I've pasted below a blog entry from Carl Trueman. Trueman is a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary. I found the article to be incredibly insightful. I'd love to hear some of your insights.
Sincerely,
Mark Evans
Is the Reformation nearly over? Perhaps, but maybe not for the reason you think, (Carl Trueman)
Reformation21 Blog 9/25/11 12:04 PM
Time was that the megachurch was not highly thought of by those who claimed the name Reformed or looked to the Reformation for their historical inspiration. This was consistent with two basic concerns which had high priority for the Reformers: as opposition to things such as pluralities (ministers holding multiple appointments) and absenteeism (ministers not actually ever being where they ministered); and the fear of turning leaders into fetishes.
Reforming pastoral ministry along these lines was a hallmark of Reformation Protestantism. It had, after all, started with a pastoral problem and rapidly became an issue of the nature of church authority. In the process, the importance of putting educated ministers who could articulate the faith and offer pastoral nurture to the people was never far from the centre of concern.
On the whole, that lasted until about five to ten years ago when, all of a sudden, megachurches started to arise which sounded a bit like the Protestant Reformers, at least in the buzzwords and catchphrases they use. Now, strange to tell, there are actually debates going on in small 'r' reformed circles about whether pluralities and absenteeism (today known as multi-site ministries) are a good thing or not.
This is clearly antithetical to the ecclesiological concerns of the Reformation. The lack of pastoral care such multi-sites engender is common knowledge. Further, the whole idea seems clearly to turn certain preachers into fetishes. Medieval Catholics liked to obtain the body, or even just a fragment, of a saint for their church building in order to make it an authentic church, or a better church than the one in the neighbouring town (see. the undignified fight for the corpse of St. Anthony of Padua; today we need a virtual piece of a famous preacher in our locale to have access to the magic.
The cost is high: the Reformers predicated pastoral care (from preaching to personal interaction) on having local knowledge of local people. They feared cults of personality (which they saw as leading to the idolatrous medieval veneration of the saints) so much that they actively discouraged them and did not simply play the `Nothing to do with me, guv' card when they arose.
Further, they were too busy training people to go to places where there was no Reformation witness to have found the idea of church planting on the doorstep of faithful churches to be an attractive idea - let alone to do so in a way that would have brought no personal discomfort or cost to themselves but caused great frustration and distress to other decent saints. I have become aware of a number of `ordinary' (sic) pastors recently - good men, solid preachers, diligent churchmen - whose ministries have been seriously harmed by the arrival of `videolink' ministries of big names in their locales.
Yes, these particular local pastors are decent preachers. Do not fob me off with the lazy argument 'Well, small churches often have boring preachers' gambit -- that is sometimes the case, it is true; but let us be honest -- some of today's biggest reformed names spend more pulpit time telling jokes and talking about themselves than preaching the biblical text; they may not be boring and they may fill the house to the rafters but a twenty minute sermon should not take fifty minutes to deliver (and, as an aside, is it not time somebody of influence in such circles pointed that out?).
Yet these small church pastors can only offer their people hard work and the need for real get-your-hands-dirty commitment. By contrast, the video hook-up brings the fetish to town and makes no few demands upon anyone beyond the tech guy, the head of physical plant and the local praise band. In today's consumer world, there is no doubt who has the more attractive product to sell. Presumably the cancer wards will offer similar video link-ups when members of the virtual congregation lie dying and in need of final comfort.
This is not reformation in any way that the sixteenth and seventeenth century Reformers would have understood it. It is rather the kind of thing against which they were reacting, and that with passion.
The problem with the way `Reformed' is often used today is that it divorces certain things (typically the five, or more often, four points of Calvinism) from the overall Reformation vision of pastoral care, church worship, Christian nurture and all-round approach to ministry. The Bible becomes sufficient for the doctrines of grace; but what works, what pulls in the punters, becomes the criterion for everything else, especially ecclesiology and pastoral practice.
I have noted before how grateful I am that my sons grew up in churches where the pastor knew their names, chatted to them after the service and even stood on the occasional touchline or track to cheer them on at school sports events. If they ever abandon the faith, it will not be because they never knew the pastor cared for them as individuals, rather than just as mere concepts or numbers or pixels on a two way videolink. I am also grateful that my pastors really cared about my wife and me, prayed for us regularly by name and, I am sure, even occasionally shaped parts of their sermons to give a word of needed encouragement and to help us with trials through which they knew we were going. These pastors were not perfect -- far from it; but they were at least actually there, really available and genuinely concerned. In short, they tried to embody true Reformation -- biblical! -- church leadership.
The Reformation was about more than a doctrinal insight into justification; it was also about abolishing the fetishisation of certain great figures as if they possessed some special magic and about instituting an ideal of educated, personal, local ministry. Maybe the Reformation is nearly over; and maybe it is Benedictine Catholicism but actually the new reformation, with its multi-sites and its rvirtual pastors, that is finishing it off. That is quite a sobering and ironic thought.
the argument for video preachers? (supposedly) good teaching.
ReplyDeletearguments against? i'm with this guy, i think there are plenty. they outweigh the good.
I agree more and more
ReplyDeleteYou know I've only been to a "video-sermon" church once. To be completely honest, at that time I didn't even know they existed, and to this day I'm surprised that they are becoming more common. I guess I was just unaware that this is somehow a thriving endeavor by Christians. I suppose they may cite Paul's letters as a support for this type of ministry, noting that he was not actually present when his letters were read to other churches (Collosians 4:16). It just amazes me that people think that they can pastor a church without actually knowing the individuals IN the church. More and more I'm having a hard time understanding how these 'mega-churches' are truly Biblical, in terms of actually obeying the guidelines laid out in Scripture for the local body (church discipline, accountability, fellowship, etc). I know for most churches that would be considered mega-churches, they highly encourage invidivuals to join small groups. Also, I recently heard a very well-known pastor, who I have such respect and love for, say that because the church at Antioch was so large, the Bible supports huge churches. All in all, I think I would have to agree with Nate that the reasons to oppose this type of 'video preaching' probably outweigh those in support of it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMark Culton said... This is certainly a provocative article. While I agree with some of the observations made here, I think it is unfair to compare these churches to the Roman Catholic system that the Reformation fought against. That is a bit of a leap. It is true that multi-site churches have to guard against pastoral idolatry. However, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with this model provided the campus is in the process of becoming a church plant (which is the vision of some). As far as daily care of the people, any good multi-site church will have a campus pastor whose focus is this. Truth is, a small hometown church where a pastor has his hands in everything is just as susceptible to pastoral idolatry - I've experienced that.
ReplyDeleteFrom Thabiti's blog:
ReplyDeleteOkay, that title is homage to James MacDonald, who says congregationalism is from Satan and whom I had the privilege of spending a couple days with at the recent 9marks @ Southeastern Conference. During the Baptist21 Panel, our moderator stirred up a bit of a hornet’s nest by asking me what I thought about multi-site churches. Why me? I thought. Mark Dever is sitting right there. He loves talking about this stuff. Aww… man. Ask me about basketball.
So, after I finished my pity party, I answered my brother’s question, stated something like: “Thabiti, what arguments for multi-site have you found persuasive?” My articulate response: “Uh, none.”
Okay, this should be the end of the post. But because I’m in the Miami airport and the people-watching has become a bit weird, I think I’d rather invite you all to my misery and discovery.
Idolatry
At bottom, I think the kind of multi-site churches (realizing there are a few different approaches) that feature one pastor being beamed into several sites around a region—and in some cases around the country or world—is simply idolatry. It’s certainly cult of personality multiplied and digitized for a consumer audience. As a brilliant young man remarked to me this morning, “The pastor now becomes the new icon in the midst of the Protestant worship service.” I think that’s well said. Video multi-site tends to idolatry, pride, and self-promotion—even where the ambition of spreading the gospel is genuine. In other words, the ends do not justify the means because some of the ends produced will undoubtedly be odious in God’s sight.
You can read more of his thoughts on this topic at http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2011/09/27/multi-site-churches-are-from-the-devil/
ReplyDelete