful men, simply by virtue of the kinds of trees the unorthodox pastor plants. The cumulative trajectory was downward, then, away from orthodoxy.
Gone were the days of the “ordinary pastor,” the man whose skills were not extraordinary, but sufficient to guide a ship with a hundred eternal souls safely through stormy waters to the distant shores. His sermons weren’t made for television. His music wasn’t good enough for the recording studio. Therefore, churches, feeling themselves entitled to professional excellence in all things, politely dismissed him, tore down the old buildings, built high-tech stadiums, and gave the league all-stars seven-year, multi-million dollar contracts.
Unawares, the leaders of the orthodoxy were all too happy to heed the siren call of pragmatism, believing the new mediums simply enlarged the reach of their orthodox pulpits. They failed to see how the medium would affect their message. Their congregations—plural—could no longer know them, and they could no longer know their congregations. Life and doctrine became separated, thus distorting the doctrine. Not only that, bigness was no longer the exception, but the norm, meaning that everyone became oblivious to the dangers peculiar to size.
A century which began with several bright stars—a proliferation of good literature, biblical preachers of the first order, even what some called a Reformed Revolution—ended darkly. Indeed, some of the century's best preachers, driven by the very desire to propagate the good message in their day, helped to undermine that message for the next generation by following the strategies of the marketplace. No one expected the devil to once more usher in the corruptions of the ancient Roman church through such a peripheral matter like church polity, even though he had done it before. (He always does his best work in the places where people forget to look.) Only now he did in decades what earlier he had taken centuries to accomplish. By the middle of the twenty-first century, the devastation was…



Very creative. I like it. Nothing says it has to go that way, but then again it seems plausible.
Posted by: Brent Hobbs | Jul 6, 2009 4:35:50 PM
why is it that every time something new is tried in the church, the first reaction is that it will be bad? can you imagine the difference in so many lives if Billy Graham had rejected new technology?
Posted by: Butch Koechig | Jul 6, 2009 9:24:38 PM
Seriously? You're gonna chalk up the downfall to the Orthodox Christian faith to multi-campus?
Ridiculous.
Posted by: Nick Allen | Jul 6, 2009 10:03:04 PM
It' amazing that someone would just leave a book from the future lying around like that. People can be so careless. I wonder if there is anyway to use it to your advantage, kind of like how old Biff gave young Biff that book of sport's scores in Back to the Future II?
Great post. This is one more reason to resist the the Walmartification of Church.
Posted by: Nick Alford | Jul 6, 2009 10:21:25 PM
a good message of warning. thanks, jonathan.
they do say hindsight is 20/20, so thanks for trying to bring some of that hindsight clarity into our view now.
Posted by: Meredith M. | Jul 7, 2009 9:54:54 AM
I'm not sure exactly what the argument is or if this is just a call to caution. If this is a flat out argument against multi-campus churches, then it seems like a pretty slippery slope when it comes to the use of technology.
Posted by: Joel | Jul 8, 2009 10:16:06 AM
what are your thoughts on this?
http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/special/videology
Posted by: john sullivan | Jul 9, 2009 12:04:49 AM
The Bible teaches us that being deceived occurs when one rejects the Truths of Christ. Sin will cause one to reject Truth. The light came to them, yet they rejected it because their deeds were evil.
Live righteously and walk in Truth.
Thank-you.
Brother Tom
Posted by: Thomas J. Palermo | Jul 19, 2009 6:30:15 AM
You'll notice he didn't say all multi-campus pastors are unorthodox. He said some were orthodox and hoped to use the means to reach more people. Thats admirable. But in this writers opinion its misguided. Thats his opinion. The whole genre of the literature reinforces by ad absurdum that it was just his opinion. But I will say there is a lot to be said for the church where the pastor knows all his parishioners, and if the church outgrows that there need to be enough under-shpherds with shepherd's hearts to know all the parishioners.
Posted by: Clark Dunlap | Jul 20, 2009 11:59:26 PM