Ok, I know I should leave this one alone. I have discussed video teaching as a tool to reach people for Christ and to help people grow up in their faith in books, blogs and social media so there is really no reason to address it again. But my old friend (whom I've never met) Bob Hyatt has brought it up again. He is preparing to debate Larry Osborne at the Multi-site 2.0 Conference in St. Louis in September and he's previewing some of his arguments on his blog. Let me jump on two of his main points.
First Bob says that the video venue question is a biblical one. I have searched my handy-dandy Strong's Concordance and I can't find video venues anywhere in there. I don't know Greek or Hebrew, but the Bible seems pretty quiet on what color paper we print the bulletin on, whether we can use an overhead projector to display the words to the hymns or how close the speaker should stand to his audience when he speaks. (Inches? Feet? Miles?)
Paul did not seem to be a major proponent of the supremacy of in-person teaching (a phrase coined in the "seminal text" on multi-site according to Bob) He repeatedly asked that his letters be read (READ?) to different churches in different cities. So if reading Paul's letters (as opposed to Paul coming in person and reading his letters) is acceptable, how far down this slippery slope would Paul be willing to travel? Would it be acceptable, if the technology was available, for the church at Ephesus to photocopy Paul's letter and send a copy to the church at Galatia? If Paul had had a Flip HD is it possible that he would have simply spoken to the Corinthians while Sosthenes held the camera? Would there have been anything inherently sinful if the Thessalonians would have popped in a DVD of Paul on Sunday instead of reading his letter?
If papyrus was an acceptable alternative to live teaching, why would video be forbidden? If video would be ok for Paul, would it have been ok for Timothy? For Silas? What if Luther posted his 95 theses on YouTube rather than defacing the Wittenberg door; would the Reformation have been unbiblical?
Bob's second main point is that the medium is the message. That puts all of us in a world of trouble. When was the last time you read the Ten Commandments in the original granite? Have you ever tried to load the Dead Sea scrolls on your iPhone? Mediums change all of the time. The Guttenberg Press was a huge change in the medium. Xerox changed the medium. The internet changed the medium. Video changes the medium. The medium will ALWAYS change, the message never changes. The message is the Gospel, the medium is merely a vehicle.
Will video teaching have unintended consequences? Yes. Can video teaching be used to inflate already over-inflated egos? Yes. Can video teaching lead to a lack of development of preachers? Yes. These, however, are not medium questions, these are leadership questions. An effective leader does not hesitate at the gates of hell to study all of the possible contingencies before making a move. An effective leader will follow Paul's example and "use all means that I might save some."
Well said sir....well said.
Posted by: Ernest | July 18, 2009 at 09:24 PM
I can't believe people with computer technology are still debating this non-issue....
Posted by: Doug McGarity | July 18, 2009 at 09:33 PM
Good response, though.
Posted by: Doug McGarity | July 18, 2009 at 09:34 PM
Geoff,
Excellent as usual. I have another problem with Mr. Hyatt's post, specifically in the area of losing all the preachers. I'm calling it "The-Pepsi-Challenge Assumption." (At least for tonight--and I borrowed the illustration from Gladwell.)
Just because a trend is moving a certain direction (like the video venues are growing rapidly) doesn't mean it will swallow all its "competitors".
When Pepsi started doing the Pepsi Challenges in malls, their market share skyrocketed--and peaked just below 50%. Turns out over 50% still liked Coke no matter what Pepsi did.
I don't know what the ceiling is for video venues, but I really doubt 80% of Americans would prefer video Perry Noble/Greg Surratt/Craig Groeschel to a live speaker, even if there is a skill discrepancy. My guess is it will never top 60%, leaving plenty of room for Joe Preacher boy to hone his skills (even if we grant the mistaken assumption that video multi-sites aren't developing speakers).
Posted by: Steve Davis | July 18, 2009 at 09:39 PM
Besides the fact that there is ALWAYS room for more preachers EVERYWHERE. It's not like it's a limited "Market"
Posted by: Betsy Clark | July 18, 2009 at 09:48 PM
You should write late more often. Well said my friend!
Posted by: johnatkinson | July 18, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Whoa! Stirred the pot- that's good!
Would Paul have spoken by video to Corinth? Undoubtedly!
Would he have done so every week, replacing the teaching ministry of their local elders? *Not a chance.* (BTW- read the earliest descriptions of Christian gatherings- they say that what happened was a reading of the apostles words followed by an exposition by a local elder)
You are assuming that what can be done technologically and even probably should be done occasionally stands up as a model for the main teaching ministry of the church- I'm saying it doesn't.
And this is why it's a biblical issue! Paul directed the churches he planted to appoint elders- elders who had a qualification of "able to teach." Video Venues are (in my opinion) bad ecclesiology- and while you are searching the Scriptures in vain for mention of them, what I am saying is not that they are forbidden, but that they fail to get to what is prescribed- local leadership, and the gifts of more and more people (in this case teachers) being utilized and developed.
And don't just write off McLuhan's insight by saying "the message will always stay the same." It deserves a bit more thoughtfulness than that. Video Venues DO change the message in very real ways- You admit as much:
"Will video teaching have unintended consequences? Yes. Can video teaching be used to inflate already over-inflated egos? Yes. Can video teaching lead to a lack of development of preachers? Yes. These, however, are not medium questions, these are leadership questions. An effective leader does not hesitate at the gates of hell to study all of the possible contingencies before making a move. An effective leader will follow Paul's example and "use all means that I might save some."
Actually, an effective leader will be smart enough not to trade short-term gain for long-term health. It's a medium/message question in that it communicates something very serious about who can teach, and what leadership means/looks like in the local community. If video venue teaching will, by your own admission, have unintended consequences, inflate egos and stifle development of others, it IS a message issue (those are pretty serious things to "say" with your model). Maybe there are EQUALLY EFFECTIVE ways of "making a move" that will see the same numbers of people reached with the gospel and yet NOT rebound to the longer term harm of the church.
But thanks for some great quotes! :)
And looking forward to meeting in person one of these days!
Posted by: Bob Hyatt | July 19, 2009 at 06:52 AM
I have to disagree with the comment about medium and message. As Shane Hipps points out in Flickering Pixels, the message changes all the time, along with the medium. The fact that we are using video as a medium changes the message. The Gospel is different to people living in slavery than it is to rich white men living in mansions. Paul preached a very different message than Jesus preached. The message changes as people change. We are God's chosen medium - often times, the medium is the message.
Posted by: Sam Mahlstadt | July 19, 2009 at 12:19 PM
All I know is that people in my community have come to faith in Jesus through video teaching. That's as smart as I can sound.
Posted by: Brett | July 19, 2009 at 05:31 PM
Well said Geoff! I think Seacoast addresses these issues in three ways:
1. Video Campuses with teaching by the Senior Pastor and the Seacoast Teaching Team.
2. Live teachings within the Seacoast venues allowing the younger elders to develop their teaching skills. This sometimes leads to ...
3. Church plants birthed out of the Seacoast team. Live teaching by the elder (pastor). Charlotte & Chattanooga are live, growing vibrant churches that do not depend upon a weekly video message.
Posted by: Kathy Roseborough | July 19, 2009 at 07:07 PM
I completely disagree with Bob's assertion that "the Kingdom of God is not a pragmatic realm." Short of sinful methods, I believe we should be as pragmatic as possible and I think we're in pretty good company with Paul under that banner. I think people like Bob are completely missing the point to think that Paul's concern was having enough preachers to fill the churches! The issue for Paul, and for us today, is are the people who come into our churches encountering the word of God, and are they able to walk out changed by God's word? Are there leaders in place to help disciple these folks into Christ-like maturity? And the answer to these questions at my video campus is absolutely yes!! I disagree that Paul wouldn't have let video take the place of live preachers, as long as the function of God's word being presented and "exposited" was taking place, he would have been all for it!
The fact that there are dangers associated with video venues is a horrible argument to oppose them. There are dangers in every ecclesiastical system! I arrived at Seacoast as a member and volunteer 2 years ago having spent the previous 5 years in full time ministry, preaching LIVE every Sunday. I had my doubts about the whole video thing, but I believed in the vision of Seacoast. I can say that it took very little time for me to "adjust" at my video campus and 2 years later, i don't question it a bit! I've seen the results, people are coming to Christ, people are being discipled every day, leaders are being raised up in ministry, and I believe with all my heart that God, Jesus, and Paul are looking down and smiling at what Seacoast and many other churches, video or not, are doing across this world!
Posted by: Roy Jacques | July 19, 2009 at 07:09 PM
Great post Geoff...Video is a GREAT tool...we are a video campus and I preach live about 15x's a year...right now we are doing a Deja Vu series at our campus (we had our people pick 4 messages out of a group of 12 from the past 2 years) Yesterday we had a message from 2 years ago...5 people gave their lives to Jesus after the message! It was video...it was "old"...and God showed up!
Posted by: Tim | July 20, 2009 at 07:48 AM
Think about this... At Seacoast our CPs teach on the weekend about 5-6 times a year. They also teach every First Wednesday and most of us lead at least one LifeGroup which meets weekly. So for each campus, the CP is teaching a minimum 70 times per year in some form. Multiply that times 13 campuses and you have over 900 teaching opportunities by campus pastors. And that doesn't include all of the discipleship and leadership things we do as well.
If you want live teaching, it's there. A lot of it. So I have to disagree that video teaching replaces teaching at the local level. In fact, it is a huge multiplier of the teaching ministry of the church as a whole.
Posted by: Brett | July 20, 2009 at 09:45 AM
"Non-issue?" Bro, that is simply naive. I'm with Bob that there are serious implications not merely for leadership but for community and for mission. It is axiomatic from a social-organizational perspective that the medium impacts the message, so there is much at stake. In an obvious parallel, the lenses we use influence what we see and the questions we ask impact the answer. All this has been de facto since Heisenberg: there are no neutral observers and no neutral media.
Posted by: len hjalmarson | July 20, 2009 at 04:39 PM
I've read all of the thoughts and I think both arguments have great points...We are a one year old ARC plant that is launching a second campus and just taught our first series through video teaching and 17 people gave their lives to Jesus over 3 weeks. We are a church in New England and I must admit I was nervous having a video location in an area where it's not being done...but NOT anymore!
Personally I think the debate mentioned at the multi-site 2.0 conference is beyond pointless...I recognize that usually "churched" people read our blogs, but if we don't think this same attitude of division doesn't leaks out within our churches in other areas, we're wrong. WHO CARES...if you don't like the multi-sire idea, don't do it...People are going to burn for an eternity, so let's stop arguing about how to reach them and all follow our convictions and do something! I know one thing: Paul cared too much about the Gospel to pervert it with division.
On a side note...What Seacoast is doing for Jesus is AWESOME!
Posted by: Joshua Gagnon | July 22, 2009 at 11:31 AM
I just think we need to be aware of the negatives and not assume there are no drawbacks. Jesus is the savior, not video venues. There are limits but there are benefits (like finding good preaching for churches on a fill in basis for cheap if you us Lifechurch.tv Open).
Posted by: Dan S. | July 22, 2009 at 01:26 PM
Geoff,
No response to Bob Hyatt? Why?
John
Posted by: John | July 22, 2009 at 06:08 PM
There are many pastors in Third World countries, the mission field, whose only teaching comes from video tapes brought to them by the visiting missionaries. I've never seen any of them object to video teaching. They thank God for the Gospel anyway they can get it. I think I'll just keep doing what I'm doing and let the Lord minister to them through video and audio tapes. Keep up the good work Seacoast. My husband and I are surely blessed being a part of Seacoast.
Posted by: Jude Lesemann | January 05, 2010 at 01:48 PM