We don’t generally watch movies or TV shows because we respect or want to know the personal character of the actors. We watch because we are attracted by their beauty, talent, or celebrity.

This statement may be generally true, but I don't see a clean connection to the use of video in a church setting. Does this mean that all (or even most) who attend satellite church campuses and view the speaker on a monitor are doing so because they're attracted to the beauty/talent/celebrity of the speaker? Isn't it possible that they're attracted primarily to the content of the message?

And I don't understand how viewing the sermon "live" has any bearing on one's ability to assess the character of the speaker (using the example from the article). What if I sit in the balcony and view the speaker with the aid of a video screen? Does this reinforce celebrity, though I share a building with the speaker? It seems absurd to even ask the question, but where is the line? And don't most people seeking to be near celebrity strive to attend live performances over video? I'd much rather attend a live concert than to view one on a movie screen.

I can appreciate a concern about attraction to celebrity over character, and this is certainly a relevant issue. I just don't see how the medium alters the message in this particular instance.

Surely this critique also applies to mega churches, where the congregation is so large, personal knowledge of the ministers character becomes impossible for many Church members?

Excellent observations. I am one of an apparent minority who has misgivings about the central place of technology in our worship. Certainly, it has a place, but I think not a central place. I find it disconcerting that our music must be electronic and loud, and our sermons decorated with PowerPoint, and that there is little place in our services for us to hear the still, small voice of God.

Being a part of a church that has a video venue, I have found the following to be true in our experience as well as that of many others. We are not in a big city, do not have gobs of money and so I feel the need to debunk some common myths in the above article...

MYTH: Video is really a change in having one speaker in many places:
TRUTH is that one pastor for multiple parishes existed in America long ago. (ie. circuit riders)

MYTH: You cannot know the character of someone on a screen
TRUTH: Leaders in smaller churches can hide just as easily their character.

MYTH: Giftedness, talent and looks are over played in video venues.
TRUTH: The results of the gift, the fruit of lives changed, really does matter.

MYTH: You need a lot of money to do video venues
TRUTH: It costs WAY LESS than planting a church and EVEN MORE less than building a building. It is good stewardship for many to do it.

MYTH: Media itself is message and only promotes celebrity.
TRUTH: Media is SIMPLY A TOOL, and can be used for accomplishing our mission of reaching people for Christ.

I understand that we need to consider the advantages and disadvantages of any medium we use to carry out the great commission. Certainly, technology provides us with a temptation to surround ourselves with constant noise and input.

We need silence. We need to listen for the still small voice, like Hipps says.

But I just don't believe the medium determines the message. The message is the foundation. The medium is the whipped cream--to borrow the strange analogy.

God's Word can thrive in any medium.

I think it is more a matter of how strong the church community is, and the depth of it's fellowship that has had a direct impact on the church altogether.
If the congregation isn't in a strong fellowship, and love is a ideal concept much chatted about but never practiced...yeah, there are larger problems in that church besides who the messenger is, and how his message delivered.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Paul discussed this in his letters to Rome and Corinth.

Wow, where do I begin?

Okay, first - - unless we are willing to put every single element of "doing church" under the same microscope, it's best to quit pointing fingers... should we NOT teach children the Bible using CREATIVE VBS and Sunday school materials in FEAR that they will idolize the creative elements? And, what about contemproary praise music, for goodness sakes? It is RAMPANT in churches and, in many cases, if a church is NOT utilizing a cutting-edge praise band, with words and images flashing on a screen, accomapnied by special effects (yes, this occurs) then you are viewed as OUTDATED or NOT WITH THE TIMES. Speaking of worship - my area of expertise and knowledge - I'm getting a little tired of phrases such as "Top" or "Best" Worship Leaders... huh?

The issue of pastors on screens is SOOOOOO tiny compared to some much more dangerous issues facing the church today which are actually churning out idol after idol - -

Last time I checked, God is not "hip" on idols.

I, for one, wish that powerpoint was banned in all churches. It encourages people to pay attention to the screen and not the speaker, neglect their Bibles (why bring my Bible when the passage is on the screen each week?), and many times is just plain tacky if not absurdly cheesey.

"The media is the message." - Marshal McLuhan (from a speech given in the 1960s)

you all should read Neil Postman's "Teaching as Subversive Art" and "Technopoly."

Shane is definately on to a serious accomodation many church gatherings are falling in to.

The author said; “Character requires some personal knowledge of one another.” Who says? We certainly can tell a tree by its fruit but that doesn’t necessarily mean personal knowledge, in could mean observation. My character is known by many who are not close to me because of the fruit of my life. My character is confirmed by those who know me well but can be observed and deciphered by distant and close observers. Our task is to examine fruit not people. Can we be wrong in our examination? Sure but most often we are not that far off in our observations, especially if we understand what fruit is. I would even venture to say that we are more likely to get our knowledge of character wrong when we look at a person instead of fruit.

Graham’s are you implying that personal knowledge of the pastor is the standard we should strive for within the leadership of a church? If so you raise an impossible standard once a church exceeds 150 people. I certainly believe that every pastor needs to have sheep that know his voice but not necessarily know every sheep by name and smell.

I am in a growing and exciting church right now and I cannot possibly know every person or be known by every person that is a part of my church. It is my job to equip the leaders to build the structure whereby every sheep has the ability to be shepherded, not to personally shepherd every last person in my church. I will never be known fully by all those who are in my church nor am I best suited to shepherd all who are settled in my church. We have other pastors, lay leaders who do a much better job at this with many people than me.

Rich
I like your way of setting out your ideas - very clear and concise, and a good critique of the article.
I do wonder though if circuit preachers were ever ideal or biblical.

John, thanks for pointing out that quote from Marshal McLuhan. In an interesting variation, he named his 1967 book, The Medium is the Massage

I still don't agree that "the medium is the message." For me, that saying is a good punchy soundbite, but it becomes problematic when we treat it like a universal truth.

I like another of McLuhan's statements a lot more. He said, "We shape our tools and they in turn shape us." That is a good reminder that our communication tools serve different purposes--whether music or genre or technology. We ignore those purposes at our peril. But our message will always be stronger than our tools--if our message is pure and true and from God.

Here's my general beef against technology in worship, or in our personal lives for that matter. What people did without for centuries has now become a necessity. Its that simple. As each "necessity" becomes accepted we end up adding more and more elements to already complete structures, and stress results. Technology will continue to encroach upon every area in which no boundaries are set. Simplicity is not valued anymore, information and sensory overload are.

"We fail to perceive the unintended consequences of our decisions and the ways our media undermines our message."

This is just plain truth.

As for circuit riding preachers being biblical we would go back to the first century when there would be many churches in a city with few pastors, so a letter from an apostle would be read via a circuit riding preacher. Throughout church history, across the world today there are simply not enough resources (preachers, transportation, money etc) to resource every individual community of faith. My pastor friend in India pastors a few different churches and he has several pastors under his care who also do the same. I pastored 2 different churches at the same time during one stretch of my ministry. Be careful not to apply a standard of biblical to something the bible is silent on and history affirms.

The video venue (VV) is not leaving a group of people with only a TV preacher. It’s not like there is a group of people who are not being shepherded. Every VV that I know of builds a pastoral and ministry team for the site. These leaders provide shepherding and care for the site. The site does not look to the “preacher” for shepherding on a personal basis. The “teacher” is only a small portion of the VV as the goal is to create a community of faith with the same healthy values of the parent church, that will impact a neighboring area. This facilitates people bringing others to their church who might not make a 35 minute drive but would a 5 minute jaunt. It facilitates connection so people can be in small groups near their homes, with people they gather together with on Sunday.

Ideal? Time will tell us but IMO this venue has not been around long enough to weigh it sufficiently. Practical? Seems to be. Effective? Seems to be. Lets observe and see.

i've begun to wonder lately if preaching itself isn't what's outdated. i'd ask any of you to tell me what you believe among the barrage of comments we face from people today through EVERY medium. i am 45, and i am always cynical of "truths" and "facts" that are presented to me; i believe my kids' generation will be even more doubting. simply put, we want to be more in a discussion and a reasonable examination of what is on the table, not spoonfed or browbeaten with one person's view of a message. how do we change church to accomodate that? authority figures are held in less and less esteem than they were in my parents' generations - and, personally, i'm somewhat glad. and while it doesn't have to stoop to the level of whether or not the pastor (or Jesus) wears boxers or briefs, i believe the issues of today deserve to have more than one side presented and examined. i believe the days of everyone sitting and listening to one person's view and then walking out quietly are numbered.

For various reasons, I have attended at least 100 churches over the past 10 years of every size and denomination. The thing that matters most is the content of the message and the obedience of the congregation to God's truth. While I recognize the importance of style and of the "how we do things", it is still more important to impart the truth from the pulpit and follow-up with accountability on the part of the congregation than it is to have a BIG church. Let's face it, repentance and obedience (even for believers) is never popular stuff. That's why Paul kept reminding the early churches not to get sidetracked.

What McLuhan's quote gets at is that the medium unavoidably contextualizes the message. In this case, the message is presented in an entertainment context--a pervasive and familiar one for Americans. I think what Hipps is calling for is sober realization of that context.

The TV context runs much deeper than you think in our culture. Celebrity has become a new religion. And TV is not only an entertainment medium, it is also our primary advertising medium. So you have another context ever present--the consumer context.

Of course the Word rises above all, but don't let that be a cop out for not more thoughtfully considering the ways in which we communicate the Word. Maybe we would be better served in finding ways to take people away from the distortion and noise of entertainment and consumerism to a more pure experience of Christ and His body. Impossible? I'd like to think it's not.

I have experienced a suburban mega-aspiring church's plan to roll this out to "venues" where there are already several established churches--even of its own denomination. I question their intentions. I question the use of Kingdom resources to spread "brand X" of the Gospel in a suburban culture already rife with other brand choices (all basic evangelical Christianity). That's the situation I think needs some serious analysis. Using video for mission churches in other cultures is a completely different animal, and is an approach much akin to the circuit riders of history. The suburban American video venue church is more akin to localized televangelism or reality TV than circuit preachers.

i fear we are all growing more voyeuristic in every aspect of our privileged north american lives. We eat dinner with ross, monica, joey chandler and phoebe and check in with greorge, jerry, elaine and kramer before bedtime. virtual relationships retarding the ability to make real relationships with real people.

hi-tech driven churches can compound the actual isolation many of us feel.

on the one hand, i want to see the gospel shared in every way possible. to quote the apostle, “but what does it matter? the important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. and because of this i rejoice. yes, and i will continue to rejoice …(philippians 1:18)

on the other … i think eugene peterson had it right in his “subversive spirituality” that what folks want from church is a feeling of transcendence (God’s presence) and friendship (with other live human beings). that’s what i want. so i think that to the extent that technology aids in the achieving of these two goals bring it on … to the extent that it aborts them --- can it.

Mike Rucker wrote, "i've begun to wonder lately if preaching itself isn't what's outdated." I wholeheartedly agree. I have been struggling with this issue for some time and have reached a similar conclusion. One-way communication is becoming less common in other areas of life (entertainment, industry, academe). Perhaps a similar change is occurring in the church. Some people may be growing tired of listening to an "expert" give a speech every week. Maybe this is why the house church movement is gaining traction according to some observers.

One medium that was challenged was Hudson Taylor's decision to actually speak the language (Chinese), dress like his audience, and even dye his hair black in order to "contextualize" the gospel. People did not like this in his day. But, time and fruit outweighs critics who would rather keep status quo than even attempt to find new ways to reach people.

We as evangelicals like to be in a "bunker" rather than risk taking shots on the front line for the cause of the gospel. We would rather critique culture than look at the fact that we are listless in reaching our generation. What are we trying to protect? Not truth. Simply our comfort. It was not comfortable to have circuit riders, and it is not comfortable to learn the medium of video. But, like Hudson Taylor, we must.

I'm taking the wait and see approach to the Video Venue approach.

PRO:
I like the idea that megachurches are in some ways getting smaller and homier through this approach. In other words, rather than driving from Wheaton to Willow Creek and not seeing anyone you recognize, you can hear Bill Hybels on video at the Wheaton campus with a smaller group who you will begin to get to know.

I also dislike bad preaching. Bill Hybels says in his preaching/teaching workshop something like, “If you’re not good at teaching/preaching, save your listeners, and go do something else.” I’d choose a good sermon on video over terrible sermons in person any day.

It is worth noting that the microphone changed church culture more than video. Before that, we were limited by the strength of the preacher's voice, the acoustics of the room, and the youth of the audience's ears. No wonder there weren't many megachurches.

CON:
Due to overemphasis on the Eucharist/communion in the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformers put more emphasis on the sermon. I think we have swung the other direction and put too much emphasis on the sermon to the detriment of congregational life. The logical extension of the crucial nature of “good preaching” is to get it "efficiently" by playing sermons on video.

The logical end of the VV "efficiency" argument is to pick two preachers and just have everyone listen to them. How about my favorites Rob Bell and John Ortberg as the two?

I think there is already too much borrowing and imitating in evangelicalism. It is remarkable how much of what thousands of churches do is rooted in the actions and programs of five influential churches.

What is really scary about that exaggerated scenario is that few of us would be studying our Bibles as studiously if we didn't have to preach! That is human nature, right? There is something about the local pastor studying and applying the Scripture to a specific context.

Calvin College professor, Quentin J. Schultze, reflects well on these issues in:
High-Tech Worship?: Using Presentational Technologies Wisely. Baker, 2004.

May God help us to work together to use these innovations more and more wisely. Here here to this blog!

Shane is right on about this. The way that a message is adorned or styled changes it ESSENTIALLY. Icing on a cake is not separate from the cake itself. A cake with icing is AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING than a cake without icing. And likewise, the taste and color and style of icing vastly changes the cake and how one receives it. Wedding cakes are white or pastel (and not black) for a reason, and it's not because one color-dye tastes better than the other, but because they communicate different things.

You can't separate the parts from the whole.

The content of anything cannot be separated from its form. Messages do not and cannot exist in a vaccuum, but must be attached to a conduit. And that reality should tell us that the conduit is as or more important of a choice than the message itself. If "message" could exist on its own God would have created it as such...

Anyway, this conversation is interesting and greatly valuable for the Church--whose identity and purposes are so defined by "message."

I've written a lot on this topic over at Relevant Magazine. Check out my article "Re-Fusing Form and Content" at this link http://www.relevantmagazine.com/pc_article.php?id=7062, or my most recent article about online media and communication here: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/pc_article.php?id=7176

If you are interested in this topic, you might be interested in listening to a podcast on this topic from Leadership Network at

http://www.leadnet.org/Resources_AV.asp

Here is the description:

Seacoast Church (www.seacoast.org) currently has 9 different campuses, and it continues to pray and plan toward the launch of more campuses. The primary teaching comes from our Mt. Pleasant campus by videocast. This model prompts questions about whether a teaching pastor in one city can effectively pastor people hundreds of miles away. The answer is no, and in the accompanying podcast lead pastor Greg Surratt explains Seacoast's approach and rationale.

Wow, I take some offense at the authors assertations, especially after a single visit to a multi-site church.

I do tend to agree that most multi-site churches are probably personality (talent) driven and in the long run multi-site pastors will also need teaching teams for the ministries to outlast them.

But man, there are some incredible benefits to the model. We have been using it for 3 years and I am a campus pastor and multi-site director for our church.

I ardently disagree with the author who said, "the extensive financial outlay required to pull off a video-venue service" is true. In fact, most multi-sites get out of the box instead of building bigger boxes. Take our case we could expand and buy a 2.5million dollar piece of property, or I can launch about 20 campuses @ $100000 each. Which is the better bargian?

Additionally, we achieve economies of scale an don't waste kingdom resources by leveraging our "Central Support Mechanisms" giving even the smallest campus the benefit of the whole providing resources that a small church would never have access to alone.

Finally, every one of our discipleship statistics is actually higher at the campuses. Mid-week belivers attendance hovers aroudn 33% and is not fed by video and thus not talent driven. Small group participation higher. volunteerism higher, etc. and so on.

So, I would encourage the author to do a bit more research before sharing his views on a topic of which he really seems to have little knowledge other than a singular experience probably taken out of context.

After a few initial doubts and some bad trial runs, I am glad to announce that I created a video venue for my family. No, not my church family, but my nuclear family (although the church family will get one soon too!). You see, I finally realized that bigger IS better and that church growth really IS about quantity and not quality. So in order to devote more time to growing my church, I created a video venue at home. When I work long hours tending the Lord's flock, my wife can select from a menu of 46 pre-recorded conversations. For example, when she comes home and has been working hard she can use the touch screen menu and select "Long Day." My smiling face appears and sympathizes with her - "Long day, honey?", I ask. She nods and tells me about the project she's been working on. I softly reply, "You've been working so hard lately. Why don't you order out for dinner tonight? You deserve it." I know it seems a bit plastic, but trust me, she is satisfied with this level of intimacy and feels loved. My next goal is to create a program that can ask clarifying questions, kind of like when you call the phone company for help with your billing statement and are talking to that programmed voice that asks, "I think you said 'thrilling basement'. Is that right?" Man, I bet the Lord is beaming with pride about how I am maximizing my use of technology to grow His kingdom. Now that I think about it, I can do Hudson Taylor one up.

Man I love technology! Thank you Lord for allowing us to create things that exist in a moral vacuum and have no inherent goodness or badness but can only be used in good or bad ways by good or bad people. Just like guns....

Boy, I sure hope we are not REALLY saying what it sounds like some are saying... is there really an underlying thread or theme here that we need to run away from TECHNOLOGY for the MERE fact that it COULD become an idol or, even stronger, be UNBIBLICAL?

If so - we better stop blogging as of this moment. And no more DRIVING to church... and toss out those cell phones, ipods, pda's and laptops... oh, and that Bible you're reading... it was printed, wasn't it? Dang - can't use THAT anymore either... oh, and no electricity, or indoor plumbing... have I made my point?

Listen - let's not fool ourselves - ANYTHING can become "an idol" if we allow it to occur... and I mean ANYTHING... don't tell me that at least a FEW people who attend Saddleback or Willow Creek view their Senior Pastor as "all that." And, were those pastors to move on into glory, would their churches remain as large and as popular as they are? Those who make such a loud stink about how the ONLY acceptable music in worship are the hymns are, sad to say, "idol-makers" for they have turned simple songs into something one notch below (or on par with) The Ten Commandments.

Come on... we are talking about A SCREEN... in A CHURCH... where we can SEE and HEAR God's Word being proclaimed...

This is not the start of Armegeddon, okay?

medium = message. Just think TBN :) ! TBN's philosophy is that shoot no amount of money is the limit, as long as they can broadcast "Christian" television around the world.

My question is, what constitutes "Christian" television? How might digitalizing everything, just because it is the dominating force in our culture, could mean we are turning churches into "Christian" television rather than a royal priesthood community of believers...

One question I have about the use of technology (although I am not fully opposed to its use, since as you see I am utilizing it right now) is, what is left over when it fails? What if it is no longer available at some point? Will we still have anything to say?

Several years ago I was on a business trip to Toronto (Canada's largest city). While I sat on the plane waiting for departure a major catastrophe happened and all the power for the whole city (as well as Northern NY state) was shut off. It was almost 24 hours before it began to be restored. A business colleague and I were now stranded in a big city, far from home, with nowhere to go. Our debit cards were useless. People wouldn't accept credit cards either. People (taxi drivers and buses) were running out of gas because many pumps are electrical. Restaurants were closed down as well as most stores -- so acquiring food became a concern. Many people were panicking, and I must admit I struggled as every new obstacle that highlighted our alienation stood in our way. We really had to think hard about what to do. The over-familiarity of technology and our uncritical and complete dependance upon it almost incapacitated us. We were at a real loss of what to do or where to go.

I wonder if we, in the church, realize the extent to which we rely upon technology to 'get the message out'. Have we replaced the working of the Holy Spirit with the ubiquitous emotionally charged bells-and-whistles we can't seem to function without in our services etc? What will be left when the lights do go out? Have we in some way failed to heed the warning of John where he says "Little children, guard yourselves from idols"?

For years people were drawn to the confident, hard-charging and honest reports of Edward R. Murrow on radio. People sat by their radios as Morrow took them to war ravaged, Europe during World War II. No one actually saw Murrow, yet they believed,trusted,valued and respected him. Why else would one of the most coveted awards in broadcasting be named after him? So while I'm sympathetic with the dynamic of a live shepherd/pastor who shares God's Word out of a living relationship with the very people he/she is speaking, I just can't buy the argument that seeing them live v.s. a video feed or tape is a character issue. However,I'm grateful to be in a small community of faith, and personally connected to the very people with whom I gather (in person on location) each week. The relationship challenges me and provides a living connection in worship and preaching that I need. I also don't think my bald spot could handle being publicly exposed in more than one location. Tongue planted in cheek. I'm sure the potential intoxifying rush from speaking to such a large group of people is something these multi-site preachers guard against with serious accountability. I think my flesh and head would eventually cave in. I think God knows that too, which is one of the reasons I'm not in that situation at this point in my ministry.

Personal preference aside, kudos to every preacher proclaiming God's Word whether it's in person in a small room or huge arena, live satellite feed, or tape delayed! I'm just thrilled that technology enables us to reach far more people than we ever imagined. I trust God with the results and the proclaimer. I'm personally accountable for what I do with the preaching moment entrusted to me, that's enough, I don't want the responsibility of someone else's. Preachers everywhere have a hard enough time living in Killinger's "Pirhana Bowl," of ministry. Hang in there no matter where you've been called to proclaim!

Really, there are two camps here: those afraid of change and those who embrace living in the present.

Us evangelicals are horrible at admitting we miss the mark in reaching people. How about Paul's "I become all things to all men so that I might save some" statement? What happens is that we are so afraid of error that we become paralized and then do nothing!

Billy Graham used posters of his handsome mug along with other innovative marketing to promote his crusades in the 1950s. Our tradition needs to embrace tools, while certainly not worshipping them. The greater sin is the idol of doing nothing in the name of being correct, not in crossing the line or being "edgy" to reach peolple with the gospel.

Ian, yeah - I know what you are saying... and my coin phrase would be to say, "hey, we need balance." though, I've never felt that was actually an answer to a question - more of a way to avoid answering! (LOL) so, I won't say that...

The only time technology (or any other "extra-biblical" means being used to spread the gospel) becomes an idol is when the ones using it make it MORE IMPORTANT than God. And this certainly does happen - unfortunately, a LOT! We could all sit here and point fingers at the many ways we see this happening... but that does not mean that technology is wrong - it means the WAY it is used is wrong... or possibly becoming a bit of an idol...

For example, I don't think it is WRONG to have singing groups or praise team vocalists use harmony in their singing... if they want to do that, fine. However - there is no Biblical MANDATE that we MUST sing with harmony - yet, there are many church music directors who INSIST on using harmony and label harmony as a BETTER musical offering to God. It's not. Not according to the Bible anyway. And when we INSIST on harmony being used under the guise of "ordained by God" we have now created an IDOL.

The very same thing is true of visuals on the screen, or "creative worship elements" etc. When we allow these to become THE THING driving the worship of our God then, yes, we have problems. Because we have, without knowing it, created a NEW "god" - the technology.

How do we get around that? Well, one way I get around ALL of those "hidden idols" is to simply not use them sometimes... I just DON'T USE the screen, or visuals, or certain typs of "so-called God ordained" songs or music styles... I do that on purpose - to continually remind those in my church that "the hymnal" is not the same thing as "The Bible" and we can still worship God even if we are not being led by "the hot worship band" this week...

I hope all of this makes sense because I do agree with you - anything can grab our attention and, if we're not careful, our worship.

Disclaimer: I worship at a multi-site multi-venue church with the lesson piped in via closed-circuit tv. Also, I choose to attend one of the Video Venues.

Frances Schaefer said that if we do not speak the Word in the language of the people hearing it, it is as if we aren't speaking at all.

The move into technology for the Church is a necessary thing if we are to speak the language of the people who need to hear.
The time is near when we will have fully interactive web-based churches with global members; meeting and fellowshipping together in a dozen different time zones. With the upsurge of social-portal sites like MySpace, this type of church will feel natural to many people today.

We are connected with others in so many different ways that I think the call to “not forsake the gathering of yourselves together” should not be limited only to face-to-face.

Character cannot hide for long behind a video screen. The fruit of the Spirit and the love we have one-for-aother will shine through even the dimmest pixel.

It seems a lot of the comments miss the point of the post.

that there is a message within the medium. that the medium (in this case video) carries with it a message in addition, alongside, around and within the overt message.

technology isn't the point. understanding the message the technology we use communicates is.

Hipps book is good and helps see technology outside of the electronic age. Technology like books.

Why can't these "celebrity" pastors be like Paul and raise up other leaders to preach at these venues? Are these pastors really so important to the health and life of the church that nobody else can preach there? If so, what, or who, is the ministry built on? How can anyone in the congregation ask the pastor a question through a video? I think some guys just need to humbles themselves, get rid of their control issue, and let somebody else preach as well.

I love the use of PowerPoint and electronic music, but have misgivings about the message coming via video. Here in the UK such things are very rare and so I've never seen it happen, but doesn't it become more like entertainment in the way that it's perceived, another screen that you can tune out if you choose? Call me old-fashioned but as a preacher I want to be able to look my people in the eye and for people to meet me on the door and for us to talk over coffee. How do you model community and stop church from becoming a spectator sport?