You are not wrong. If the church doesn't have a real person preaching, why not just stay home and watch a sermon on the internet?

Why not a church pastored by a hologram? I think you may have stumbled into the next big church-planting concept.

The flaw is in failing to make a distinction between preaching (part of a pastor's work) and pastoring (the whole job description). If we leave out that distinction, the following errors become plausible:

1. There's no need to pay the pastor because he only works one day a week, and then only for an hour or so.

2. There's no need to join a local church because you can get the finest preaching available at home on the radio, CD, or the Internet.

3. There's no need to listen to preaching at all. Just read books and sermons by great preachers of the past and present, picking the ones you enjoy, rather than those that convict you of sin.

Somewhat controversial:
4. If you feel the need to socialize with other believers, a megachurch where you only know the people in your Sunday School class or small group is just fine, even if oversight of the group is poor to nonexistent. (In other words, pastors need not be aware of what what is being taught and practiced in the name of their local church.)

Unpopular with Baptists:
4. The pastor is only responsible to his congregation, or audience, and in no way to the whole Body of Christ. Popularity equals authority.

I don't understand the whole multi-site video feed church idea, I'm not sure if it's really a good idea. I kind of feel the same way about people who bring iPhones to church for their Bible reading. Are we really using all this technology wisely?

I believe this is the first BLOG that I have ever replied to, however I found your thinking sufficiently familiar as to respond.

I have wondered to myself often about a church model wherein a significant portion of sermons could be "acted" or "recited".

There are relatively few (compared to the number of churches) truly talented sermon-creators. Why could a church not choose leaders / shepherds to love / guide / minister to it's congregation, and take away much of the chore of developing sermons when there is such an amazing volume of tremendous and varied work out there so as to suit the current situational position of any church body.

And there ARE a lot of talented speakers out there, certainly several in any given church body, and it does not NEGATE the need for a trained, ordained pastor who understands the material and can directly interact over it with his congregation, but in this day and age of easy and voluminous access to information, is the need dire to GENERATE the sermon material?

I not have not taken a lot of time to clearly think through all the angles of this idea, and I am a lay-person, not a pastor. But I know of and have personally struggled through many a Sunday sermon that was simply painful by men who meant and wished to provide much better.

Enough of thinking out loud for today. I acknowledge that most of my thinking / writing above could probably be shredded..., yet I think the idea has potential.

Thanks!

One more quick comment after having re-read your original thought...

I think the term "zombie preacher" is not necessarily appropriate. Preaching & sermon creation need not be the same person. The President of the United States certainly does not create his own speeches. And he certainly reviews and edits based on the audience, effect, and direction of the intended message.

A "preacher" could still be an incredibly effective leader of his church even though sermons were "chosen" to fit the need rather then "built". The source of the sermon does not negate the need to deliver it effectively, appropriately, and follow-up on it personally as Shepherd.

At the end of the day, with a sufficient volume of fantastic sermon material out there to choose from in order to be "local", one church body is probably quite similar at the core to the next...

I am done. I think...

Thanks again!

I think you make some great observations. While it is possible to do multisite with great motives,... I think it's part of a personality driven church mentality.

Actually, I probably would go to a church that just read Edwards sermons! (Joking) .. By the way, didn't Dever read Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God one time? Of course, that has nothing to do with the point at hand, just making the observation.

Anyway, 1 isn't the only reason you might have a multi-site church. I've heard Piper say his reasoning was they could (A) keep the same building and turn people away because they didn't have enough room, (B) build a bigger building, or (C) have a multi-site church. They chose C over B because building big churches has the downside that in several decades if/when the congregation shrinks, you're left with a big empty building that's just wasting space and money. I suppose A is a possibility, but not wanting to do A isn't the same as your #1. In this case, they have lots of people in Minneapolis who want to go to Piper's church, so on what basis do you pick who can come if your church isn't big enough? Do you merely make it a first-come-first-serve basis? It's not only about making a big deal over a single guy's gift to preach -- it's about finding a solution to a need. There's not a desire for a modern Edwards-led church, so there is a difference in there.

As for multi-site churches as in the Driscoll plan (not just multi-site but multi-city), that's different, but maybe not totally indefensible either. What about areas where there's not a capable preaching pastor? Or what if the pastor works a full-time job and it would be more practical to show a Driscoll sermon instead of him having to prepare a message on top of his job, family, and other pastoral duties? Again, it can be about answering a need. I'm not saying the Driscoll plan in an absolute right, or the 9marks plan is an absolute wrong. Just pointing some things out.

To an extent, the extreme you are describing is happening. John Piper, for example, makes his sermons available all the way back to his candidating sermon. This is both ministerial to those who can't attend his church and helpful to someone seeking edification/instruction on a certain topic. I can give my personal story and say that John Piper speaks to me in a way that other men simply can not. This does not mean that I stop attending my current church and join a virtual church(in my head) and only listen to John Piper. But it does mean that I can have the wisdom of God imparted through the gift of John's passionate teaching edifying and sanctifying my life.

I guess I fail to see the error or sin in having a multi-site church. Extrapolating an extreme doesn't negate the practice of it, nor does it expose a flaw in their thinking/vision. I could extrapolate an extreme from the practice of youth groups and say, "Why don't you just split the church into a youth church and a non-youth church?" My extrapolating of this extreme does not negate the practice of youth groups nor does it expose an error in the idea/philosophy.

There's already a paradigm for doing this: http://www.elvis.com/concert/

"This astounding production reunites some of Elvis' former bandmates live on stage with a state of the art video-projected Elvis."

Have you registered zombiepreachers.com yet?

I'll make a pilgrimage to the church plant that reads a Spurgeon sermon every Lord's Day morning :)

You may have just started a movement.

I can't help thinking that pragmatism is part of the reason for multi-site churches. Sadly, as we often make preachers into celebrities, some would rather watch a screen featuring a popular preacher than have an "in the flesh" preacher with no accolades except that he is being faithful to God's Word and the sheep He has placed under him.

I thank God that my pastor knows me by name.

Thanks for your thought-provoking questions. I should mention upfront that I'm still sitting on the fence regarding multi-campus churches. Technology has permitted the ministry of one man to be enjoyed by many more people than was previously possible, but multi-campus churches really bring into question what constitutes a church.

First, I think that you can draw a clear distinction between reading a sermon and preaching. Preaching should involve delivering a message that's been written upon the heart of the preacher while he's been wrestling with the Word and with his own heart. While God can bless the reading of a sermon to the listeners, I think that it falls far short of preaching.

Second, the preacher and his listeners should be in living in the same culture. While sermons convey timeless truths, they should address the current cultural climate. Thus, the greater the cultural divide between the speaker and the listener, the more the listeners will need to exegete the message and reapply it to their own culture (in much the same way that the preacher exegetes the text and applies it to his culture). Sermons tend to speak less directly to people with the passing of time. That's not to to say that they can't be a source of great blessing, but we constantly need to be re-expressing the timeless truths of the Gospel in new ways that speak most directly to the culture in which we live.

Question 3 is an interesting one. As I've mentioned above, I don't think that you can store sermons in a bottle. But since most multi-campus churches are dependent upon the ministry of one man, what will happen to those churches when that man retires or goes to glory? It could leave a huge vacuum that will be very hard to fill.

Jon,

Thanks for your comments. Just to be clear, I'm not calling anyone a zombie. Just a little tongue in cheek humor.

mike

I think you did a good enough job of saying why we shouldn't read Edward's sermons as a substitute for having a preaching pastor spend time preparing a weekly sermon. It seems like you don't like the idea of multi-site/multi-service as a way to handle growth so I want to skip your Edwards argument and deal with that...

Shouldn't a preaching pastor know each member intimately if your logic is carried out? I'm thinking of models like Piper's, and Driscoll's- I know they don't know each member intimately, but neither does Mark Dever with Capitol Hill's model.

Multi-site churches may not be ideal, but until Bethlehem and Mars Hill have pastors with gifts enough to be used of God to minister to the masses, I don't really see another alternative.

What are you wanting the preaching pastor to do? Know everyone intimately, or simply be in all of the congregation's presence?

In other words what is lost in multi-site/multi-service churches that is not lost in churches with 600+ in attendance on a Sunday morning in one service in one place?

I understand the argument about the church being built around a personality and how mega churches and multi-services, and multi-sites feed that tendency. That is certainly a danger, but a church can be built around a personality with 100 members as well (Fred Phelps for example). I have also heard the argument that mega churches can spread false doctrine very quickly. Can they not also spread true doctrine quickly? Anything can be used for bad purposes by sinful men, but I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with a multi-site/multi-service model.

Have you spent any time in a multi-site church or met with a staff or board of elders who leads a church with multiple sites? If not, i would like to invite you to come see what we are doing up close. We would love to have you come for the weekend and see the heart of what we do and why we do it.

matt williams

Church is much more than the preacher -- it is each joint supplying. It doesn't only happen on Sundays. It is a life lived together for the glory of God.
We should get all the good teaching/preaching we need, but not be so focused on good teaching/preaching that all we do is listen to sermons or read good books. We also need to give according the grace given to us. Our witness to the world is primarily shown by our love for each other (John 13:34-35), by our good works (Mt. 5:16), and by our proclamation of the gospel (which should not occur mostly in a church gathering).
If these principles are not central, any church is liable to become oriented to a single, godly man in an unhealthy way.
There are many ways in which I have benefited from Mark Dever's preaching/teaching/writing. However, he cannot watch for or give account for my soul (Heb 13:17). To do that, he would have to know me well enough to give an account. I have brothers who can give an account for me and for whom I can give an account.
How well do multi-site churches do in building a body that is self-edifying (Eph. 4:16)and given to good works that the unbeliever can see, where there is biblical accountability, and where each member is proclaiming the gospel?

Samuel Pleasants (above) made some a couple real good points and touched on the thought I had about this. As mentioned by most of everyone opposed or semi-opposed to the idea a recorded sermon, the lack or absence of intimacy with flock, is only part of that problem.

I am not a pastor. But I have preached many messages, and I lead a Bible study every week, sometimes 2-3 a week. Much of my growth has come from preparing for and pouring over this precious word, which is perfect- trying to be relayed through a very imperfect being.

The message is driven home for me as I deliver it, and will clarify areas as I engage a listening audience. And when I think about what I said and how it went, I reform my thoughts and convictions may become more concrete.

So the three stage process, as I see it in my mind, performs leaps and bounds over just listening to a sermon (and even talking it over with friends and family afterward).

Now is when the intimacy with a pastor comes in and this man that has been violently shaped by the word, can hopefully shape his fellow man struggling with the same temptations as he is; and the influence can spread from pastors to laypeople, from laypeople to laypeople, pastors to pastors, laypeople to unbelievers, etc.

That is one of the biggest concerns, that I see, of playing back a sermon.

Honestly, in most church gathering the vast majority of people are merely observing the performance. They don't participate in any meaningful way (singing along, dropping a check or even "responsive reading" is not participating) So I like where Michael is going. If the problem in the church is a lack of expository preaching, why not listen to the best we can get via video feed?

Call me a geek, but I would show up for a reading of a Jonathan Edwards sermon. There is a difference between preaching and pastoring. And if John Piper is doing it, I don't believe I would fight against it. However, there are a lot of churches that fall under your axe, and need to rethink why they do what they do.

A Pastor is much more than an image viewed on a plasma screen. It is sad the high priority that the Church places on the "WOW" factor when conducting a Pastoral search. In many instances there is more of a fixation on communication skills than spiritual gifts.

I appreciate the thoughts and writings of many who name the name of "Pastor". However, my question is that if speaking and writing schedules keep them away from their Church so that they cannot name but a small fraction of the members - ought they not drop the title "Pastor"?

I have been apart of a staff of a local church that was one church in one location to one church that is now in seven locations. I am no longer on the staff, I am a church planter..

The youth pastor is driven to all the locations to preach and the senior pastor is broadcasted live to all the campuses.

The problem with this model is the equipping of the next preachers and teachers. What my concern is that we have made our methodology the priority over the biblical model of government, church growth, church equipping etc.

For the life of me, I do not understand what the fear is to just equip and release other preachers and teachers and plant more churches. What happens if something happens to the “talking head”…..Zombie, nice. I am truly not trying to be critical or judgmental, but I fear this is a trend that is going to hurt the church not help it. Hurt it by NOT equipping the next generation of preachers and teachers and leaders.

Never underestimate our ability to self justify and self delusion.

the modern business plans being extrapolated into ministry marketing is pure genius to the mind of man, i wonder why God didn't think of it first?

Could it be that He is not very intrested in the glorification of men?