Follow Me, and I Will Make You Fishers of... Snakes?
Turns out my brain is too scattered right now for a unified field theory of... anything, so here's a hodge podge consisting of unfinished past posts (time to clean up the "drafts" box,) and what happened last night.
Fishers of Snakes
Last night at the Front Porch my new buddy Richard the Sound Guy and I were trying like heck to get a 16-channel snake through a 50-foot long sub-floor PVC pipe that surfaces at one end on stage, and at the other end where our soundboard will be. For those even more uninitiated than myself, a snake is a long, thick cable that connects the soundboard to the stage, and ours has to be threaded through this pipe. Richard is quite a guy... very knowledgeable, but nevertheless he and I were having some trouble. We started by running a long aluminum wire through, but it kept getting stuck in the middle. So I had the idea to get out the Shop Vac and suck it through from the opposite end. So Richard put a ball of duct tape on the end of the wire and stuck it in his end of the pipe, and I pressed the hose down onto my end, and slowly but surely it started to move. Then... twhop! I snagged it. Unfortunately this story does not end quite so happily, because we ended up snapping the wire in our attempt to pull the snake through. Not to worry, though, Plan B looks promising, if a tad bit more expensive.
Pastor Po-Mo and the SpringMo Lib-Cons
I just liked this title. Couldn't think of how to write a post for it, though. Add a comment if you think you can figure out what it means.
Multi-Site Church and the Emerging Televangelists
I decided not to write a full-out post on this because most Springfieldians have never heard of a Multi-Site Church. It is, however, all the rage among large "emerging" churches such as Mars Hill in Seattle, Journey in St. Louis, or Life Church in Oklahoma City. It's like a church that has multiple services, except those services are often happening in different places at the same time, instead of in the same place at different times. It is common for there to be a "mother" site, and "daughter" sites, each featuring a different worship team and an entirely different group of people, but all featuring the same sermon by the same Senior Pastor, only he's on a screen at the daughter sites, and not in preaching in person.
It baffles me a little how the people who go to these types of churches are often the last in the world to watch a preacher on television, and yet that's essentially what they're doing at the daughter sites. Can you call a guy your "pastor" if you're never even in the same room with him?
I know I'm in no position to say what a pastor ought or ought not to be, but I'm going to do it anyway. If you're pastoring a church, and it grows, and decides to become a multi-site church, and has to spend tens of thousands of dollars on technology to make sure that YOU and your thoughts are the centerpiece of every worship experience, no matter how far away, then I think you've lost some of what it means to be a pastor. Hopefully, throughout all that you still manage to actually shepherd a few people, but haven't you just become a televangelist to the rest?
The Nooma Sessions
I'm terrible with serieses. I guess I'm just not the type. I did a post about the first Nooma video, "Rain" thinking I would blog about all of them. Except that 1/4 of the time I'm not even in on the discussion, since I'm watching the kids. Also the fact that I'm terrible with serieses.
Church Marketing
Months ago, I typed the title "marketing" into blogger, and saved it in order to remind me to write a post about marketing. But it turns out all I have is feelings about marketing, and no actual thoughts. My gut says it's sick... that marketing is just an extension of sales, and salesmanship has no place in the Kingdom of God. I know that church marketing and its goons have turned a lot of people off to the Church entirely, but I'm not sure where to draw the line. Should a church list their phone number in the yellow pages? Sure. Should they pay for a little extra space for added visibility? I don't know. Should they have a full-page color ad? Personally, I don't think so. But there's a lot of leeway in there. Obviously, I think websites are great. Billboards, not so much. But what is the essential difference? How do we know when we've gone too far in trying to get the word out? How do we know when we've developed a competitive nature, or a success syndrome? Anyone?
Labels: autobiography, blogs, front porch, humor
Posted at 2:11 PM
View 13 comments made so far
Add a comment
Links to this post
13 Comments:
On the multiple site campus thing: It might be okay for a pastor to transmit or prerecord a sermon for a congregation to watch. I don't know if I would ever want to go to that church. You talked about the meaning of a pastor. You are probably thinking that a pastor is not just someone who puts on a show on Sundies. That a pastor is someone who leads and is intimately involved in a church. I agree. However, in a large church could you have a pastor, who preaches very well, do sermons; even sermons that are tapped? He would still be as available to the congregation as if he had delivered the sermon live. You would then have small group leaders who act as pastors as well. It's all about the benefit of consolidation. You get to experience a very well put together service on sundies, or whatever time the service is. You also get a more intimate feel in the small groups. Its just one way to do church. My church does the multiple campus thing but we have pastors who rotate through the services. They have always been very available to me when I chat with them. The home groups of our church provide a place to make great Christian friendships and be in close contact with a home group leader who is very much a lay pastor. Although, they could just tape or transmit the sermons while still being available to the church members, I don’t think I would like it and neither would most of our church.
On using billboards, full page ads and Polynesian Dancers to get the word out about your church: you are probably right when you say that one can go too far. But isn’t it a heart issue. If someone is motivated to get as many people into their church because they are addicted to the “numbers” game then even if they pass out one leaflet in the mall they are sinning. If someone is concerned about the spiritual well being of those in their community then a billboard might not be a bad idea.
Ryan, I'm sure you're aware that I share your feelings regarding the "sister/daughter campus - video feed" thing for the most part. But after having experienced it somewhat regularly with our church(es), I can't say I fault the idea 100% of the time (although I still have modest reservations at times). What I am learning (and our teaching pastors articulate this from time to time) is that the messenger is ultimately not what is important--the message is (let's accept by fiat for now the distinction between the two). From one perspective (the one from which you seem to be looking), this would indicate a major flaw in the simulcast sermon method, namely that if the messenger is not important, then why insist on broadcasting him to multiple locations rather than having local pastors preach? But from a different perspective (one I am very slowly and cautiously warming up to), if the messenger is not what is ultimately important then insisting that a local pastor preach at each 'campus' also indicates misplaced emphasis.
Here's the key (and you might accuse me of splitting hairs, but think with me for a sec): while the messenger (i.e. specific individual in-and-of himself) is not of primary importance (really, of none at all), the particularity of the message (which will vary substantially both in content and quality from person to person) is of utmost preeminence. What that translates into is the fact that some people have been extraordinarily gifted by God to comprehend, compile, and communicate His Word in a clear, compelling manner to people so that maximizing the influence of this person is the appropriate response to God's gift. In other words, when God gives "big gifts", He expects them to be used large scale. That doesn't mean the individuals possessing those gifts have more honor in God's sight than those less gifted or less influential. But in the parable of the talents, Jesus makes the shocking statement, "He who has been given much will be given more," revealing that 'fairness' as perceive it, in this case with regard to pastoral influence, is a totally bunk concept. Elsewhere, we read that "to whom much is given, much is required" and that less is required of those to whom less has been given.
With that said, I still agree wholeheartedly that any pastor whose energies are devoted exclusively to sermon preparation (at the necessary expense of investing himself in individual leaders via mentoring, etc.) has without question abdicated his pastoral duty. With regard to Harvest, our main teaching pastors play a variety of roles other than speaking on Saturday nights/Sunday mornings. They (particularly pastor James) are visionaries (like you and I) who invest large portions of energy affecting 'movement' behind the scenes (with the equal partnership of the other elders). The visionary nature of some pastors is a huge factor in the whole 'influence' thing, to be honest--one of the biggest, if not the biggest. There are many, many pastors out there who do what they do well--caring for people's spiritual needs, mentoring one-on-one or in teams, making kingdom-wise decisions, etc. But true revolutionary, visionary leaders are few and far between. Those who are not blessed to have visionaries like this leading their churches (locally) ought not throw our hands in the air, saying, "Woe to the rest of us who are perishing without a vision" (See Prov. 29:18). Instead, we should encourage and enable those to whom God has gifted with extraordinary vision to speak into our lives at every given opportunity. This could be through books, prerecorded videos (Nooma?), simulcasted messages, hosting local/regional events where they could speak, or traveling to conferences. Now it's a different thing to do these things with regard to those who are simply gifted communicators. There would be little point in hosting Adriene Rogers to speak all over the nation (no offense, Dr. Rogers and fans). He may be a great preacher, but he's no visionary leader. On the other hand, people like Erwin McManus, Mark Driscoll, etc. do warrant such efforts.
Finally, I will also concede that this mindset is fraught with potential pitfalls. Any time an individual or group achieves a sense of power (which is really just an extraordinary degree of influence), the temptation is present to abuse that position of influence. That could translate into stifling the voices and giftings of other leaders (and undoubtedly does too frequently) as well as failing to 'step down' from an elevated degree of influence once one's 'time' has passed. With these caveats, however, I'm pretty confident that the Kingdom of God does have a place for video campuses and satellite 'churches', though they need not be the norm.
All great points.
Although you stole my thunder a bit when you started giving caveats at the end. Nevertheless, there are a few more counter-points that need to be made.
If telecasting is the best tool for maximizing the influence of those who are the best communicators, why doesn't the whole Body of Christ just come together and vote on the best communicator in the world, and then we can simulcast him (or her) every single week, in lieu of local pastor's sermons?
I know this is a reduction to absurdity, but I believe it's a valid objection regardless. The reason why we would not do that, is because God has great plans for even the second- and third-tier communicators, and does not intend for them to be eclipsed by the best of the best (remember, Jesus didn't take ALL the talents and give them to the one who had ten... he recognized the need for the second-best guy to play the game as well.)
If you're a highly skilled basketball player, but there's a guy on your team named Jones who is even better, how do you feel if every huddle consists of only five words: "Get the ball to Jones"? Are the next-best communicators simply to bide their time until the senior pastor sprains his ankle? These people need a chance to develop... surely those at the top were given their chance as well. But now it seems like the only way for a young leader to shine is to start his own church (i.e. Mark Driscoll, whose early sermons, by his own admission, totally sucked.)
And after we've exhausted this line of thinking, in the end we must admit that, to turn a phrase, God does not call the equipped, he equips the called. And it is so easy, by our human logic and strategy, to thwart that.
Extremely good points, my friend. Though I think you pretty well called your own bluff on the 'absurdity' point. ;-) It's an effective hyperbole, but isn't a sure-fire argument against the concept as a whole, only the concept in its extremist forms.
I'm totally with you on the leadership development thing, 100%.
As far as the "God equips the called" thing, I'm not sure if I've ever shared this with you, but I really think this is little more than a rhetorical device. In reality, God's equipping does not always, nor even primarily, come 'after the call'. It comes throughout the entire process of one's life, and most often a decent number of 'tools' have already been put in one's 'tool chest' at the point in time when they perceive the call. It's not as if God decides to call a person at a particular point in time, and then decides to equip them. He has known for eternity past whom he was going to call for what and has made every provision before the beginning of time for those individuals to fulfill that calling. Being assured of this, nevertheless we cannot deny that God has called a person simply because God has not revealed a particular gifting to them at that point in time. We can, however, be confident that if God does not end up providing the 'raw goods' required for a person to fulfill a particular kingdom task then that person has most likely not been called to do that in the first place.
I don't see the "called vs. equipped" thing as a matter of chronology anyway, rather as a matter of priority. Don't ask yourself whether you're equipped, ask yourself whether you're called, and let God worry about the equipping. This is overly simplistic, but I think my point stands.
How do you know with 100% certainty that you're called unless you perceive yourself as having at least some measure of necessary equipment? It's not a matter whatsoever of priority, but of discerning God's voice. Knowing what ways God has already equipped you is step one in testing whether or not the voice you heard was from God, yourself, some author, friend, family member, or Satan himself. It's not the end, but it is without doubt the beginning. Easy on the win-lose debate tone.
Boy... I never thought I'd be getting admonished on my debate tone from Beloved, of all people :-)~
I sympathize with the difficulty of understanding one's calling. I just want to make sure that people aren't choosing a path for ministry the same way they choose a career. There are so, so many examples in the Bible of God picking the least qualified person to fulfill a role, that we have to get away from the "ministry-gifts-assessment" quiz as our primary tool of discernment. The primary thing is one's communication directly with God, coupled with confirmation from wise and godly counselors. Secondarily, I think just about any test you want to use is fine... good, even.
I find it fascinating that you and I have nearly opposite concerns. You are concerned that too many pastors enter 'the ministry' because they perceive themselves as having 'all the right tools for the trade'. I am rather concerned by the fact that far too many churches are ending up at the mercy of ill-equipped, un-called 'pastors' who merely felt a spiritual tingle and decided it was God telling them to be a pastor.
I recently have talked to two pastors, both of whom I have a great deal of respect for. Both of them have been in the ministry for over thirty years. When I asked them about how one knows if they are called to the ministry they gave me the same response:
The ministry is very demanding career choice. Don't go into it unless you have a deep desire to do that and only that. If there is anything else you want to do, then make that your profession.
I thought it was interesting that these two pastors, who work in different churches, in different cities, gave me the same response.
And then I gave you the exact same response about 30 minutes ago. Creepy. Or divine?
Yes, I did notice you stuck with their theme, as well as providing me with a lot more info. Thanks Matt.
Ryan, regarding your observations about video feeds and multisite churches, your point to the effect that there is more to being a good pastor than merely preaching an effective sermon is certainly valid. But the unfortunate truth of the matter is that a lot of pastors have lost sight of that truth, even in large churches where there are no video feeds or multiple sites.
Church growth is generally desirable, but I think it's unhealthy when things get to the point that people in a church perceive that the primary pastor is unapproachable or unavailable. Designating a particular person as "the preacher" can have that effect in any church which is extremely large and which is centered primarily around one pastor.
Often pastors of large churches will defend their inaccessibility by pointing out that one person can only do so much, and that it is essential to delegate responsibilities to others in order to protect the primary pastor from having a nervous breakdown due to overwork. And that's true enough. But such an argument overlooks the personality-centered dynamic which is typically present in most American churches. No matter how many "assistant pastors" a church may have, there is usually one person to whom that particular church looks for leadership. While there are some responsibilities which can easily be delegated to others, there are also times when the main person in charge (generally known as the Senior Pastor) needs to be accessible to every member of that church. That's particularly a problem in a huge multisite church where people very seldom see their pastors in person, but it can be a problem in really large single-site churches as well.
Perhaps what we are looking at is a situation where people are trying to use modern technology in order to perpetuate a model of church leadership which was never truly biblical, and which only works well in relatively small churches.
Is there a model of church leadership which can accommodate virtually infinite growth without creating a situation where people feel a lack of real personal connection to their leaders? Yes, I believe there is, but it requires that people abandon the idea that every local church must be limited to a single Senior Pastor who preaches in the same location week after week and who therefore must resort to gimmicks such as video feeds in order to reach out to those who attend satellite churches.
I think that the goal of rapidly expanding churches should be to cultivate and facilitate the growth of effective leadership teams. And when I use the word "team", I'm using the word in a sense which is more expansive than the sense in which it is used by most churches.
In a large multisite church, Sunday sermons would be preached by members of a team of pastors who rotated from one church to the next on a regular basis, much as the old circuit preachers (such as John Wesley) did. Not only would this introduce an element of freshness and vitality which is missing from many of today's churches, but it would also help to counteract the idolatrous tendency of some churches to act as if any single pastor was indispensable to the success of the church.
Had such a team been in place at New Life Church in Colorado, the personal failures of Ted Haggard would have been far less devastating to that particular church, because he would have merely been one of the many pastors on their team of pastors.
Forming pastoral teams of this type would not prevent pastors from receiving full-time salaries for their work, but it would inhibit them from receiving the excessively high salaries which have caused some pastors to lose perspective and to act as if they are somehow exempt from criticism on account of their positions of leadership and authority. In short, such a structure would encourage pastors to exhibit the spirit of humility and servanthood for which all Christian leaders ought to be known.
Unlike the video feed concept, my idea would offer an increase in opportunities for numerous people to exercise their spiritual leadership abilities, rather than creating a situation in which one person could serve tens of thousands of people without there being any perceptible need for additional pastors or preachers.
Members of such pastoral teams would interact regularly with the members of their congregations, not only by attending a variety of social functions (such as traditional potluck suppers) after church and during the week, but also by participating in online forums and blogs in such a manner as to encourage congregational members to make their pastors a regular part of their lives.
Pastors who don't get regular feedback from the people to whom their sermons are preached tend to lose touch with the concerns of the people to whom they are preaching. In today's era of easy and open communication, there is no excuse for that sort of thing to happen.
If churches did more to encourage regular participation on the part of all members, and if they also gave all members a real voice in the vital decisions which affected their churches, then there might still be a need for certain people to serve as full-time paid administrators, but the roles played by such people would be diminished.
In such a scenario, the idea that Christ is the head of the Church might seem less like a nice but essentially irrelevant philosophical abstraction, and more like a tangible everyday reality.
Very well thought-out, Mark. Thank you... you're right on the money.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home