I think that statement goes a bit far. Though I have a few other problems with with multi-site churches that stream the same video. They are impersonal and run off a model instead of being intimate and unique to their community. It seems unhealthy to me.

@LadyLibellule@xanga - keyword: usually

@TheGreatBout@xanga - On paper, yes, I totally agree that it looks like a terrible idea, but I have to agree with @WasaiWarrior@xanga - on this...my experiences with multi-site churches and those that have their sermons available via podcast have been quite positive. A bit impersonal in terms of pastor-congregation interaction? Yes, but no moreso than a megachurch, and both multi-sites and megachurches always (or at least all the ones I've been to) have very strong community group setups.
-------
"Graven Image" might be true for some followers (various Emergent Church Leaders have cult-like followings), but it is certainly not the intent of the leaders...and even if it is, that is for God to Judge; not us. As Peter said regarding his unorthodox methods of reaching the Gentiles (which included violating Kosher laws), if the Holy Spirit is being poured out, then we are in no place to stand against it (Ref: Acts 10).

@TheGreatBout@xanga - They aren't a perfect model, certainly, but I would argue medium-sized churches are just as bad, if not worse, at creating Disciples and not just semi-educated recruits. Many uber churchers (which I'm going to arbitrarily use to encompass both multi-site and mega churches) have separate services or groups that are particularly hardcore and really aren't half bad at training Disciples of Christ. Granted, as a percentage, very few people take advantage of such programs, but the average Church participation rate (at least in the Pentacostal denomination, I'm not sure of others) is only 20%, so using that as a proxy I would guess that the rates of people being trained as Disciples in uber Churches and medium churches are close to equivalent...perhaps they are slightly higher in small churches (i.e. those holes in the wall with less than 100 regular members).

Also, maybe the strengths of the Uber churches are just what we need. Church attendence country-wide is declining, but if Uber Churches are getting people through the door...that's a start. When people start craving more out of church they can leave and find one of the numerous smaller churches that emphasis more community, but if they started at that second church, they would have left completely. (This is a hypothetical scenario and I don't have any real data to back it up, just anecdotes from friends who followed this path.)

Lastly, if you get a chance, listen to some sermons from an uber church (e.g. Mark Driscol's Mars Hill in Seattle), which are usually posted online. Some of them are fluff, yes, but many are pretty hard-hitting and convicting. I agree with you that the model is terrible on paper, but in real life, I'm not so sure...it seems to work in a lot of places for a lot of people. I'm hesitent to knock that, y'know? It's certainly not a perfect model, nor for everyone, but if nothing else, it serves as a very good starting point for many who are either first coming to the Church or would otherwise walk away from the Church completely.

I mean, in the same way it's possible you went to bad examples of uber churches, it's also possible I just got lucky and went to/talked to people from really good ones.

(In the interest of Disclosure: I currently attend a tiny hole-in-the-wall church on Campus...there's about 50-75 people during the school year and maybe 20 during the summer. I switched there from the multi-site church I had been going to before because I found my current pastor to be more consistently intellectually stimulating. I also listen to sermons from Uber Churches while I excercise.)

Does that make sense? I apologize if I came off as condescending or insulting..that was not my intent.

@TheGreatBout@xanga - yay for exciting tedious tension!

You said a lot of very powerful things in there...most of which I agree with, and all of which I need mull over a bit. For that I very much thank you :)

I'm going to read this over a couple more times, think on it, and get back to you about this...possibly by way of message, depending on timing.... ;)

I think the quotation needs to be seen in the full context. I'd encourage
you to watch the whole clip. Stetzer is not against multi-site.
First off, he said he preaches at a multi-venue church w/ 9000 people
each week.

His concerns are when the church (regardless of whether it is multi-site, mega church or small church)

1. doesn't continue to raise up new leadership

2. doesn't work to ensure that people are connected together in local community w/ one another

3. causes the members to take a spectator role

4. isn't seeing its members undergoing spriitual transformation

Some of the many problems I have with "mega" churches are:
1. It is difficult, if not impossible, to get to know the pastor personally. 
2. With the size comes an enormous overhead.  Wouldn't that money be put to better use in community out reach? 
3.  With community out reach in mind, is crime down in the local community?  Many churches spend a lot of money on foreign missions while the community around them goes to hell!
I know of a "mega" church (average sunday attendance > 10,000) where the pastor lived a meager lifestyle (he lived in a small house, did his own lawn, owned a clunker car, and the only suits he owned were given to him).  This church had a fantastic out reach in the local community, however, I don't remember ever hearing about anything that resembled the revivals of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries!