“Multisite” church is gaining more and more popularity. Usually how this works is people gather in a home (or just stay in their own homes) and watch the church service via the Internet. This is in lieu of actually attending the service. There are pros and cons to this approach, although in my mind it’s mostly cons (but it could be a good option for shut-ins).
Writer and pastor Kevin DeYoung adds his thoughts to the debate at The Gospel Coalition Web site. Here’s how it begins . . .
I have been back and forth on the multisite question. When I first heard of the idea years ago it sounded crazy. “Pastors preaching by a recorded video or by a live feed? That’s hardly church.” But as I studied and thought about the issue more I came to understand why some churches chose multisite. It can steward the talents of the preacher. It can save money. It allows a church to get bigger (in one sense) without getting bigger (in another sense). And it gives you another beachhead for ministry.
With these positives I was happy to see our church explore the option of multisite over a year ago. Call me indecisive, but I’ve now swung back in the other direction. I can’t prove multisite is wrong. In fact, it may be the best option in some situations, especially as a temporary measure. But something I read from Martyn Lloyd-Jones cemented in my mind a crucial weakness of most multisite approaches. New technologies and new methods always have trade-offs. Sometimes the pluses outweigh the negatives. And as I think about it more, multisite has one huge negative I don’t want to live with unless I absolutely have to.
You can read the entire post here.
Labels: Doctrine of the Church