“My church’s teaching model is video and live hybrid. Here’s why I love it.”

There’s a lot of discussions to be had regarding the multi-site model. 

What is the multi-site model?

According to The Multi-Site Church Revolution by Geoff Surratt Greg Ligon, and Warren Bird, a “multi-site church is one church meeting in multiple locations—different rooms on the same campus, different locations in the same region, or in some instances, different cities, states, or nations.” 

There are some in recent years who have cooled off on the multi-site model (see: The Village Church w/ Matt Chandler), and then there’s other data showing that the model is as strong as ever.

Regardless of your preference, we need to be at the very least intellectually honest about the case for the multi-site model. 

This post, however, is not about the multi-site model itself as much as why I love the teaching model at my congregation.

My specific location is about two-thirds video teaching and one-third live teaching. (For more context, I serve as the lead pastor at my location and as a teaching pastor for the broadcast congregation.)

Here’s why I love it: 

1. Gain unity without forfeiting contextualization 

On a given Sunday, the people at my congregation know that there are others who are receiving the same teaching, from the same passage, in the same series in other cities across the county. They know that if they ever moved to another part of the county, they can still be tethered to their church, albeit in a different local congregation. 

“But every context is different.” That’s correct. And that’s why the lead pastor of a local context still has teaching opportunities and is able to help shape the church as a whole through reminders of contextualization in strategic meeting spaces. 

2. Quality teaching without forfeiting quality leadership 

From my ministry vantage point, it seems like most churches excel in either leadership or teaching, but not often both. Churches with excellent teaching can sometimes be a mess structurally or internally. Other churches with strong leadership have a mediocre pulpit. But the benefit of this model is that our people are gifted with the highest level of both. 

Knowing that the teaching pastor for that week is pouring energy into a text liberates me to use my best energies on a given week for strategic thinking, shepherding, and training. If the grid of prophet (teacher), priest (shepherd), and king (leader) is utilized, I believe the people are given the best opportunity to receive all three. 

3. Stewardship of capacity without forfeiting what’s crucial

This is a continuation of the second point, but if we’re honest, things like “being missional” and “caring for the city” can often be pushed aside to the periphery from the routine grind of pastoral work. But this model helps increase capacity for leaders to focus on crucial but neglected things. 

If a pastor spends 15 hours on a sermon, those are 15 hours not being used to ideate, execute, converse with, pray for, and so on. I love that the model increases capacity for pastors to do things that are of benefit to the people and to the city they’re aiming to serve. 

Some may ask:

“But isn’t it weird? You’re piping in a teacher onto a screen!” There was a time when I felt that way until I realized I end up looking at the screen when a live preacher is there anyways. There was a time when we felt weird about listening to sermons through podcasts. There was a time when it was weird for everyone to have a personal Bible too. You get used to it. 

“But how can someone who is not there know how to preach to those specific people?” This question is often asked by pastors. The humorous thing is that if you ask the average pastor what the most impactful sermons they’ve heard were, it’s usually by a famous preacher who they have not met, who often ministers in a different timezone altogether. The Word of God needs to be contextualized, but it paradoxically transcends culture too.

“But don’t you want to preach more?” Don’t get me wrong, I need to teach. Teaching is at the core of my competencies and is something I believe I’m called to do. There are multi-site models where it’s only video broadcast and I would not do well in those models. But right now, I just don’t feel the need to preach thirty times a year to fulfill my conviction to teach. Could that change one day? It may, it may not, but I certainly don’t feel that way in this season.

Conclusion 

This post is not a sell for why you should believe in or embrace this model. I am not saying this model is superior to another teaching model or insinuating anything of that sort.

All I’m saying is, I understand why this model is utilized. I see how it provides care for the people, capacity for the lead pastor, and compassion for the city a church is called to.

Those are some reasons why I personally love our model.