Videotaped Messages

Kent:  I have disagreed with Paul Williams, so it is pleasing on this occasion to give him his due.  I must say "right on!" in regard to the sentiments Paul expresses in the article excerpted below.  Of course, I still have some comments to make, and they appear in this color scheme format for easy identification.

Paul S. Williams, "My Verdict Is In" (Christian Standard, August 27, 2006)

. . .Video venues will not last. That’s right. Church services that include videotaped messages by the minister will not stand the test of time.

Over the past five years larger congregations have moved to a multiple-site model in which a single church inhabits a number of spaces simultaneously. While the inaugural "second-campus" churches had different speakers for each location, the majority today use live video-streaming, or tape-delayed video in which every campus hears the same message from the same person at virtually the same time.

Kent:  As I have hinted elsewhere, the obvious logic of this is to have all churches be satellites of that one-and-only best church, with that one-and-only best preacher preaching for the entire country or world.

Since good preachers are in short supply, the conventional wisdom goes, we’ll just make one man’s sermon available at multiple sites. One new church is never using its local minister as the Sunday morning speaker. The sermon is always presented, 52 weeks a year, via video from a senior minister at a church two states away!

Kent:  Yes, I read about that church.  The minister does no preaching.  His job is to "cast visions" for the congregation.  Is "vision casting" just another name for "corn hole"?

Now, back to my prediction. How do I know these video venues will be only a passing fad? Because the residents of Manhattan have long ago weighed in on the subject.

Kent:  While it is just possible that not all of us "fly over" people share the sensibilities of Manhattanites, I have to agree that, in this case, they probably do.

New York is home to the world’s best live theater. (Well OK, there is London.) Last June I paid a month’s rent for my family to see The Color Purple. With ticket prices for orchestra seats topping $100, the truth is clear. Americans are willing to spend a lot of money to see live theater.

Kent:  While I agree with Paul about his main point, I do have to wonder how a fellow who harps about economic inequality as much as he does can justify paying a month's rent to attend the live theater while people are starving somewhere in the world.

On the other hand, New York movie theaters recently raised their prices to $10 per ticket. There was a huge outcry from the public. That’s right. These people will happily pay $100 for a live performance, but grouse at paying 10 bucks for an Academy Award-winning movie.

Kent:  But it appears that - while they put forth a "huge outcry" - they still buy some movie tickets.  The amateur economist in me says that this can be explained in part by the fact that the supply of movie theaters far exceeds the supply of avant-garde theater.  Also, keep in mind that, the last time I checked, there were no tickets required to get in to hear sermons.  (Maybe we should change that?)

When the day is done and the empty seats are tallied, I believe churchgoers will behave like New Yorkers. After the novelty has worn off they will quickly tire of seeing their senior minister pause onscreen for their laughter before he proceeds again, not knowing that no laughter ever occurred.

Kent:  I have to admit that the whole piped-in-sermons with the minister-as-vision-caster thing makes me want to laugh - or maybe cry.  But in any case, kudos to Paul for making this point.