It’s Also About Smaller Groups: A Defense of Venue Services

          Carl Trueman wrote a mild-to-moderate critique of simulcast services recently. It’s gotten around the blogosphere a bit, so I thought I’d try to answer a few of his questions as a pastor of worship arts in a multi-service church that has dabbled in the practice of simulcasting.

          His blog makes some good points about the importance of physical presence in preaching and leading worship, but I feel he makes some assumptions and over-simplifications about the reasoning behind simulcast services, the role of technology in community-building, and a few other things. But he raised some good questions, and I’ll try to answer them as best as I can.

          Why a live band, but not a live preacher? This seeming double-standard really fascinates Trueman, and he assumes it’s simply because there are more musicians/worship-leaders in the world than pastors. The necessity of a live band “concedes” the importance of physical presence in worship services and, therefore, that standard should apply to preaching as well (then, out of curiosity, what use are Christian radio CD’s and worship albums?).

          If you ask me, the necessity of a live band is, first, because a professional and live audio “mix,” that captures the same dozen-instrument balance in one room and places it in another, is technically near-impossible. This certainly was the case when I was the sound guy for a women’s webinar broadcast to my church (I was the only sound guy available). A singular speaking voice is not as technologically difficult to mobilize into another room.

          Secondly, many venue services are utilizing the multiple sites to employ different musical styles of worship, a musical submission to Paul’s encouragement in 1 Cor. 9:19-23. But a musical styles debate is another can of worms I won’t open here. 

          There are good arguments against simulcast services, but this isn’t one of them, not in an age where technology (aside from its aforementioned struggle) has drastically improved recording quality since the era of classic rock and Marlon Brando, which Trueman refers to. Modern recording artists embellish tracks in the studio in ways they could never imagine executing on tour. Movies have cameras that can zoom in on a character or a set/story’s graphic details and also have special effects. The vast majority of movies and music today are experienced through headphones and screens. 

          What about cross-cultural contextualization? This is a very good question, but Trueman’s response may indicate an over-simplification on his part as to the reasoning behind simulcast services. Indeed, if all simulcasts were operating with the same seeming consumerist, impersonal mass-media approach, then I’d be on the exact same page as Trueman here. 

          But churches simulcast for a variety of reasons. This past Easter, my church staff set up a live-feed venue in another sanctuary for potential overflow. We also have live-feed in a lobby for mothers with restless children. 

          Outside of contextualization, some big churches across the world have purposely gathered at the same time and simulcast to each other, purposely portraying the edifying and exhilarating truth that Christianity is global.

          I’m very much a supporter of communication to culture and a shepherd-like approach to preaching and leading worship, and the wise employment of simulcasting (e.g. within the church body) is not necessarily a threat to that. I’ll expand on this point later.

          What about physical presence? Yes, physical presence is important, but technology is not the inherent enemy to physical community. It, actually, can be a wonderful tool in ministry that can lead to physical community, as well as being a good and edifying complement when physical community is not possible. This is why I, for example, blog and encourage theological and community-building conversations in cyberspace during the week, but I discourage attending church at Second Life.

          Here’s an interesting question, though: as a church attendant, imagine two scenarios:

1. You attend church in a smaller, intimate sanctuary with people you’ve gotten to know and some you’ve invited. You’re led in worship by a band you know well. You see a pastor on a screen this week (he’ll preach in this room the next week), but you know you can talk to him across the hall about his sermon right after the service.
2. You attend church in a large sanctuary. You grabbed the best seats you could, but you’re surrounded by complete strangers who don’t seem very talkative. You can hear the pastor just fine, but you can’t make out his face. Good thing there’s live screens of him just above the stage. However, there’s almost no chance of you getting to talk to him or get to know him after the service. There’s so many people here, and he usually exits quietly.

          Which service would make you feel more “pastored” and part of a community? The latter is somewhat the typical mega-church experience. With all the effort in accommodating a large audience, community-building and shepherding are difficult, almost impossible. (But at least the pastor is physically present). Partially because of this, many young pastors (myself included) are re-evaluating and questioning the essence and efficacy of the megachurch concept.

          The former is what I know many mature large churches (even megachurches) are striving to be through simulcasting. They see “venue services” as an opportunity to build more community through preaching to smaller “audiences” at a time. In an era where people long for community, it’s a way, through technology, to help make big church smaller. It’s a step away from the consumerist and impersonal aura of the megachurch, not a further embrace of it.   

   

          Concluding. Trueman and I agree on some very important things. I have church planting in my background, and I would argue, like Trueman, that church should be about preaching Truth and building and impacting community. And that a pastor should better resemble a shepherd rather than a speaking commodity or a CEO. 

          Yes, in a perfect world, churches should accommodate their growing numbers with church multiplication and new leadership appointment rather than, in my opinion, megachurch construction. Where Trueman and I differ is that I see simulcast services as a stage towards that perfect world, whereas Trueman sees the bad apples of simulcasting and wants to throw out the baby with the bath water.