If you are coming to this blog for the first time after seeing my short article in Outreach Magazine, welcome! I appreciate your visit!

Unfortunately, the article I had originally written for Outreach Magazine was edited in such a way that I think the intent of the article was dramatically changed. I have just finished sending an email to the magazine and felt like it would be a good idea to post what I wrote, along with the original article I submitted, so the regular readers of this blog and new visitors can understand more clearly what I was trying to say. 

With that background, here is the email I just finished sending:

I just received the January/February issue of Outreach. I was happy to see that the articles Mark Batterson and I wrote on podcasting were included.

As I read my portion, however, I was dismayed to notice that the editing process actually changed the intent of what I was trying to say. I know that editing (and sometimes extensive editing) takes place during the process, so I’m not objecting to that at all.

But at least in one place in the article, the editing dramatically changed what I was trying to say.

In the second paragraph of the edited article, the final sentence is quite different than what I said. Here is how the edited article reads:

If we believe that an ongoing demonstration of authentic Christian community is foundational to effective outreach, then podcasting to draw unbelievers into this community will ultimately be ineffective.

Here’s what I actually wrote:

If we believe, as I do, that an ongoing demonstration of authentic Christian community is foundational to effective outreach (cf. John 17:21-23), then podcasting in ways which do not draw unbelievers into Christian community will ultimately be ineffective.

I definitely did not intend to say that podcasting will be ineffective at drawing unbelievers into Christian community. In fact, I go on to talk about ways in which podcasting can draw unbelievers into Christian community. What I had originally written was intended to say that podcasting in ways which do not draw unbelievers into Christian community will be ineffective.

I also think it was unfortunate that the article begins with me giving a No answer to the question, “Does sermon podcasting offer churches an effective way to connect with the unchurched?” The No answer, although I recognize it is commonly used in this type of article, seems to pit Mark and I against each other, which was not my intention. I would have thought that would have been clear since what I had originally wrote specifically says “I agree with Mark Batterson” (something I wrote before knowing that Mark was going to write the other half of the article).

Thanks for listening. I did appreciate the opportunity, but I also want to let you know that the final outcome is less than I would have hoped for.

For those of you who would like to read the entire article as I had originally written it, I’m including it here:

I believe strongly that the church should use technology strategically to reach an increasingly digital society.

One of the newest developments is podcasting.

I agree with Mark Batterson, the pastor of National Community Church in Washington, D.C., who contends that podcasting is the modern-day equivalent of John Wesley’s field preaching and circuit riding. Its potential to reach unbelievers is vast and largely unexplored.

But how can we utilize this technology effectively?

First of all, I suggest that podcasts be used primarily to present content which will draw unbelievers into Christian community rather than persuade them to make an immediate decision for Christ.

If we believe, as I do, that an ongoing demonstration of authentic Christian community is foundational to effective outreach (cf. John 17:21-23), then podcasting in ways which do not draw unbelievers into Christian community will ultimately be ineffective.

How, then, can we use podcasting to draw unbelievers into our midst? Not simply by presenting church services, but by podcasting or videocasting content which will intrigue unbelievers enough to want to meet us: a) records of the spontaneous life of the church; 2) video profiles of believers telling their life stories in a non-religious manner; and, 3) clear explanations of the gospel and its implications for mankind.

Secondly, while I recognize the validity of providing podcasts for shut-ins and those who are out of town, podcasting of actual services should be accompanied by clear teaching regarding the nature of our gatherings.

A major newspaper interviewed an acquaintance of mine several years ago regarding a local church’s use of real-time video feeds. His comments were chilling: “When we wake up on Sunday morning, if we don’t feel like driving all the way to church, we just stay in our bedroom, flip on the computer and watch the service.”

If we podcast actual services, then at the very least, we need to emphasize strongly that the gathering of believers is not primarily something to be listened to or watched, but is instead an event which necessitates the participation of all (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:26).

Podcast? Yes! But podcast strategically!