Video sermons and the marks of the church...
In an earlier post, the subject of the intentional planting of virtual churches served by moving images of preachers not physically present during Lord's Day corporate worship has been under debate. And I've been surprised to find how casually some have accepted this practice, justifying it by saying that when more people come than the fire marshal will allow in the sanctuary, you can't simply turn them away.
Although there's much, much more that could (and should) be said against this method of church planting and Lord's Day corporate worship, here's a beginning...
Whether today the Apostle Paul would correct the Galatians by a sermon delivered by videoconference rather than a written letter is an interesting question. I think not, but that’s not my concern, here.
Churches are popping up all over the country that have deliberately chosen not to have a pastor or shepherd who knows them and preaches to them each week, replacing such a shepherd with a moving image of another church’s shepherd who knows his own sheep and allows other churches vicariously to share in that relationship. This is not corporate worship nor is it church. Protestants have always accepted at least two marks of the church, one being the right preaching of the Word of God and the other being the proper administration of the Sacraments. Calvin puts it this way: “Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence, since his promise cannot fail.”
Explaining the significance of a pastor made of flesh and blood who lives in their midst preaching to his flock, Calvin writes:
Those who think that the authority of the doctrine is impaired by the insignificance of the men who are called to teach, betray their ingratitude; for among the many noble endowments with which God has adorned the human race, one of the most remarkable is, that he deigns to consecrate the mouths and tongues of men to his service, making his own voice to be heard in them. Wherefore, let us not on our part decline obediently to embrace the doctrine of salvation, delivered by his command and mouth; because, although the power of God is not confined to external means, he has, however, confined us to his ordinary method of teaching, which method, when fanatics refuse to observe, they entangle themselves in many fatal snares. Pride, or fastidiousness, or emulation, induces many to persuade themselves that they can profit sufficiently by reading and meditating in private, and thus to despise public meetings, and deem preaching superfluous. But since as much as in them lies they loose or burst the sacred bond of unity, none of them escapes the just punishment of this impious divorce, but become fascinated with pestiferous errors, and the foulest delusions. Wherefore, in order that the pure simplicity of the faith may flourish among us, let us not decline to use this exercise of piety, which God by his institution of it has shown to be necessary, and which he so highly recommends. None, even among the most petulant of men, would venture to say, that we are to shut our ears against God, but in all ages prophets and pious teachers have had a difficult contest to maintain with the ungodly, whose perverseness cannot submit to the yoke of being taught by the lips and ministry of men. This is just the same as if they were to destroy the impress of God as exhibited to us in doctrine. For no other reason were believers anciently enjoined to seek the face of God in the sanctuary (Ps. 105:4) (an injunction so often repeated in the Law), than because the doctrine of the Law, and the exhortations of the prophets, were to them a living image of God.
What is a video preacher but the dead reproduction, icon, or image of a living image of God?
Calvin, again:
We are now to speak of the order in which the Lord has been pleased that his Church should be governed. For though it is right that he alone should rule and reign in the Church, that he should preside and be conspicuous in it, and that its government should be exercised and administered solely by his word; yet as he does not dwell among us in visible presence, so as to declare his will to us by his own lips, he in this (as we have said) uses the ministry of men, by making them, as it were, his substitutes, not by transferring his right and honor to them, but only doing his own work by their lips, just as an artificer uses a tool for any purpose. What I have previously expounded (chap. 1 sec. 5) I am again forced to repeat. God might have acted, in this respect, by himself, without any aid or instrument, or might even have done it by angels; but there are several reasons why he rather chooses to employ men. First, in this way he declares his condescension towards us, employing men to perform the function of his ambassadors in the world, to be the interpreters of his secret will; in short, to represent his own person. Thus he shows by experience that it is not to no purpose he calls us his temples, since by man’s mouth he gives responses to men as from a sanctuary. Secondly, it forms a most excellent and useful training to humility, when he accustoms us to obey his word though preached by men like ourselves, or, it may be, our inferiors in worth.
Having a video image of a preacher present the sermon each Lord’s Day during corporate worship would be a great help to any seeking to escape this “most excellent and useful training to humility.”
Did he himself speak from heaven, it were no wonder if his sacred oracles were received by all ears and minds reverently and without delay. For who would not dread his present power? who would not fall prostrate at the first view of his great majesty? who would not be overpowered by that immeasurable splendor? But when a feeble man, sprung from the dust, speaks in the name of God, we give the best proof of our piety and obedience, by listening with docility to his servant, though not in any respect our superior.
But if we could take to ourselves a preacher who is closer to angelic, further from the dust, and less feeble than the “frail earthen vessels” preaching in our own little church, wouldn’t we be able to carry our heads just a wee bit higher the other six days of the week—particularly when we had an opportunity to announce whose preaching we sat under each Lord’s Day?
Accordingly, he hides the treasure of his heavenly wisdom in frail earthen vessels (2 Cor. 4:7), that he may have a more certain proof of the estimation in which it is held by us. Moreover, nothing was fitter to cherish mutual charity than to bind men together by this tie, appointing one of them as a pastor to teach the others who are enjoined to be disciples, and receive the common doctrine from a single mouth.…
By these words he shows that the ministry of men, which God employs in governing the Church, is a principal bond by which believers are kept together in one body. He also intimates, that the Church cannot be kept safe, unless supported by those guards to which the Lord has been pleased to commit its safety. Christ “ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things” (Eph. 4:10). The mode of filling is this: By the ministers to whom he has committed this office, and given grace to discharge it, he dispenses and distributes his gifts to the Church, and thus exhibits himself as in a manner actually present…
Well, not “actually present,” but almost. And really, Calvin didn’t know how much technology would help us build the church. Imagine if we could have had a videocam recording all Calvin’s sermons during his lifetime! To this day, we could continue to have Christ “exhibit himself as in a manner actually present” through that prince of expositors, John Calvin! Ooooh, I get shivers just thinking about it! Can you imagine?
If Calvin, then Chrysostom, Augustine, Bernard, Luther, Knox, Baxter, Whitefield, and Edwards! And we wouldn’t need to get Edwards secondhand. We could drink directly from the fire hydrant. Think of how the church would grow, and how mature we’d all be. None of these cheap imitations, but simply the pure Word of God preached by men we don’t know personally, nor do they know us...
…by exerting the energy of his Spirit in this his institution, so as to prevent it from being vain or fruitless. In this way, the renewal of the saints is accomplished, and the body of Christ is edified; in this way we grow up in all things unto Him who is the Head, and unite with one another; in this way we are all brought into the unity of Christ, provided prophecy flourishes among us, provided we receive his apostles, and despise not the doctrine which is administered to us. Whoever, therefore, studies to abolish this order and kind of government of which we speak, or disparages it as of minor importance, plots the devastation, or rather the ruin and destruction, of the Church. For neither are the light and heat of the sun, nor meat and drink, so necessary to sustain and cherish the present life, as is the apostolical and pastoral office to preserve a Church in the earth.
A last quote, often posted to this blog:
(People) will give you leave to preach against their sins, and to talk as much as you will for godliness in the pulpit, if you will but let them alone afterwards, and be friendly and merry with them when you have done, and talk as they do, and live as they, and be indifferent with them in your conversation. For they take the pulpit to be but a stage; a place where preachers must show themselves, and play their parts; where you have liberty for an hour to say what you (desire); and what you say they regard not, if you show them not, by saying it personally to their faces, that you were in good earnest, and did indeed mean them. (Richard Baxter, The Reformed Pastor.)
A virtual church served by a moving picture image of a preacher never has to worry about their preacher coming out of the pulpit and “saying it personally to their faces, that he was in good earnest, and did indeed mean them" for the simple reason that he isn't their preacher.
A church that puts a moving picture image of a pastor preaching at the center of corporate worship on Lord’s Day is not a church because it lacks one of the two marks of the church--namely, the sincere preaching and hearing of the Word of God.
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- June 2013 (17)
- May 2013 (28)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Tim Bayly on Hold me back...
- Ross on Hold me back...
- Steve Morris on Hold me back...
- Ross on Hold me back...
- Jacob Johnston on Hold me back...
Comments
Since the first paragraph was apparently directed to me (seeing as how I'm the one who mentioned the fire marshal and people being turned away), is there any possibility of a serious suggestion as to what practical measure should be taken if overcrowding is regularly occurring?
Thus far...including this post...such useful, practical suggestions have been nowhere to be found.
Again, it's remarkably simple to say what should NOT be done; it's apparently not nearly as simple to come up with a viable suggestion as to what OUGHT to be done.
If your belief is yes, if necessary people should be regularly turned away, then fine. That's a viable option. Just say so.
Were I Piper or Driscoll or any other pastor facing the problem of too many people for the available space, I'd not find these posts of much benefit, to be honest.
You don't like what they've chosen to do. Okay. They're smart. This much they've grasped.
What should they do instead?
Dear Anne,
You ask as if it were a neutral that they're contemplating. Tim and I say it's not. To us you're in the position of the single man in a church who shrilly asks his pastor what he SHOULD do with his sexual drive since we say he can't have sex outside marriage...or the woman considering abortion who demands we pay for her child if she doesn't go through with the abortion.
Your brother in Christ,
David
My dear sister, Anne,
Actually, my concern is to warn people away from such so-called churches, not to rebuke Pastors Piper or Driscoll. These two men are only the most visible among many reformed pastors of otherwise stellar judgment who have taken this route.
Just as telling people moving away from Bloomington not to consider such non-churches wherever they land in no way requires me to tell them what church they should attend, so saying this practice is wrong in no way requires me to tell any pastor what to do with the souls he can't fit into his sanctuary.
Let me put it this way. This past year during a counselling session my wife and I were having with another elder, his wife, and a couple considering marriage, we cautioned the couple against marrying hastily, but also against fornication. During that discussion, they mentioned one particular challenge that caused them to want to marry quickly and it seemed that the elder, his wife, Mary Lee, and I had the responsibility to solve that problem for the couple if we were going to both ask them to wait a bit and to remain pure.
But no, it's not our responsibility to solve their problems for them. They are faced with counsel to wait a bit, and the law of God to flee fornication. It would be easy to see the two matters as in tension with each other, or even opposed, but as we said to the couple, "Where there's a will, there's a way." Same with all pastors planting non-churches employing moving picture images of preaching.
If they have too many people trying to get in their doors, they must not choose a solution to their problem that leaves souls attending non-churches under the illusion that they've found a church home. What they may choose instead is their business, not mine.
But of course, the solutions are smack-in-the-head obvious. We could plant other churches--what in Colonial times were referred to as "swarming" churches. We could send some of our souls to other faithful churches in the metropolitan area. We could build a larger sanctuary, moving the church to another location if the present location wouldn't allow for expansion. I could resign my call as pastor so another man could take my place whose ministry would take a while to get to be so high-profile. And so on...
But again, it's my goal to warn against this practice, not to solve the overcrowding problems of men tempted to go this route.
With deep affection,
Tim
The pregnancy analogy is apt, except what's happening is a young woman is pregnant and not sure what to do about it; modern society being what it is, she's planning upon abortion.
Those not desiring her to have one spend their time either chastising her for getting pregnant in the first place, or tell her NO abortion but when she asks what her other options are, isn't given any.
Anne, dear Anne,
Surely you aren't suggesting that for me to decline to tell Pastor Piper how to handle the overflow of his sanctuary is analogous to the heartless cruelty of a man who would condemn, but not help, a young woman with a crisis pregnancy who is considering an abortion? I'm going to back out of this discussion with you because I don't want to jeopardize our close friendship over many years, now.
But as I back out, it would be helpful to remember that many of these non-churches have been planted very far from the mother church, so far in fact that they have nothing to do with attendance overflow at that mother church. They're simply the latest in church growth techniques and they're all over the place.
Again, with deep affection,
Tim
Anne,
If anyone wants to hear Mark Driscoll or John Piper preach, it is easy to download their sermons from the Internet. So no one has to give up hearing them just because a daughter church is planted.
And if a daughter church is planted, it should be able to have similar worship, unless the music team is so professional that it cannot readily be duplicated by a smaller congregation. In that case, it's probably better to simplify.
The thing the daughter churches will miss is some of the programs. These could possibly be taken over by the daughter church, or trimmed down (until the daughter church grows), or the "mother church" could still host them as a ministry to the region.
Each of these churches, if they are that size, must have a large and competent pastoral staff. And many of the church members drive past many churches to get there. So it would seem, if this growth took them unawares, that they should start looking for places to rent or buy that would relieve the overcrowding. And then they should start preaching in such a way that makes it clear that the goal for their congregation is not to hear faithful preaching from Mark Driscoll or John Piper on Sunday morning. After all, one day those folks will be dead, and their works will be carried on by others. The congregation needs to prepare for that, and the elders need to act like they believe it, by preparing people to leave the mother church for a daughter church that is similar, but is geographically closer to them.
>Again, it's remarkably simple to say what should NOT be done; it's apparently not nearly as simple to come up with a viable suggestion as to what OUGHT to be done.
Allow church members to reserve pews. You then have X amount for non-members who are monitored at the entrance. When the non-member quota has been met no more are permitted in.
Or adopt a Godly policy on baptism, as they tried to do awhile back (i.e. don't rebaptize those baptized in infancy). This would reduce numbers based on the whining that occurred when this was proposed.
For crying out loud, Ray, I don't like the idea of video-fed assemblies either. When did I say I DID?
But we've taught our children...and I try to practice this myself...not to criticize others unless one has something positive to offer as an alternative.
Even when it came to something like stealing, Paul didn't just say "Stop stealing", he provided an alternative behavior: "He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need."
This is ABSOLUTELY Scriptural, to provide an alternative behavior.
However, I'm obviously being a pest and such is not my intention.
My apologies to all.
David, Tim, and any others who shepherd God’s flock,
Prs. Tim and David have put the cat among the pigeons. May I now toss a snarling cur among the cats?
Let us grant, as I’m quite happy to do, Calvin’s analysis of how Christ has chosen to govern His church, to wit: through fallible men, who weekly minister by word and sacrament among a flock of Christ’s sheep. As Calvin (and, also Baxter, in the quote provided) noted, it is the interpersonal contact between the flock and Christ’s undershepherd(s) that allows for the express benefits of this design for ministry. Though not mandated in so many words, it is implied that these benefits cannot be conferred or received without some minimal personal contact between sheep and shepherd(s), and (most importantly) by the shepherd “knowing the condition of his flock” as Solomon would put it.
Virtual congregations miss the mark because the interpersonal contact between sheep and shepherd is utterly missing. And, please note that Baxter insists that there be MORE interpersonal contact between the pastor and his flock than occurs in a “mere” pulpit ministry. That ministry, Baxter correctly notes, is strengthened, weakened, or undermined, by the nature of the pastor’s contact with the flock during the remainder of the week. And, if the pastor is never in contact with his flock during the remainder of the week ... well, how is that any different from receiving (or bestowing) a pulpit ministry from a television set, or a radio?
But, here comes the snarling cur: the virtual congregation is ALREADY present in the mega churches, any of them.
Some here suggest that all Piper or Driscoll need to do is to build a bigger sanctuary. That is, in fact, the way the problem with overcrowding is usually dealt with.
But, what if the problem of overcrowding is the SYMPTOM and not the actual problem? What if the problem is that people want their “live” pulpiteer to have the same distance from them as the television pastor? What if setting up a “virtual” congregation is simply the next set along a foolish path already being trod by a congregation that has reached the size that pretty well ensures that people can “hide” inside it, with no necessity of ever having an elder or pastor poke his nose in their lives?
Yes, anyone may download Piper's and Driscoll's sermons from the internet. Tens of thousands do every week. It's also easy to download Tim Bayly's sermons from the internet. But hardly anyone does. That is the crux of the problem Tim has with these men, and the motivation behind this post.
?That is the crux of the problem Tim has with these men, and the motivation behind this post.
You are badly kidding yourself...
Mr. Mike,
I think you’re mistaken as well. I’ve downloaded and listened to hundreds of Piper sermons. I’ve even begun enjoying watching Piper as he preaches. I think of this ministry as very similar to reading books by Calvin or Edwards. They are simply gifts of God to the church to nourish and strengthen it.
But they are not (and should not) ever be a substitute to the personal presence of the pastor in the pulpit each week. I know two men who drove to Minnesota from the Chicago area just to hear Piper preach one Sunday. They love the man and his ministry. However, as soon as the video feed was turned on, they were turned off, walked out, and drove back to Chicago.
We are not pastors. We have no jealousy. We do think it is wrong because it speaks untruths to the people about what church and congregant are. It simply is not health for a congregation to never be looked in the eyes week in and week out. Preaching isn’t just the content, or books would suffice. Preaching must be the authoritative declaration and charge by a real person to real people.
I love Piper more than you, I promise! But Piper is way off base on this one and some umpires are beginning to get the courage to call him out.
Warmly,
CT
Mike,
Please stop commenting, you are immensely annoying. Your attempts to get people to jump on the "let's trash Tim" bandwagon won't work. And your claims are unsubstantiated, so why do you think anyone would listen to you? "hardly anyone downloads Tim's sermons"--how do you know that? You don't, actually. And we good readers know that about you, so just save yourself and us some time, and quit commenting.
Personally, I find Mike's comments amusing and feel that they make this blog a more balanced experience...that is as balanced as any thing relating to Tim could ever get. Especially considering all of my comments keep getting removed. ;) It's sad Tim that you have to take down comments from dissenters. Most blog writers are secure enough with themselves to allow *all* those who comment to openly agree or disagree with their posts.
Carry on mike!
-Barbara
Barbara,
Tim obviously doesn't remove all comments from all dissenters. Many people express disagreement with posts here, and they can receive a hearing if they do so respectfully. I'm actually surprised Tim hasn't deleted the last several of Mike's comments, because they're all so tedious, repetitive and boring. They don't serve to build up but to tear down, and they arrogantly, selfishly assume that other people should take the time to read them--as if they had any substance worth reading. But Tim hasn't deleted them because he's not in reality the caricature that he is in your petty mind.
However, Tim and David will delete comments from time to time if the commenter shows that his or her purpose is simply to mock and ridicule Biblical truth and the Holy Spirit who prompts the teaching of that truth.
Proverbs 22:10 "Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease."
>Most blog writers are secure enough with themselves to allow *all* those who comment to openly agree or disagree with their posts.
Barbara, that's odd considering the blog you link to doesn't appear to permit comments.
I do have a potential solution to this supposed problem in big churches when too many people show up week in and week out. I went for years to a local church that was the "popular" church of the area. I don't know anything about Piper's church or the others mentioned, but I can make a lot of guesses about the congregation based on personal experience. And I would guess Fr. Bill hit the mark with a bullseye! People choose to go to large churches because of the anonymity. That's not what they're going to tell you. They'll mention the programs, the preacher, the music, etc. but the reason they're really comfortable there is because they don't have to be confronted with their own sin. Even if the pastor preaches against their sins, they can blow it off because he obviously isn't preaching to them; he's never even met them.
And here's another key: they don't have to serve. Not at all. Not in any way, shape or form. When you go to a small church, you're needed. Programs won't even happen without you helping start and run them. In huge churches you don't have to do anything. In fact, the only time you even hear of a need is once or twice a year when they ask for volunteers for Sunday School teachers and nursery workers. You can show up week in and week out, make use of all the programs, and your only contribution is to complain about how they should be run.
Here's a possible solution. When our church was running into the overcrowding problem, they finally built a new building to be able to handle the crowd. The first few weeks in the new building, it was filled to the brim as well. Then at the dedication service, they invited a former staff member who was a pastor of another local church to preach. And preach he did. Somehow I don't think the staff had a look at his sermon notes before they let him at the congregation. That godly black pastor, from his former experience with that white-bread congregation, let them know that many of them shouldn't be there. He informed them that if they were only going to be takers and never servers, they could leave. They weren't needed. Those who were there for the church-of-the-month club, please leave.
What would Piper think of having Tim (my dad) come up and preach for a week and take care of the overcrowding issue? ;)
We should really pray for Mars Hill Church in particular. My understanding is that Seattle has an anti-Megachurch ordinance, so they are not allowed to build the sort of facility that they need. We should also pray that God would continue to raise up other faithful pastors in Seattle to plant new churches as the Gospel spreads in this largely pagan city.
Mike,
I heard a really excellent sermon this morning on 1 Cor. 13:5: In this passage Love "thinks no evil".
The preacher observed that we should not think the worst about peoples' actions or motives, unless we absolutely have to based on the evidence. If we assume bad motives without sufficient evidence, we are breaking the ninth commandment, and failing to love our neighbor as ourself.
This is exactly what you are doing, when you assume that Tim Bayly is motivated by jealousy. There is no reason to believe that he is not basing his objection on principle.
Also, please note that he is saying that Piper and Driscoll's actions are wrong. He is not accusing them of being generally bad people, and his disagreement with their actions is principled and respectful. This is completely unlike your behavior.
Anne,
I thought I put it in an earlier post, but I'll try again. They need to plant new churches, ASAP. Since these are large churches, they could spin off medium-sized churches of several hundred members each.
They may have to spend a month or two preparing the congregation for this, but there are only a few basic truths that they need to transmit. First of all, each member of the church needs to know that there will be life after Pastor Piper and Pastor Driscoll. Second, they need to know that while they may continue to be taught by Pastor Piper or Pastor Driscoll's sermons through internet dowloads and such, they also need a flesh and blood pastor who is more personally accessible to them. Pastors Piper and Driscoll are only human and can only stretch so far. Thirdly, they need to know that the Great Commission tells Christians to go into all the world, making disciples, etc. In their case, that means that since the mother church is full, some of them need to go 5-10 miles down the road, which is really closer to home anyhow, and make disciples there. If they think this is too much to ask, then they may have a problem with following pastor x rather than Jesus.
While these truths are being taught, they need to assume that enough members of the congregation will believe them, and they need to begin calling organizing pastors for the new works.
I think a lot of the comments here are being a bit hard on BBC, especially since you aren't there, don't know those on the elder board, and don't know the struggles they have all gone through in making their decisions. You also don't know Piper well enough to know this isn't his idea, nor is it truly his desire for how to fix the problem.
Heather is correct when she says large churches allow for anonymity...but I can also say that there are an immense amount of people serving at BBC. So it's an uninformed charge against all of us who do serve to say that no one does. Are there those who don't? Sure. But I can vouch that there are huge numbers who do, and that's the only way the campus situation can run smoothly.
Lastly, Fr. Bill hit the crux of the matter on the head...ANY church over about 150 cannot possibly have a pastor who can also act as a true shepherd to his people. The shepherding function ends up delegated or not happening at all. In both cases, it isn't nearly as effective as it should be. Typically, large churches cannot have the Christian fellowship/accountability/community the Bible describes. The campus/video thing is really only a symptom of the more foundational issue.
So what to do? When Piper went on a multi-month sabbatical last year, there was barely a blip in the attendance...indicating BBC isn't a personality cult as some have charged. Piper HAS preached on people leaving BBC. BBC HAS planted churches. People don't leave as fast as new ones are arriving. If anyone here really has an answer, they are doing better than the BBC elder board, which wrestled and wrestled with this issue on a first-hand basis....
Charley (not an elder, nor an official spokesman)
http://www.riseupandgetserious.com
http://www.homedisciplingdad.com
Ray,
Thank you for this. It is not only something that can (and should) be done, I know a man who did it: Richard S. Beal, a pastor for 59 years, the last 52 of them as pastor of First Baptist Church in Tuscon, Arizona. During that pastorate, First Baptist grew from a congregation of about 200 people to about 3,000, which was the size it maintained for most of Dr. Beal’s pastorate. During his tenure, First Baptist of Tuscon planted 13 daughter churches in the commnity.
I learned all this directly from him during the year I interned at a Bible Church in San Juan Capistrano, CA. Dr. Beal, at that time aged 91, was living in the home of his daughter and son-in-law, Col. Ridgley O. Ryan, who had planted the church in which I interned. I spent many hours during that year visiting with Dr. Beal, who was a font of pastoral lore, wisdom, and anecdotal history of the Conservative Baptist Association, which he had helped to found in the early years of the 20th Century. There are many things he told me which simply made no sense until I had been in pastoral ministry myself for a few years. How I wish I could resort to such men today! Beal died in 1989 at the age of 102.
A short biography, with a howler error (his tenure at FBC Tuscon) may be read here:
http://www.swordofthelord.com/biographies/BealRichard.htm
The error says that Beal was pastor at FBC Tuscon for 45 years. The years given for his tenure are 1918 to 1969, which is 51 years. Beal always told me 52.
Anyway, a congregation outgrowing its meeting place isn’t a new problem. Richard Beal faced that problem 13 times and each time a new congregation in Tuscon was the result.
Actually, if we read Baxter's "Reformed Pastor," we find out that it's entirely possible to pastor well over a thousand and to know the sheep and their children by name, as well as the condition of their souls. If you know his disciplines as a pastor in caring for his flock, you know Baxter was unbelievable. So thinking about Baxter, Edwards, and others similarly gifted, it's clear some of us can only faithfully serve 150 or so, but there are others God has made able to serve 1,000 or 1,500 equally faithfully as those called to smaller flocks.
In other words, more things must be taken into account than simply size.
Flash from Minneapolis: My brother attends Bethlehem (darn him to heck!) and they have spent a lot of time trying to spin off churches. The issue they've struggled with is that the congregants who leave keep coming back.
While I'm in full agreement with your posts, Tim and David B., Marshall McLuhan and all that, the eldership of Bethlehem made serious attempts at church planting prior to giving in to the Telly-Pastor. Not that this excuses their ultimately giving into the screen . . .
One positive example is a mega-evangelical-church near us helped other church plants from other denominations get going from their own membership who were like minded - from the CRC to the EFree. In a similar vein, there are a number of solid reformed churches in Minneapolis/St. Paul who would love to have a bit of Bethlehem's overflow.
Rich
Would it be possible to set up some joint bible studies or classes or activities between BBC and those other Reformed churches, thus paving the way for some of the BBC attendees to migrate over to the smaller churches?
Of course, the opposite could happen, with the smaller churches losing attendees to BBC. ;^)
For those whose first church is BBC, though, it might be a gentle way to effectively push them out of the big nest into a smaller home.
Tim, you never answered my question from the other day. Did you take your concerns privately to Driscoll and Piper before charging them with sin on the world wide web?
Anne:
Good questions and ideas. Of course, there also are fellowship dynamics involved. Just because their cup is overflowing, doesn't mean sheepstealing is now condoned. (Mixing metaphors on the fly).
That said, we're all for participating in joint Bible studies and even have some from time to time.
Rich
Well, when they went to virtual hymnbooks (words plastered on a screen), and use of canned music, virtual pastors were only a matter of time!
Fr. Bill -- very good point about mega churches already having a virtual congregation aspect to them.
[Mike Addison:] Tim, you never answered my question from the other day. Did you take your concerns privately to Driscoll and Piper before charging them with sin on the world wide web?
Why should he answer it? Are you serious? What about you? Did you take your concerns to Tim privately before irrationally making such nasty comments about him here as you have? What is your problem? [I could make up a bunch of stuff here, following your example.]
--Michael
I like the point Fr. Bill makes about Richard Beal & 1st Baptist of Tuscon. The answer to the videoconference "worship" service is to simply refuse to purchase what's needed to implement it.
If a pastor is blessed to have more people in his church than he can really minister to, he simply announces that fact first to the deacons & other leadership, and then to the body as a whole, and asks them to support him in planting a new church.
It works, and well, and puts the onus on pastors to make sure that the "next guy" is ready.
Probably one "key" to doing this is to remind people that bigger isn't always better, too. To draw a picture, the Mall of America recently admitted that its business plan wasn't very good by asking for subsidies in St. Paul. "Saving" money on hiring more pastors can be a very expensive way to grow a church.
Here's a notion...how about the primary pastor be the one to start the church plant and one of the assistant/associate pastors take over the senior pastor position at the root church (or whatever the term would be)?
IOW, Driscoll and Piper pastor the church plants. Soon as those are up and going, with a good pastoral "bench", they move on and start other churches.
People hate to move once settled in somewhere, so while some people might move to the church plant...which would be perfectly reasonable if it's in their neck of the woods!...most would stay at the original church, yet having a well-known pastor as pastor of the new church would surely give it a head-start.
Maybe?
Mike;
The issue was addressed very carefully and scriptural commentary provided to reinforce the position. The specific reason of *what and what was not* opposed was made extremely conspicuous. There was no incendiary throwing nor any personal assault.
You have leveled the accusations as to the motives of the men in posting this and inferred on them -coveting, slander and apparently, megalomania? From that straw man you have cast wide nets on their character and other posts to their own blog, thereby, apparently trying to cast a shadow on anything that is addressed in this blog? Therefore, I am sure having realized this, you truly thought all this through prior to posting and it should be no problem for you to provide proof of your accusations. Surely something this weighty, you would have given a lot of prayerful thought to.
So... let's have it.
Surely to cast such aspersions on an ordained teaching Elder and Minister in Christ's name, you have proof? Have the Bayly's defied scripture? If so, provide the scriptural basis for believing so. Have they not provided sound and biblical reasoning for their position and why they oppose the issue? If not, expound on why you believe not and provide your defense. Are Calvin and Baxter heretics and should not be cited? If so, climb on that ultra-slippery slope, should you dare.
What comes through in your posts is not edifying to anyone and does not seek the good of the church nor of your brother, yourself, nor in seeking God's glory. In fact, its a rather weighty accusation thrown about with all the carelessness of one who appears to have no fear of God, nor the maturity nor humility of one who has examined his own wretched heart. You simply declare a man's motives are sinful; and the reasoning provided: because you say it is so.
It is circular reasoning with you as its apex, but it has not the love of your brother at its heart.
If you came in with a scriptural exhortation and humbly joined in with concerns and backed them with scriptural proofs, reasoning and citations from other divines, I am sure you would have been welcomed and a brother won, and all are edified. Instead, you poke in with a few rash sentences, plant your straw-man-bomb and head into the bush like a trained guerrilla warfare expert. I implore you to reconsider this whole episode and examine your heart in this.
If you believe Tim to be wrong, then do you not want to "win your brother," or do you just desire to destroy?
A point of order:
>> It's sad Tim that you have to take down
>> comments from dissenters. Most blog writers
>> are secure enough with themselves to allow
>> *all* those who comment to openly agree or
>> disagree with their posts.
The blog belongs to Tim & David. If you don't like the rules, there are many, many places you can post. You can even start your own blog.
A blog comment section isn't a democracy, it is a dictatorship. Whether that dictatorship is benevolent or not, the blog owner has absolute authority.
Anne, your thought is one way it could be implemented, but I'm sure you would also recognize that it might not be the only way it could, or should, be implemented. In other words, my (probably not humble enough) opinion is that some leeway needs to be left so that growing churches could deal with their growth in a way that accomodates the people and situation they've inherited.
Probably a "duh" response, but lest anyone think you were assuming the "only" way....
No, no...I was just kicking ONE idea around, that's all. ;^)
Pardon me for commenting so late in the game on this post, I just stumbled upon it this morning.
In theory, I am against video church. However, as someone just 2 years out of an authoritarian sect disguised as a church, who is searching for a church where the pastors don't tell you to "give the controls of your life to the men God works through" (that was said at my last church), my husband and I have been attending Bethlehem on occasion.
I just wanted to mention that John Piper is always "live" on Saturday nights at the downtown Minneapolis location, and then he rotates between the other locations, so he is "live" at each church every 3 weeks. Easter, I'm told he drove like crazy and preached live at all locations.
Not ideal, I know, but he does see everyone face to face at least once a month.
He also stresses church membership and involvement and I am told he tries hard to know and remember the concerns of members.
Add new comment