And this brings me to the point of this article. The virtual preacher has become the defacto standard for church growth problems. Whenever a church gets too big, the assumption is that the church should go multi-site (as opposed to just planting a new church) with the pastors sermon piped in through a live video feed.

Every time I see a church adopt this methodology I get a little heavy hearted because we have no idea of the message we are sending when we do this. Shane Hipps, who wrote, “The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture” says this about multi-site churches with video venues:

I visited a church recently on the day that it was launching its multi-site service. The most striking feature of the sermon was that his message was directly contradicted by his medium—the video venue.  His message was excellent and told an important truth—ministry is supported by character, not talent. However, the medium of the video venue had a subliminal message of its own. The message of a video-venue sermon is that the authority to preach is derived from talent and celebrity, not character or communal affirmation. A televised event doesn’t communicate anything about a person’s character. It can only affirm or deny talent and attractiveness.

Character is known only through communal affirmation, which requires some personal knowledge of one another. This personal knowledge is impossible for satellite congregations who only see the pastor’s performance.

Not only did the medium itself undermine this particular preacher’s message, but the extensive financial outlay required to pull off a video-venue service also communicated to the congregation that only a preacher with a golden tongue has authority to preach the gospel. . . The medium itself nurtures an elite priestly class in which the preacher is set apart from the people.

Even if this attitude is explicitly denied by the preacher, the very medium reinforces the belief that only talented people with some degree of celebrity can or should preach.

Our intentions with our use of technology may be genuine but I feel we need to take seriously the underlying message that is being sent for that is more important. Multi-site churches may be a good solution, but we need to think twice about virtual preachers for the following reasons:

1. It costs a lot of money to provide a live video feed. Some churches resort to a sermon on video which is cheaper but does not avoid the bigger message that is being communicated.
2. The bigger message is, as Shane Hipps put it, “only a preacher with a golden tongue has the authority to preach the gospel.”
3. We also miss a tremendous opportunity to disciple other men to become better preachers and leaders.
4. It promotes the celebrity preacher.
5. The church community learns to appreciate different styles of preaching.

Ultimately we need to weigh the benefits (what we gain) against the negatives (what we lose). When it comes to choosing whether or not to use video feeds in multi-site churches, in my opinion, the negatives far outweigh the positives.

This is something we cannot ignore. This is why I personally believe every church needs to develop a theology of technology or at minimum develop a standard by which their community will live within a technological society.

As technology becomes more and more integrated into the life of the church there is a trend that I find a bit disturbing and it is commonly found among multi-site churches. I don’t particularly have a problem with multi-site churches as I can see that in certain situations they are needed. My only concern is when these multi-site churches use a live video feed for the sermon.

Reflecting on Mcluhan’s thesis that technology amputates, Brian McLaren had the following to say,

What of technologies that in a sense amputate presence? The television and the DVD, the videoconference and perhaps increasingly, the hologram, project our presence, but do they in some way amputate presence as well?

This is an important question because we are keenly aware of the ways technology benefits our worship but we seldom think about the ways it hinders it. In the name of “it’s new” or “it’s cool” or “it’s what everyone else is doing” we forge ahead and adopt new technologies without even considering how it affects our overall message.

The point I am trying to make here is that I really think it’s time that churches start asking the difficult question when considering incorporating new technology into their communities, “How will this affect our goal to love God and our neighbor?” The answer to that question will change the way many churches adopt new technology.

For instance, I am leading the effort at my church of building a social networking strategy. Social networking will introduce many benefits into how we do ministry. However, I am keenly aware of how it hinders us as well. Social networking diminishes presence and therefore is not a good tool for actually “doing” ministry. Because we cannot be physically present with the people in our network, we cannot physically lay hands on them to pray for them and I am sure everyone would agree that physical presence is far better than virtual presence. Just ask a wife whose husband is off fighting the war or a single mom whose only kid is away at college.

Social networking does open up opportunities to share information about what’s happening in our community. This is a huge benefit and is the limit to which our community needs to go. Praying for people, holding online bible studies and small group meetings is taking it too far.

“But what does this have to do with the virtual preacher”, you may ask? I’ll tell you that in part 2.