High-Tech Churches Worry Traditional Worshippers

Comments

• mbdil

  Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:53 am : 0 : 2 Flag

  I'm curious about the "small but growing number of churches" picking up an internet campus. Currently I'm only aware of two (Lifechurch and Seacoast) that are going this direction. There are other internet churches that exist, but generally they don't have the support and resources of an established brick-and-mortar church, and then often appear as little more than a pet evangelism project. I wish that more churches would go this direction. As pgcfriend pointed out and I've noticed from experience, there are a great many people out there who would not attend a real life church, but will check out one on the internet and often find Jesus.
  
  Also, I could not disagree more with the suggestion that the satellite-feed-based campuses are "impersonal". Rather than spending 20 hours in his study preparing a sermon, the pastor of these extended campus churches has the time to meet with more leaders, visit more sick people, and be human with his congregation, including joining them for much of the worship service. That sounds like a good thing.

• rwsmd

  Mon Oct 01, 2007 7:02 pm : 2 : 1 Flag

  Did Pastor Browning in Fort Washington really say that he didn't think God would want us to try to evangelize like Jesus did 2000 years ago? It's good to know such titans of the faith are around today to straighten God out...sheesh!

• adc1967

  Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:18 am : 3 : 1 Flag

  Technology and its use can be helpful. How one uses it becomes the question. LifeChurch has a presence in our city. It's certainly different. Every campus has its music and pastor, but the message is piped in via satellite. If this is an effective way to get crowds of people, so be it. However, for a local church, the impersonal aspects of it come off as bizarre.
  
  It shows me how different we view what a local church experience should include; our varied definitions of a pastor; and the level of intimacy we want. Technology, for me, is not a problem; but at what expense do we want to be different? Unless I am interested in retaining authority over the people reached, it makes more sense for trained leaders to take the helm and lead at the various campuses. Duplication of leadership is the greatest contribution one leader gives to the body of Christ. LifeChurch appears to be set up to primarily serve evangelism by being unique or different. If they intend to be around beyond one generation the impersonal elements will need some adjustments.
  
  Also, placing too much emphasis on the number of people participating is one of the biggest mistakes made when we evaluate ministry effectiveness. Depending on the care with which mega churches handle communicating the gospel to the individual determines in large part whether they are effective at reaching the lost. Unfortunately most are not reaching new people but are recycling disenchanted Christians and church members.
  
  I don’t want to come off as a mega church or LifeChurch basher. What they are doing is certainly evangelical, for that I am supportive, but I do not think their structure could be described as people building; it’s not necessarily the technology used.

• GreatNW

  Thu Sep 27, 2007 6:34 am : 2 : 3 Flag

  I wonder if the mega churches are all that effective in reaching the lost? Most seem to pull in people who are already Christians who want to attend the newest and latest thing. It is the Nordstrom phenomenon of church attendance. We live in an age where the culture is very brand conscious and it has rubbed off on Christians. I would predict that the mega church trend is already on the wane. The real hope for Christianity in America is in the revitalization of the small church and developing a more effective model of small church ministry. Even the large churches realize their limitations and spend enormous amounts of resources trying to become "small" in order to be more effective at creating disciples and not just creating numbers.

• KeithPas

  Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:10 pm : 3 : 2 Flag

  I don;t like to come to church to read the sermon, I come to church to listen to the sermon. As long as the Gospel is being preached and the general state of the congregation is healthy I don;t think it matters too much. My preference is to be in a smaller church where the use of audio visual tools is somewhat limited and used but in a sparing way. I have no problem with bigger churches that choose to go in the other direction, it is just not my thing.

• RBB

  Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:14 pm : 4 : 1 Flag

  This article takes one of the most important problems facing Christianity right now, and trivializes the situation and the problem. The questions addressed are nowhere as unimportant as, should there be a video screen or rock music, or if the church should be available on the internet. It goes much deeper than that. It goes to the point of what is a church. Who is more important God or man. What is worship. Whether the church is the house of God or a business. What is being taught and more importantly what isn't.

• pgcfriend

  Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:27 am : 8 : 10 Flag

  Why should so-called 'traditional' worshippers care one bit about this issue? If the people are preaching the clear message of the gospel that is all that matters. Those that do not like it can live their lives without it. Those that appreciate the use of technology to reach others should use it to the max. The Internet helped me tremedously when I was horrified at the idea of attending anywhere. I watched Internet services online for quite a while before I was able to scrape up enough nerve to go anywhere else. I found the church I attended because of on-demand and streaming media that I listened to. These types of articles are a waste of precious time and space. The issues here have nothing at all to do with the message of Christ but preference. We have better things to do. I guess I spent too much time responding to this:)

Most Commented Articles

• La. Governor Signs 'Science Education Act'

• Obama Prying Loose Evangelicals from Republicans

• Federal Marriage Amendment Re-introduced in Senate

• Why I Thank God for Charles Darwin

• Anglican Head Sees Risks in Conservative Proposals

• PCUSA Assembly Approves Deleting Gay Clergy Ban

• Arizona Puts Marriage Amendment on Ballot - Again