In our recent pilgrimage of seeing what passes for church in America, Molly and I visited Cross Timbers Church this past week (the Keller Campus). It was very weird for me. Worship was live (and God-honoring), but come time for the sermon, a screen came down and the pastor was projected on it. He preached on sex. It wasn't that great (ouch).
They're quick in assimilation, though. Barely 24 hours after we visited, a girl from Cross Timbers called my cell phone, asking if we enjoyed our visit and if I had any questions. I just had one issue I'm still trying to process through; so I inquired.
Cory: Why isn't a live person preaching? You had a live worship pastor. Why not a teaching pastor?
Carla: Pastor Toby is so gifted that this lets everyone hear him without having to drive to Argyle [their main campus].
Cory: According to the bulletin, the satelite campus we were at takes in over $130,000 per week. I assume you have more than a few pastors on staff, right?
Carla: Oh yes. They're great men of god. They're very down to earth. You'd like them.
Cory: Why doesn't one of them preach? I assume the lead pastor has discipled some of these guys. If he can trust a bunch of different worship pastors (at various campuses), why aren't there a few guys he can trust to teach?
Carla: I'm not qualified to answer that. Can I have someone else call you?
Multi-site church is kind of like franchising a pastor/church via video feed. It enables one charsimatic leader to expand his influence (almost without limit). It enables his church to spread quickly, like a new product brand. If a local church has the cash to set it up, it enables limitless satellite campuses to exist under the authority of a single mother ship, even worldwide (a friend of mine in Portland is in one that projects their pastor to a campus in New Zealand, among others). Oh yeah ... it apprently brings in $$$.
I discovered this 1-minute video on the Cross Timbers web site (Matt Chandler's on it too) 
not just endorsing this new "multi-site" church movement, but presenting Slough and Chandler as new spokesmen/gurus for it. Apparently, it's the way of the future. The two (along with multi-site another pastor from Cali) will host a conference this May where, for a mere $300 per shepherd, they'll teach you how to bless people with video of yourself preaching in satelites from sea to shining sea (Coast 2 Coast).
Maybe I'm behind the times. I see nothing wrong with sermons at the click of a mouse. I'm all for using technology to increase excellence in worship. I just don't see a lot of good coming from this (at the very least, it's encouraging and enabling personality cults).
Something about it just seems wrong ... (I'd love you guys to edify me on this biblically). At our campus, there was virtually no oversight during communion. When the pastor told people to raise their hands if they ever experienced a certain trial, no one did. They knew their pastor was preaching to them live, but they also seemed to know, it really didn't matter what they did, b/c he couldn't hear or see them.
Our experience rated slightly above sitting at home and watching "church" on TV. People could've been having a food fight with the communion elements and the virtual pastor would've just kept on preaching like all was wonderful.
It felt like seeing sheep without a shepherd. The experience is haunting me.
As an aside, Cross Timbers was the third church we've visited inside two months where the children's church experience = a romper room filled with video games, toys, and a couple of adults overseeing the mayhem (contradictory statement, I know). Both Hannah and Judah (who are not dim) strained to tell me a single thing they learned after an hour in their care (other than how to play Wii, that is).
Last month, my nine-year-old son memorized Ephesians 6 ... no thanks to the church.
Hopefully the adults fare better.
13 comments:
Yes, I have friends in the Chicago area that attend a church like this. Fortunately, the times I attended the pastor was actually on that campus. My knee-jerk reaction was the same as yours. Paul traveled around planting churches, but seems to have clearly entrusted the church to trained men. At rock bottom, this seems to be marketing in the church gone horribly wrong. Not to mention, one personality is robbing men gifted by God from fully utilizing their gifts. I am not a fan of the satellite church syndrom!
BTW: I posted the previous comment. -Carisa
boo. that's all i have to say. oh, that and the romper room totally sucks.
This is one of the reasons we now have an "emergent" movement in the Church is people are desiring something besides the marketing driven, charismatic personality up front type of experience.
Cindy and I personally went to one of these fellowships for about 5 years and to be honest I really enjoyed it because:
1) We tied in with a small group that was VERY solid in word and action.
2) The teaching of the Church was strongly biblically based.
3) We were on the main campus and not a satellite.
Perhaps seek out a more intimate fellowship, like a home based group or an emergent based fellowship and see if that fits more into what you are seeking.
Regarding Church govt. I think the single pastor, charismatic leader is not the biblical model. I think the plymouth brethren, Church of Christ have this nailed in that you have a group of elders who shepherd the congregation and no 1 single man has the responsibility of that position but it is shared among a group. The pulpit, funerals and weddings are all shared.
Plymouth brethren aren't even paid, they are either retired or men who still have "secular" jobs and they take turns teaching the congregation.
Eleveates a ton of problems of the pastor lead model.
My random thoughts :)
Roy
alleviates not eleveates :)
Hey... its early!
As I too will chime in on this subject. I think to often the church depends upon the individual leading the church, than Jesus, the reason why were able to meet for church in the first place. When a church becomes centered around an individual, the church is no longer centered upon Christ, even if Christ is preached (or in many cases, only mentioned). To often here many people leaving church saying, "wow, the pastor really made a an interesting point about (you choose the topic) dating." Yet , you ask then what the scriptures stated concerning that subject and they will strain to remember a passage. Now, I am not against people liking a pastor, or the comments a pastor makes, but unless the Holy Word of God makes an impact on our lives through the message preached, then I can listen to a number of individuals through various charitable organizations and walk away with some of the same comments. At some point, unless our churches return to God's Holy Word, and derive our spiritual nutrition from it, we will find many our people in our congregations spiritually, not mention theologically, dead.
Moreover, with the absence of a present shepherd, how are the sheep really cared for, when those who are able to minister are given a back seat to the primary act. The church is not built on an individual, but on the Jesus Christ, who is our head, and the body of Christ, as each member does his or her part. My question to many of these pastors who video themselves into various parts of the county, state, or world, are you that afraid of someone else taking the spot light off you, that you do not trust individuals who are called by God and gifted by God to preach His word, to do it at these satellite campuses? Even Jesus entrusted men with the Gospel, to proclaim His word to people in various parts of the world. Those churches were not pointed to individuals, but Christ.
Well many know which side of the line I fall on. It is not about pointing people to me, or me feeling like I have given people some good words to leave with, it is about me pointing people to Christ and making Him known to them, so that they can make Him known to the world. It is about the church doing what God has called us too, and that is to proclaim Christ crucified for God's ultimate glory. His glory, not mine!
Coming from a pastor who desires to see Christ preached and for men and women to come to Him!
Colby
Sounds like a bad experience. I think you’ve hit on many of the problems with a satellite campus. If the majority of church attendees looked at a Sunday worship service for what it should be according to Acts – just another time of corporate fellowship that should happen several times throughout the week – then I could see some reasoning behind it (though I can’t come up with much of an argument for virtually leading a group through communion!). Then it would simply be akin to a group of Christians learning about the Bible through a video, which is the use of technology to further spread the Gospel.
Unfortunately the vast majority of church attendees see Sunday worship service as “Church”, and therefore it becomes their regularly-scheduled weekly time slot for God to work on them. That’s why people fall in love with personalities instead of the Word, and that’s why there is rampant sin inside and outside of the “church”, and that’s why no one disciples anybody, and that’s why people medicate themselves and settle for lesser treasures than God (idolatry), and that’s why the American “Church” has largely failed, and that’s why we’re having this conversation. The Gospel has to permeate every part of our lives, but people are able to attend a Sunday service today and not be challenged to change, so it’s safe.
There are flip sides to the conversation as always I suppose. If a group truly sees a weekend worship experience with others as what it should be (not as the #1 way we learn about God), and a campus pastor directed everything but didn’t always speak live, I can see the logic behind it. It would be just like me sitting in a big service and watching the large TV screen instead of the tiny figure way up in front. I went to Matt Chandler’s podcast and noticed that since the beginning of the year he has spoken 9 times from his pulpit, and other pastors have spoken 9 times. Hard to accuse him of wanting a cult following. I can’t speak for other church leaders (or even Matt Chandler), but I am more familiar with his church than others – and some of you readers probably attend there and can speak to it better than I. As for the romper room, I would not prefer my kids playing a Wii instead of learning biblical lessons. But then again, it’s not the service’s job to disciple my child any more than it’s the service’s job to disciple me. The faith is so much more than a bunch of services.
I have to respectfully disagree with Roy on one point, however. I personally can’t see how an “emergent” type of gathering is a correct alternative to seek out. I know that the movement is amorphous and rejects labels, etc., but they also largely quote and read a certain type of literature. Many of the sources make grave theological errors that seem to stem from a humanistic (and somewhat arrogant) mindset (i.e. supposing that through their “conversations”, truth will ultimately be seen and recognized). Many say that Scripture is not a meta-narrative, saying that it was written in a certain culture and therefore confined to that culture (Rob Bell) – so sins such as homosexuality need to re-evaluated in our current culture (McClaren). I know this topic is a huge one and probably not for here, but I bring it up to say that it seems a little silly to trade one set of problems (American “church”) for another set of problems (really bad theology and epistemology). Sorry for being reductionistic in dealing with the “emergent” or “emerging” movements. I understand that they’ve seen a problem and are working to fix it, but it seems like a flawed way to fix it – and it will ultimately become a system like any other organized group. I do like the style of government that Roy brings up, and it seems as biblical as any I’ve heard of.
Just some thoughts, I’ve probably written more than the original blog entry!
BTW, I've been to at least 10churches that have "satellite" campuses, and all but one preached a pretty watered down or weak message. I'm (maybe wrongly) assuming the Cross Timbers was the same according to the comments from Cory's blog. Coincidence?
Jay wrote:
I went to Matt Chandler’s podcast and noticed that since the beginning of the year he has spoken 9 times from his pulpit, and other pastors have spoken 9 times. Hard to accuse him of wanting a cult following.
Re. Chandler's having a variety of guest speakers this spring, I cannot comment. Maybe he's been taking a bunch of vacation, speaking elsewhere, or whatever.
To be fair, I don't think I accused him of "wanting a cult following," but rather speculate that is something a satelite movement could enable (if not outright encourage).
From watching the video link of Chandler & Slough endorsing this approach my core question can be summed up in this one, Jay:
"Every benefit you guys describe (not building a mega building, but smaller ones, impacting other communities, creating smaller communal gatherings, casting your ministry vision, etc.) can be accomplished in the traditional church plant model (done since the times of Paul & Timothy). The only distinctive feature of the new (satellite model) is that, at every single church your church plants, you are the preacher.
I hope Jay's correct in that these mens sincerely do not desire to become a personality cult-type figure, an object of hero-worship, or guru of a "denomination" of sorts that revolves around them. If he is, however, it begs the question, "Why not just plant churches" (with a live pastor you can trust to minister to the local flock)?
After all, they accomplish every single benefit you propone, but without requiring you be the centerpiece.
Just to clarify, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if many of the leaders of these churches wouldn't mind being overly adored.
Ok, so as a regular attender of The Village I would like to share some things. First, I want to know if any of you have actually sat under Matt Chandler for any consistent amount of time? Let me just give you some insight of the main reason The Village has a Satellite campus. We have been turning people away at nearly every service, every weekend for a long time now. There were several months of prayer and fasting in order to seek God and know how to resolve the situation so that those that were being turned away could come. They had chosen the Village for a reason and our church wanted to have a way to not have to turn people away. We are right now located in a approx. 700 seat room with 5000 people coming on a weekend with 9 services. (I am approximating as best I can). During this time of prayer a small church from Denton approached us and asked if we could merge. With no purchasing of the building. I am not sure of the logistics, but this church was an answer to prayer because a lot of those that attend The Village were from North of the Lewisville Bridge. So now a lot of the people that were driving to Highland Village are now just going to the Denton campus so that they can get plugged into their community. They realize it's not about Matt, it's about investing in lives in their community. This is our Satellite campus if that's what you want to call it. We didn't want to go into debt in order to spread the gospel of Christ. Just listen to his pod-casts. He agrees with you that church is not on sundays, he is a motivator, it is our job to have a relationship with Christ and it's not about him. He also tells that it is not our job to teach your children but to equip us as parents to invest in their lives and teach our own kids about the gospel. I work with the children at The Village and we are sharing Christ without entertainment. But you wouldn't know that because you haven't been.
Recently, we finally after much hesitation bought the Albertsons building near our small building because we just can't fit. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. We are worshipping and fellow-shipping with other believers. We bought the building with cash from all of us giving till it hurt. Our church doesn't want debt, so we didn't accrue any. Over the next year we will renovate and move in and must pay for the renovations in 3 years. No debt beyond that. All this to say, Matt's entire teaching is about the gospel of Christ and living out the transformation of our souls through Christ.
Now I didn't go to seminary, all I have is a child like faith and know that I passionately love Jesus Christ. So I don't mean to get in a theological debate, but all I can do is judge the fruits of a ministry. I am so sad that you are so worried about the legalism of church that you are willing to find flaws in every church you go to and don't go to. I may not speak eloquently, but I do know that God is doing amazing things at The Village and what I am seeing and a part of there is bleeding through to my family. I am diving deeper because Christ shows up. It doesn't matter if Matt is there or not, lives are being change.
I understand that not all Satellite churches have the proper reasoning for the satellite campuses, but don't judge their reasoning until you know the facts of why they have them. I can't speak for any other churches but ours. If you are fine with listening to a pod-cast in your own home, I see no difference in using the technology on a screen. There is no difference in the intimacy of either.
I don't think you will ever be happy with a church until you are able to go without a hidden agenda to find the faults. I am so sorry that you have been hurt by the church. If it's that bad, start your own. Just don't judge us for worshiping corporately. It's not fair.
In reference to Colby....
This is what The Village is doing. This is what MAtt Chandler is doing. Only teaching the scriptures. Never straying from that. His goal is to point people to Christ and make Him known to them.
All this that I have said in this response and the previous, is to defend a church that should not be generalized to a mega-church with a satellite campus. I realize Colby did not himself target The Village, but Cory did. Just because he is in that video. His heart tis to get equip us to share Christ. to equip other pastors to share Christ. This is why the conferences.
We go to the Village Denton Campus and a year and a half ago we would have totally written off any church remotely sponsoring a satellite campus or a satellite campus itself. I am not of the opinion that all satellite campuses are "good," nor are all "bad." We really like the Village (Denton) ... big screen coming down from the ceiling and all ... although that is not the focus for us. Here are some positives that we have found (in no particular order): we are more separated from "pastor worship" since he is not right there (no offense meant towards anyone who goes to the Village HV campus just saying that it is easy, for me at least, to be in a pastor fan club versus the Jesus fan club); we actually have a local campus pastor that preaches when the lead pastor does not, so he tailors the time to challenge our local church which has a distinctly different demographic than the Village HV campus ... no communion craziness Cory :o) ... so we benefit from a teacher (lead pastor) and a shepherd (campus pastor) on a regular basis; it is both a smaller local church with small groups, ministries, etc, which also utilizes some of the resources of the Highland Village campus, too, which saves a lot of money and allows the Village to have a surprisingly small budget. My impression (probably being judgmental, yes) of some other area churches is to build a name for themselves and bring the masses. I would like to think that in some meeting somewhere this was not actually discussed, "Hey, Bob let's get really rich and build a huge name for ourselves, and make the huge-est church ever." Or maybe that is my eternal optimist coming through. Anyway back to my point ... I would like to think that meeting never actually happened, but when churches get side tracked by being attracted to big numbers, big buildings, big programs all for the sake of "big-ness" without having Christ being the center, focus, and most sought-after One, then their initial focus of Jesus has been lost, sadly. Because their initial focus was Jesus, I would like to think. I think some churches will be larger in size, some will be smaller in size. In our crazy long quest to find a church, we saw that none are perfect (probably because we are not) and there are a lot of different ways to do things. We saw some things done unbiblically, some things just done differently. I think the measure of "success" for satellite campus churches (since we are talking about them) is measured by how each individual is impacted by Christ in their daily lives. People showing up does not equal success. Many sites does not equal success. A huge budget does not equal success. Tons of programs does not equal success. Lots of income does not equal success. For us the Village Denton has really challenged us to live out Christ everyday with those around us and the Lord has really given us some neat people to love on and serve. It has worked for us because Christ is preached, He is the focus, and His life is the vision ... so He is the standard ... not Matt or Beau (campus pastor) or any other staffer. It has worked for us and at this location, but I definitely agree that the trend of satellite churches raises some interesting questions. Just my thoughts, not a theologian or anything.
Thanks for all the feedback you guys. Re. my sister in Christ who took offense, I didn't intende to target the Village (never mentioned it, actually). I simply hoped to discuss a new development in American Christianity that has obvious practial advantages, but potential dangers as well.
I appreciate passion for one's local church and protectiveness of its pastor. My heart is similar (and what spurred this blog). I love Christ and am passionately protective of His universal body.
I'm all for churchplanting. I'm also for the preaching of Christ in any way, by anyone, in any arena, form, or medium. My point was more about the fact that, just because something makes practical sense and people like it doesn't mean it's God's best or spiritually healthy longterm.
The more I've prayed and thought about this, I think (hope?) the church can do better than broadcast any one preacher to multiple sites. JMHO. An ideal pastor (like Jesus, Paul) disciples his staff specifically to send them out to lead. This model takes away the need for that. I think it also overemphasizes the importance of a single personality (multiple churches tuning in to one man), even if he has great gifting, insights, and wisdom.
Just FYI. We visited a church this morning (in Colleyville) that took intersting approach to the multiple campus strategy. They planted other churches (Frisco, Roanoke, Valley Ranch), supported the plant staff, shared resources, leadership, vision, ministry philosophy, and even preaching schedule, but each campus had its own teaching pastor (no video feed). Interestingly, each also could choose its own church name. The necessary connections (and a few optional, IMO) remained in place, but no central personality or local church brand name needed. It was about ministry (as all are, granted), but without the "franchise"-type system going on.
As you all know, I don't have any authority or answers. I'm just in the journey with y'all. My blog is just my thoughts, for good or ill. All are imperfect, but I hope you know my heart ... to glorify Jesus Christ and Him alone.
And in this culture, my friends, that's harder than it sounds.
by His grace,
Cor
Post a Comment