Had a mostly encouraging time at the Evangelical Ministers Assembly today at St Helen’s Bishopsgate. There was a fantastic plea from unity from Vaughn Roberts that stood out for me and an interesting interview of John Piper by Adrian Reynolds.
Piper explained that because the church had grown so much they now had 3 campuses – spread over a 24 mile strip of a highway in Minnesota. Obviously Piper can’t be at all three campuses simultaneously so he records his sermon the night before at a smaller congregation and they then show that in whichever of the campuses Piper is not in that morning.
Piper explained that he had been wary about doing this because preaching should be “eyeball to eyeball” but this was maybe a B plus (or B minus) solution. Adrian rightly asked the question we were all muttering – why don’t you just train up more preachers to which Piper replied that there are plenty of opportunities for others to preach in the church when he is on holiday.
There was a whole queue of people waiting to speak to Piper after his talk so I didn’t get a chance to raise these issues with him directly. Piper explained in the rest of the interview that he likes to spend a lot of time on the internet “showing idiots why they are wrong” so perhaps he might contact me sometime.
There are some strengths to this approach.
1. It recognises that some people have a God given exceptional gift and it seeks to provide the biggest opportunity for its use.
2. It is seeking to “think outside of the box” and effectively utilise new technologies.
3. It allows a group of churches to be “on the same page” by hearing the same message as a point of unity.
4. It is only a degree different from multiple back to back services where the preacher zooms from one to the other – Keller apparently travels to multiple campuses leaving one service when the singing starts after the sermon and arriving just in time for the preaching slot having missed the rest of the service. ( I am happy to be corrected if this is wrong).
But I do have a number of problems:
1. Cult of personality
The model effectively says there are no preachers that could possibly take the place of the gifted preacher. In fact its says its better to have a pre-recorded sermon than to have one of these lesser preachers. On this principle – if the preacher doesn’t have to be a) physically present or b) live – why not extrapolate this thinking. If John Piper is that good maybe we should just beam him into all the churches in the UK – we wouldn’t need to employ preachers and use the money and time that goes into sermon preparation into other forms of ministry – it would certainly be more efficient. Or if the preacher doesn’t have to be speaking live – why don’t we just use recordings of preachers from the past – a classic John Stott series or even LLoyd Jones or just have someone read old Whitefield sermons? If as Tim Keller says that global cities all have the same basic culture then we could just show recorded sermons of one preacher. This for me is unacceptable, but the logical consequence of the thinking expressed by Piper. Which leads onto the second problem.
2. Lack of communication
we need sermons that are going to engage with the people in the room. Being able to speak into the pastoral situation of those that are present. If you know that someone in the congregation is seriously ill, or a wedding is coming up or the town is facing some major changes or a whole gang of newcomers have turned up – then you would want your sermon to adapt to that. Preaching has definitely become a prepackaged monologue. There’s no room for the immediate feedback of seeing people getting bored, being moved. Many a preacher will know when God has moved an audience and you need to ditch what you had planned because the Spirit has done something in the congregation. Good communicators know when an illustration is working as you see peoples eyes track you, or their faces light up – even when preaching a similar sermon in a multi-service event – there will often be a different demographic present in the early service to the later service so you need to hone your illustrations or adapt your application. But none of that is possible if you are not preaching live in the room.
3. Lack of relationship
Part of the problem with the Mega church / Multiple Campus model is that it has separated the Ephesians 4 joining together of Pastor / Teacher. It has instead made teaching into a set piece generalized celebrity monologue.In a megachurch the person preparing the food for the sheep to feed on – does not know the sheep. They speak bland general applications at their audience rather than truth into the lives of people that we have journeyed with through the years. There’s little room for the biblical models of interaction – Jesus often preached in response to a question, or explaining an event that has taken place like a miracle or a lack of a miracle. None of that is possible in the pre-record. But it is also true in Keller model of rushing between multiple services.
4. Consumer Church – church becomes a place where I go to get my spiritual fix for the week of singing and preaching. Piper did explain that he thought that preaching was not the most transformational aspect of the church’s life. So the place of small groups becomes more significant – as a friend of mine reminded me of Rick Warren’s dictum – “we need to stop thinking of a church small group and instead think of a church of small groups” but this is still an interesting comment from a man who has given his life to raise up preachers. When asked to justify his reasoning for doing the move he said “we got great feedback” which sounds a lot like a marketing mentality rather than the usual theological explanation we’d expect from Piper.
I must admit I grew up as a huge Piper fan, I can look back at Desiring God as a very influential book on me as an 18 year old. I was uncomfortable with the language of Christian Hedonism then – and am probably more uncomfortable with it now 20 years on. I really enjoyed “Let the Nations be Glad: Piper’s book on mission. But found “Future grace” to be more harm than good to me personally. I was saddened by the attacks on NT Wright’s work. What I value most about Piper’s ministry is his commitment to expository preaching combined with passionate about emotion-touching charismatic style worship as well as a ministry that shows genuine and practical care for the poor. For conservative evangelicals Piper offered an interesting counterbalance to some of the Sydney Anglicans who were strongly opposed to any kind of church involvement in social justice at the time. Conferences like EMA were influential in moving the debates along for conservatives and Tim Keller’s recent rise in popularity has swung the debate firmly towards a more holistic missional approach.
Sabbatical?
One thing that struck me about Piper this year as he explained he was going on an 8 month sabbatical to try and reach out to the sons he had lots relationship with and to invest time in his marriage. This was a humble and brave thing to say in front of a crowd of over a thousand ministers. So much better to do things this way round rather than hear that a marriage has fallen apart. But it was intriguing that he didn’t say he had any regrets though, and for a man who has been a hero to so many preachers – it might be helpful to hear if the sabbatical reveals another model for sustainable ministry.
Author Description
There are 15 comments. Add yours
Pingback: Teaching by Video « Living With Joy June 26, 2010
[...] Krish’s article [...]
sadly, this kind of preaching also has started within the uk, as a church based on mainland britain also relays, or certainly has relayed its talks to northern ireland in the past.
there is a danger of celebratising speakers in churches, and making church into an event, which is not how god wanted it to be i'm sure.
there is a real danger of turning church into atractional performance based stuff as oposed to relational based discipleship.
almost be as well showing a film with a christian message in it, if we are going down that root.
if we depersonalise church, what hope do we offer the world?
what is the legacy being left, or the releasing aspect of the spirit? there is little enough releasing of new leaders, and giving them opportunities, and also if leaders are not developed, inspired to lead, then the legacy left for the christian church is a sad one.
sorry for waffle, writing about difference between organic and event church recently for ma dissertation.
shall stop now.
sorry menat to click on the nofication link as well.
one further last thought for tonight, what gifts are we encouraging people to explore if they only go somewhere to receive, will we loose servanthearted, giving approach within the gospel.
I'm with you on the multiple campuses thing. Wouldn't it be more effective in the long term for Piper to get some of the next generation of preachers preaching the same week and time as he is, and then sharing in some of his sermon prep time before so that he can more effectively mentor them?
I've expanded on my thoughts a bit more here.
Good work Krish. I would love a citation of the Keller comment with regards big cities. I know that this has been a concern of yours, which I share, but I have not been able to find where he has said that global cities share cultural standards and understand what he means by that.
Secondly, why are you uncomfortable with the language of Christian Hedonism ? Is it the language of hedonism, or the actual articulation of the responsibility to love God and enjoy him for ever? I found "The dangerous duty of delight" quite a good little booklet...
Thanks for the comments guys. I am with you John on the raising up preachers side of things.
I am hoping that if our churches end up as sizeable as piper's we would be up for raising up preachers.
We are trying it now - it can be slow work - but it's worth the investment.
"The technology/communication revolution means that the culture and values of global cities are now being transmitted around the globe to every tongue, tribe, people, and nation. Kids in Iowa or even Mexico are becoming more like young adults in Los Angeles and New York City than they are like adults in their own locales. The coming world order will be a global, multicultural, urban order. World cities are increasingly crucial in setting the course of culture and life as a whole, even in areas of the world, such as Europe and North America, where cites are not literally growing in size."
Tim Keller in
http://conversation.lausanne.org/conversations/detail/10282
Krish, in your article you state 'If John Piper is that good'; this sounds like you either don't like his preaching, or don't listen to/haven't heard his preaching. If its the latter, then you're argument about Piper's recorded preaching isn't pointless because it doesn't address the content of his preaching at all, but instead focuses on religious form and function.
John Piper isn't a celebrity to those who know his ministry, he's simply respected as Tozer, Spurgeon, Ravenhill and the Wesleys were/are: men whose sole aim is to glorify the Son of God in the pulpit and writing. As you will know, these great men of God aren't renowned for no reason- the Lord used them mightily to minister His truths to their generation and those in the future and He is doing the same with John Piper.
If God has ordained Piper to preach as much as he does, then that's God's will, just as some preach to congregations of less than 50 and Billy Graham preached to millions. Desiring God can train up hundreds of preachers, but not many of them will be a John Piper. I do acknowledge that he is just a man and so does he, regularly giving all the glory to God through Christ alone.
Thanks for your comment.
As I say in the post I grew up as a huge fan of Piper - so I most certainly have listened to his preaching.
I am interested in the question as to how we work out the balance between our confidence being in the word of God and not in the preacher and yet valuing people with giftings?
thanks for commenting
krish
I really like the concerns that are raised and wrestled with here, but I can't help but wonder why the assumption seems to be that the elders who serve at the satellite sites are potentially less adequate or not up to the task to fill the roles John and his staff provide at the head campus? I think that ultimately these concerns will either prove out or be swept aside by the commitment and fervency of each satellite staff. Good post.
Brad
Thanks for your comment Brad.
I just wonder why we want to separate out teacher / pastor - my reading of Ephesians 4 seems to connect these two roles.
I am sure Piper has a great team of local elders and pastors - why not let them preach - rather than use a pre-record?
thanks
krish
Thanks for your reply Krish. Personally I believe that Piper is a person who is led by the Lord in his ministry decisions as well as preaching, writing etc. If this is true, the decision to remain as 'pastor for preaching' at Bethlehem and his eight month sabbattical are God-ordained, therefore its not a case of training up leaders to preach at the satellites, for their weekend services, but simply following God's will. And while I'll again acknowledge John Piper as nothing more than a vessel of mercy for the service of God, I believe his preaching to be relevant, revelatory, and penetrating and vital in leading the church at Beth. Baptist. It would be interesting to hear your views on this.
Krish
I would agree with all the issues you raise. I see preaching as an 'organic'act, born out of the relationship between preacher and people. For the preacher this has both positive and negative elements. On the positive side, it allows the preacher to see the fruit of the preaching. On the negative side, it means that the preacher must live out the sermon they preach before the eyes of those to whom they preach it.
Whilst this cannot, of necessity, apply to the itinerant preacher - it surely should to the pastor-preacher, even in a huge church?
On a lighter note - there are doubtless one or two congregations who would welcome a video sermon - just so long as they were issued with remote controls to mute the volume, speed it up, or change channels!
Hi Krish, you don't know me but I remember you mentioned your blog when you came to speak at OICCU on Wed night and I thought I'd come by and check it out!
Really been enjoying browsing through some of your posts and the insights that you offer. I agree with a lot of what you've said here, especially as I'm reading 'Total Church' by Tim Chester (who is turning out to be a gem of an author for me) and Steve Timmis. I think you are really hitting the nail on the head with the stuff about the purpose of preaching being the edification of the church, thereby rendering it essential that the preacher knows the strengths and weaknesses of each church, as well as what level of spiritual maturity they're at etc, just as Paul did in his letters, as did John in revelation with the letters to the 7 churches.
But I would say that when someone has an exceptional gift, then of course it is more than right that the global church should nourish itself and utilise this gift. So with Piper, who clearly has an exceptional gift for teaching and exposition (as well as humility), then I do want to listen, watch and read what he has to say in my own time. However, I would say this is for my personal growth in godliness, wisdom and knowledge rather than being 'church' experience.
So I guess I can see why they would want their congregations to benefit from Piper's teaching, but I just think they're making a category mistake. The purpose of church is not to have a great 'worship' time where your emotions resonate, or you get to see a great preacher or the service is structured just how you like it. No, church is the body of believers coming together for fellowship and edification. All those things above are great things, but they could/should be the consequence of good church rather than the purpose of it.
So whilst they are right to want everyone to listen to great, Biblical and God-glorifying preaching, surely they can encourage their congregations to do that in their personal time rather than making category mistakes about what 'church is supposed to be?
Could I ask you to expand on your uncomfortableness with Christian hedonism? I've also read Desiring God, when I was 17, and it just felt like God was removing the scales from my eyes to see the emptiness of Kantian duty-based law morality that I had taught myself, and instead to see the richness of following God out of a desire to enjoy Him.
So I come at it from a very positive perspective because of my experience which I am more than happy to admit, but it'd be good to hear the perspective of someone who is slightly more concerned about it!
Thanks a lot for all your help,
Michael
P.S. I thought you and Bishop Michael Nazir Ali did a great job standing up for orthodox biblical Christianity on the big questions today!
Such a hostile environment as well...loved the bit where you said show me a contradiction and everyone just shouted "it contradicts itself everywhere!", and Campbell said "right, but where?", "ohh everywhere". Always makes me laugh when people just never give any evidence to back up their claims :)
Tbh Dawkins hit the nail on the head when he said this: "What sophisticated theologians believe isn't really relevant to what the majority of Christians believe." That's the thing- in urban areas, the black pentecostal church is booming, just as in Africa, Latin America, India, China where Evangelical Christianity in general is booming. Liberal theology has always existed as an attempt to be 'relevant', but ironically it is precisely liberal Christianity of today which will be irrelevant tomorrow, before it will morph again to be relevant. Orthodox Christianity always has and always will be relevant, even if in a few countries in europe and north america Christianity might be receding, in most other places in the world where liberalism is not widespread, it is booming.
P.S.S. think we might have a mutual friend, Dan Strange? I go to the same church as him in North London :)