When you see a video circulating the interwebs like the one above featuring the like of Mark Driscol, James MacDonald, and Mark Dever one expects some good theological debate concerning multisite video venues.

But that is not what you get. As one commenter on David Finch’s blog said, “you get Denver trying to have a serious discussion and the other two cutting him off so they could talk about how successful they were.”

This is an inherent problem in the whole video venue conversation. Most just talk in circles.
[one_half]

[/one_half] However, one voice, David Finch, makes a compelling argument as to “Why Video Venue is the Antithesis of Missional.”

I have summarized his points below, but I would encourage you to read the entire post.

1. Video venues decontextualize preaching

Fitch writes, [Video preaching is] “detached from real life. It is one step further towards preaching becoming commodified, consumerized, a product distributed to be used by those who come seeking a better Christian life. Once this happens, “the Word” becomes a user-friendly item and it by definition is no longer the Word of the God.”

Once I was asked by a well meaning visitor to our church, “Why didn’t you give an invitation at the end of your sermon?” She came from a tradition where this is a regular and expected occurrence where the preacher would invite people to “walk the isle” and “be saved.” She felt like something was missing and I had not given people the opportunity to respond appropriately (even though we had a lengthy time of response). I explained to her that I knew everyone in the congregation that day intimately and exactly where they were spiritually. So, there was really no need for an “invitation” because when we gather on Sunday it is not detached from the rest of life.

2. Video venues draw crowds to a celebrity and this attraction works against (as opposed to helps) the formation of church in mission.

This may be the most important point. Fitch goes on the say, “what is happening, more often than not, is merely the shifting of consumers into churches wanting more accessible/engaging, entertaining information/teaching. When pastor Driscoll says that this church in Albuquerque went from 200 to 500 in few six months with him videoing, does he think suddenly people who had never heard him wanted to suddenly hear the gospel? Does he think people did not come from other churches. So let’s just be honest here eh? This isn’t evangelism, or building churches this is warehousing Christians who want “better” teaching (whatever that might mean?) This is churches playing musical chairs.

I see this happening all over the place and not just with video venues. A new church is “planted” and creates some buzz in the local community. Then the big day arrives for the 1st service and 300 people show up. No offense, but how many out of that 300 are people who have never or very, very rarely ever attended a church service? I would say very, very few.

There is nothing wrong or unbiblical with mobilizing lapsed Christians, but when this is called evangelism and mission then there is a problem. When Christians simply move from one church to another because the Sunday show is better, then there is a problem.

3. Mission requires more than words. Video venues intensify the dependence upon words.

Fitch continues with, “Somehow video venue can be justified as missional. And what gets overlooked is that the gospel requires contextualized incarnation in post Christendom in order to be interpreted (completely). It requires the embodiment of redemption. It requires contextualization!!”

The bottom line is this: A lot of the time the church just ends up preaching to herself.