The Multisite Church, Part 2
Reprinted with permission from the Baptist Bulletin, July-August 2009. Read Part 1.
Theological questions—and answers
In preparing for this article, I got my hands on as much multisite literature as I could find. Friends loaned me books—including two multisite church manuals. I Googled…and Googled…and Googled some more! I informally discussed multisite churches with a couple of multisite pastors. Through my reading and research and interviews, my initial concerns with the multisite expansion model remained unresolved. Questions went unanswered. And answers often came attached with, “Well, God is blessing this thing. Our church is growing.” While one cannot argue with God’s apparent blessing, Christians—and especially church leaders—must be certain their philosophy of local church structure squares with Scripture. Before we talk about the multiple sites or campuses, we must understand what the Bible teaches about the church.
What constitutes a local church?
This question lies at the heart of the issue. Certainly the local church is of vital importance to our Lord. Of the 27 books in the New Testament, nine were written to specific local churches, another 12 were written to or by pastors and leaders in specific local churches, one is an autobiographical sketch of the beginning of a number of local churches, and one includes Christ’s personal communication to seven local churches. Of the 27 New Testament books, 23 were written by or about or to people within local churches. It is apparent that God cares greatly about the local church.
So what is a local church? Exegetically, the local church is defined by the Greek word ekklesia. It refers to “an assembly of people” and is used to describe secular as well as sacred gatherings (Acts 19:32, 39, 40). Although the Scriptural definition of a church moves beyond that most simple definition (the church is a covenant community that proclaims the gospel, administers the ordinances, and practices church discipline), a church cannot be a church unless it is a visible assembly or group of believing people. In other words, a church is, in its most simple meaning, a visible gathering or assembly of baptized Christians in a specific, single locale.
In an article for the 9Marks eJournal (May/June 2009), Grant Gaines uses this to argue against the multisite church idea. If the church is not constituted of a single gathering of believers in a specific place, then our Lord’s instructions regarding church discipline make no sense. How can we report a member’s unrepentant sin to the ekklesia if it is not a gathering of believers in a specific place (Matthew 18:17)? And how could the apostle John rebuke Diotrephes for casting out believers from the ekklesia if it is anything less than a visible, tangible assembly of believers in one place (3 John 9, 10)? In fact, Paul implied that it is the act of gathering in the same place that enables a body of Christians to be labeled an ekklesia. When the believers at Corinth came together as an ekklesia, they did so by gathering in the same place (1 Corinthians 11:18, 20).
Historically, this has been the Baptist position. Benjamin Keach, a 17th-century Baptist pastor in London (who pastored the same congregation Charles Spurgeon would later lead), defined the church in his classic work, The Glory of a True Church (1697): “A Church of Christ, according to the Gospel-Institution, is a Congregation of Godly Christians, who as a Stated-Assembly (being first baptized upon the Profession of Faith) do by mutual agreement and consent give themselves up to the Lord, and one to another, according to the Will of God; and do ordinarily meet together in one Place, for the Public Service and Worship of God; among whom the Word of God and Sacraments are duly administered, according to Christ’s Institution” (emphasis added).
Scripturally and historically, the multisite expansion structure appears to be out of bounds. And if it is, the “one church, many locations” mantra is an exegetical contradiction in terms.
Does the multisite expansion model encourage an unbiblical ecclesiastical polity or structure?
If a congregation is a church, and a church is a congregation, and if the local, visible ekklesia is a single gathering of believers in a single place, then multisite congregations are not a single church, but a network of multiple churches—churches subjugated to a centralized ecclesiastical authority (commonly referred to as connectionalism) or to the governmental authority of other local assemblies. Simply stated, multiple sites are multiple churches, and churches are to be autonomous. The multisite expansion structure lends itself to a kind of unbiblical polity in which the governing authority lies outside local congregations. The polity issue raises additional questions when it comes to the multisite’s ability to obey the commands that our Lord gave to the local church. How do multisite churches obey the command to “come together” and observe the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23–34)? How do they come together for the purpose of church discipline—especially when the sin is confined to a member in a particular campus or site (Matthew 18:15–20; 1 Corinthians 5:1–13)? And if baptism is the key by which an individual enters the membership of a church, where will the multiple congregations gather together to examine the candidate’s profession and witness the baptism? Logistically it seems nearly impossible for a multisite church to faithfully obey the commands our Lord has given—commands intended to be carried out in a single, local gathering of believers.
Are multisite expansion models contributing to the market-driven, consumerist approach to contemporary Christianity?
To varying degrees, it appears that this is true. Even the most theologically sound multisite churches seem to be contributing—perhaps unwittingly—to the rampant consumerism of our age. In many of these multicampus congregations, Biblically qualified “campus pastors” do not preach to their congregations; instead, screens display video-sermons from the well-known pastor and gifted communicator. This practice may very well lead to an elitist mind-set—that only a very few are gifted enough to communicate God’s Word effectively. This practice not only tends to downplay the necessity of discipling and training new church leaders and the next generation’s pastors, it may explain the tendency among multisite congregants to identify themselves with the name of a pastor rather than a local church.
Additional multisite practices seem to contribute to a market-driven consumerist approach to the church. North Coast Church in Vista, Calif., has four sites—with the main site offering several unique worship experiences simultaneously. Some offer Starbucks and live bands, while others feature a unique venue for artists that blends “a portion of the sermon, worship and art” throughout the service. One campus—various unique worship experiences—and as they themselves say, “You can choose the style of worship that you like and still enjoy the same great teaching in every venue.”
We must ask ourselves this question: Does the multichurch expansion model contribute to an unhealthy kind of market-driven consumerism by offering a smorgasbord of choices, venues, sites, and experiences created and catered just for you?
These are just a few of the questions multisite churches must consider and answer. Others continue to circulate in my mind. Questions like: How can pastors effectively minister to people in other sites? How can they be responsible for the souls of people they do not know or worship with (Hebrews 13:17)? Should the preaching of an incarnational Christ be consistently “nonincarnational” (on screens rather than in person)? Why do we send real people to preach to real people in Zimbabwe? Why not spare the funds of sending missionaries and instead send video projectors and screens to disseminate the gospel? Will multisite churches eradicate the need for and our ability to plant new, indigenous, autonomous local churches?
These are important questions with equally significant implications. They are not peripheral but central to our understanding of the all-important doctrine and structure of the church. After all, the church isn’t our idea—it’s a treasure of Christ given to our trust. He instituted it, loved it, and gave His own blood for it (Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25). We must not only care for it; we must show extreme care in how we do it.
- 44 views
1) I don’t see the NT teaching explicitly that a “church” must normally meet in one place. In fact as you study the term, sometimes it is used of all believers in a geographical area. Also we see many house churches, and teaching house to house (in the Jerusalem church and the Ephesus church), which seems to imply (coupled with our knowledge of early church history) that some churches mainly met in smaller gatherings and only occasionally met together in a large group of several thousand. It seems that meeting in a large venue was more difficult to do in the NT church era than in our own time.
2) As for multi site models encouraging a consumeristic choice offering different kinds of services, etc., this problem seems to be quite present irrespective of multi site models. Multi site churches may just be extending the reach in some areas of this consumeristic model. I am not defending the model or those kinds of multi site churches.
3) A big problem in this is the matter of church growth. Distance from the pastor is just as great in a single church in one location of 5,000 people as it is in a single church at multiple locations of the same size.
4) What realistically is the difference between multiple services and multiple locations? Isn’t it just a difference in degree and not in kind? So your comments apply equally to multiple services in the same church, in my mind.
5) There are valid objections and problems with this. But the answers aren’t easy. Just send people away! How exactly are you going to do that? Just lock the doors? What do you do with explosive church growth, similar to what you see in the NT? It’s easy to disagree with someone else’s solution. But what would your solution be?
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Bob Hayton] What do you do with explosive church growth, similar to what you see in the NT? It’s easy to disagree with someone else’s solution. But what would your solution be?I haven’t been following this disscussion much, but Bob—you sort of stuck your neck out a little on this one. If the explosive growth is similar to what we see in the NT, how about if we just do what they did in the NT? Somehow they managed w/o satellites and screens.
In reality, I’m a bit ambivalent about the technology itself. I like tech.
What I don’t like is big, big churches. To me, more than 300 is ridiculously large. Yes, that’s a completely arbitrary number based on nothing more than my own experience growing up. The largest church my family ever joined was around 300 and it seemed “too big” to me compared to the startup church in the Gaines garage we served with for several years.
So I’ll just toss the question out there: is there really anything important that a church loses if it spins off chuncks of itself into smaller autonomous churches… maybe in garages? Best church experiences I had growing up were the smallest ones.
(Of course, I’m also biased in that direction since I pastor a congregation that adds up to 40 on a good Sunday)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]Aaron,[Bob Hayton] What do you do with explosive church growth, similar to what you see in the NT? It’s easy to disagree with someone else’s solution. But what would your solution be?I haven’t been following this disscussion much, but Bob—you sort of stuck your neck out a little on this one. If the explosive growth is similar to what we see in the NT, how about if we just do what they did in the NT? Somehow they managed w/o satellites and screens.
In reality, I’m a bit ambivalent about the technology itself. I like tech.
What I don’t like is big, big churches. To me, more than 300 is ridiculously large. Yes, that’s a completely arbitrary number based on nothing more than my own experience growing up. The largest church my family ever joined was around 300 and it seemed “too big” to me compared to the startup church in the Gaines garage we served with for several years.
So I’ll just toss the question out there: is there really anything important that a church loses if it spins off chuncks of itself into smaller autonomous churches… maybe in garages? Best church experiences I had growing up were the smallest ones.
(Of course, I’m also biased in that direction since I pastor a congregation that adds up to 40 on a good Sunday)
In Acts, we see an enormous congregation by any standards in Jerusalem. No high tech, of course, but that proves my point. They had to meet in smaller groups, and thus were the first multi-site church. God used persecution to spread them out, otherwise they would have been content not to splinter into separate churches, but remain as one multi-site church. Later in Acts it appears that Corinth and Ephesus were large churches. And again it seems likely, especially so in Corinth, that there were multiple smaller groups that nevertheless were considered one church.
So I agree, what’s wrong with doing what they did in the NT? Acts 20:20 indicated Paul taught people house to house. And Acts 2-5 indicated the apostles taught house to house as well. This isn’t door-to-door evangelism, it’s house- gathering— to—house-gathering mobile preaching/teaching. So they didn’t have jumbotrons, but they had circuit riders, of sorts.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
While there are questions I would like to ask of multi-campus pastors, the basis for asking in this series is not for understanding but for indicting.
“…he, (the pastor) needs to know his flock.” Does the pastor of a church of 200 or 500 fully know his flock or does he depend on assistant pastors, and deacons and members to care for one another also. Is not an associate pastor acceptable in lieu of a church plant? Is there a size limit to a local church? 50, 100, 150, 200, 500? Would 3000 be too big for one location? would that be one church? Are these a display of our own presuppositional logs?
“…a few of the questions multisite churches must consider and answer.” Likely this has already been done, for the growth of such models continues. My confession of sin and pride is limited to those who will respond with mercy and love to help me grow more like Christ in my problems areas. Perhaps their considerations and answers have already been given to those to whom they are rightly accountable; namely the people who must weigh their instruction against the Word and the Word Himself who will weigh them not only with precision but compassion; that compassion with which I trust He will weigh my works for Him.
Perhaps we would be wise to ponder what questions a multisite pastor would say we must “consider and answer.” Would we give ourselves so quickly to their judgment?
I am aware that I will not do full justice to this thread and that others have brought greater study and wisdom to bear. I only pray that the light of others’ piety will shine on my own heart that I may see and and remove the beam.
[Aaron Blumer][Bob Hayton]Aaron, I had a good laugh at your post (not in a bad way), simply because it shows how people have had different experiences. I grew up in a church 1,000-1,500 and rather enjoyed it at the time, especially because our youth group got to do things that smaller churches couldn’t put together. I had a stint of about 1-1/2 years in a very small church (~20) and it was a deplorable experience. Since then, I’ve done an internship in a +1,000, been a member at a ~1400, and have settled into a little Presbyterian church that runs ~400 on Sunday morning. :)
What I don’t like is big, big churches. To me, more than 300 is ridiculously large. Yes, that’s a completely arbitrary number based on nothing more than my own experience growing up. The largest church my family ever joined was around 300 and it seemed “too big” to me compared to the startup church in the Gaines garage we served with for several years.
So I’ll just toss the question out there: is there really anything important that a church loses if it spins off chuncks of itself into smaller autonomous churches… maybe in garages? Best church experiences I had growing up were the smallest ones.
(Of course, I’m also biased in that direction since I pastor a congregation that adds up to 40 on a good Sunday)
Now, I like your church-planting idea. The church I grew up in drew it’s membership from up to 1-1/2 hours away, and I always thought it would make much more sense to plant a few churches around the periphery. However, when I was at Heritage Bible Church in Greenville, most of the members came from well within 15 miles. Where do you go to plant the daughter church, across the street? What would that actually accomplish, other than spending a whole lot of money on a brand new site? So, I think how the congregation is geographically distributed makes a difference.
Also, sometimes larger churches can result in better pastoral care. Take a church of 1500 with 5 pastors, and split it into 5 churches of 300. Can the new churches really “know” their people better? I’m not sure. Now you have 5 different men who have to block off time to study for the Sunday morning message and whatever other teaching they must now do throughout the week. You have 5 men who now probably don’t have as good a support staff as the one church, so they all have to spend more time in administrative duties. 300 is still to large to meet in houses, so now you have 4 new buildings and sites to maintain. If you split further into 50 churches of 30 each, then I doubt you really have qualified eldership for all of those, so many of the members get poor pastoral care.
One advantage of large, multiple-elder churches is that they have the potential to be less personality-centered. During my time at Heritage, I had great talks about the Christian life and ministry with at least 3 of the pastors there, including the senior pastor. I had my pre-marital counseling from another. My shepherding group was led by one of the deacons, and my sunday school class by an elder. The result was that I had a multiplicity of shepherds and counselors, rather than “I need to talk to THE PASTOR.” It was a profoundly good thing.
One more thing - large churches, especially those with a prominent location and steady visitor flow, often have a greater potential for a mix of spiritual blessings and a diversity of people. Small churches can easily become cliques, where you’re only welcome if you fit into a narrow mold. There are Fundamental churches where you MUST homeschool or girls-wear-skirts-only to feel at all welcome; there are Reformed churches in which you MUST embrace theonomy and Van Tillian apologetics to be “Truly Reformed.” This kind of narrowness is not exclusive to small churches, but breeds there much more easily because of the dominance of a single teacher and the close ties among all the members. Large churches are going to have all kinds wander through their doors, and some will stick around and contribute their individual gifts.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
The above noted article has been followed up with an article in the Baptist Bulletin noting the value of mentoring programs that meet online. (http://www.baptistbulletin.org/?p=4941)
We must of all men be consistent not just in our beliefs but in our practices. Is this Incarnational ministry, held in high regard for the local church, not necessary for the mentoring of young men? If online forums are given the praise for iron sharpening iron how then is a screen before an audience with a message running afoul of the intent for the local church? And yes perhaps in light of cultures where qualified men will only be found when a generation is raised to reject polygamy a screen might be a manner by which truth can be taught. How about where villages do not have the means by which to train or uphold the needs of a pastor? Would it be possible to bring truth to other regions through video? Would believers then grow in maturity and perhaps, though perhaps not, be able to accept and support the instruction of a local pastor?
Might all of the discussion be best considered under the indigenous principle of church planting? Is there liberty for some to consider indigenous the use of screen, simulcasting, scype, webcast, twitter, facebook, and text messaging even during the service if the culture in which these are used has them so ingrained in their lives as to be normative? Might the beam in our eye be the definition of autonomy consisting of one pastor, one budget, one place for services? I suspect that this reflects more of our culture than we choose to admit. The independent autonomous nature of our own culture being so much a part of our national heritage and cultural makeup.
“But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me and I to the world. For in Christ is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision but a new creation.” (Gal 6:14-15)
In light of what I said in the last thread, I would emphasize again a fundamental problem or tension in theology: to over-theologize things, including organizational matters, with the result that every aspect of a church’s structure is allegedly deducible from clear teaching in Scripture that can only have one determinate meaning: the one embodied by said church.
Such an approach makes nonsense of the fact that history and cultures are different and change radically; the Bible is not time-bound to its originating cultures precisely because it is not overly determinate in much of its teaching, but instead, particularly, I think, in the NT teaching about the church, is principial in nature and thus provides a wide space for the exercise of wisdom in dramatically different conditions. There are many categories of impossibility, and two of them are historical and social impossibility.
It would be historically impossible for an monepiscopal church structure to emerge in a fully egalitarian society with no conception of legitimate hierarchy. It so happens most traditional societies, including Rome, are the exact opposite: they assume the legitimacy of hierarchical social organization. This is one example of historical impossibility. Now, more to the direct content of this discussion, it is socially impossible (i.e, the necessary conditions do not obtain) for an institution of a significant size (e.g. say over 800, to borrow a number from Keller’s article) to be effectively run apart from the adoption of certain forms of organization (known, studied, and taught in many fields including of course business but also community building, and sociology).
This makes the issue quite simple: either certain size churches are simply ruled out or they are potentially legitimate embodiments of the church. But, if one grants their legitimacy at all, one thereby grants a de facto legitmacy to certain forms of organization and leadership.
A great deal of the weakness in much of these discussions, it seems, is a failure to integrate the relevant data, which includes a lot of historical and sociological data. If this were done, the question about consumerism would not even be asked, or not in the same way, for anyone who has studied the relevant sociological literature knows that, inevitably, certain aspects of modern societies, especially social differentiation, produce religious contexts that are helpfully analyzable in terms of market economies. What ever religious people think of this (e.g. Wells’ very negative assessment in his series starting with No Place for Truth), and to whatever extent they criticize this situation, the fact of the situation remains, and Fundamentalist churhes are no more immune to the situation than megachurches - they are simply less self-conscious of it.
A final point: as Keller notes in the linked article and through his ministry, urban ministry and large churches require and entail certain things that are not required and entailed in other circumstances. Keller is quite emphatic about being clear that there are trade-offs, negative aspects to these ministries, which should be acknowledged and mitigated as much as possible. That said, independent study of relevant data, in this case the history of the early church as well as urban studies, independently verifies much of what Keller says and provides significant general support for the specific idea discussed in the articles (multi-site churches).
I am currently taking a church history course, and my professor just today talked about factors in the incredible growth of Christianity from its founding to the 4th century, and they match exactly what people like Keller say; of course, Keller explicitly draws on the situation of the early church both as an example of and a legitimating model for what he’s trying to do with Redeemer - my point is that for anyone who studies the matter, Keller’s position is factually unassailable, and therefore the only possible rebuttal is some kind of theological denial of the legitimacy of large, urban ministry.
[Bob Hayton] Aaron,Can’t argue with that. “Multisite” but low-tech. multisite.
In Acts, we see an enormous congregation by any standards in Jerusalem. No high tech, of course, but that proves my point. They had to meet in smaller groups, and thus were the first multi-site church. God used persecution to spread them out, otherwise they would have been content not to splinter into separate churches, but remain as one multi-site church. Later in Acts it appears that Corinth and Ephesus were large churches. And again it seems likely, especially so in Corinth, that there were multiple smaller groups that nevertheless were considered one church.
So I agree, what’s wrong with doing what they did in the NT? Acts 20:20 indicated Paul taught people house to house. And Acts 2-5 indicated the apostles taught house to house as well. This isn’t door-to-door evangelism, it’s house- gathering— to—house-gathering mobile preaching/teaching. So they didn’t have jumbotrons, but they had circuit riders, of sorts.
Let’s remember though that the church in Jerus. had “all things in common” and other features that were apparently not prescribed for the church for the long term. I wonder how long the large “multi-site” phenomenon lasted.
Seth… appreciate your post. Just want to point out that spreading truth is one thing and forming an actual church is something else. I think just about all would agree that getting word out using video or other tech. isn’t a bad idea. But how churches are formed and share pulpit ministry—that’s a bit different. And on another axis, you have the question of temporary exigency vs. long-term method. I can see some flexibility in sharing the pulpit ministry via video in many situations as a transitional solution.
But I’m with the skeptics on the long term value. It’s very good for the preacher to be living among those he preaches to… in many cases, it determines the difference between “preacher” and “pastor.” And a church needs a “pastor,” (or several pastors/bishops/elders).
So—aside from my personal bias against “big,”—my attitude is let’s not say it’s just plain wrong to multisite ever (with or without video), but a very strong skepticism toward this as a longterm way of “doing church” is healthy.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
For myself, I don’t want a pastor who doesn’t know my name and doesn’t have time to spend fellowshipping and counseling with his flock. Of course, I receive knowledge and insight reading/listening to preaching and teaching from a variety of sources, but when I need help, I am going to call a faithful friend or my pastor.
I’m glad the limitations and trade-offs of multi-site churches are being addressed- but the problem I see is that many practices that should be used only out of necessity in certain situations often become another Christian ‘fad’. The voices of prudence and caution aren’t being heard in the stampede to set up the multi-plex at the mall for Sunday service or start a home church in the middle of the ‘burbs.
Susan brought up the following:
For myself, I don’t want a pastor who doesn’t know my name and doesn’t have time to spend fellowshipping and counseling with his flock. Of course, I receive knowledge and insight reading/listening to preaching and teaching from a variety of sources, but when I need help, I am going to call a faithful friend or my pastor.I just say that this problem will happen in a single church with just one worship service that has 1200 members too. The pastor can’t always be the one we all go to, as Charlie mentioned. There are others.
In my experience at Bethlehem. I met several of the pastors. John Piper probably knew our name, but other pastors definitely knew us. We had contact with the elders and were shepherded by the unifying work of the entire church leadership not necessarily just John Piper. If we needed to speak with our pastor, we probably could have, but we definitely could have spoken to somebody on the pastoral staff.
Anyway, this has been a good discussion. I’m waiting for Ken to jump back in though!….
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
I, myself, participated in a church that was Pastored by a man in another geographical location. Our group was not considered a church in itself but part of the church, simply removed geographically. We, in and of ourselves, determined that there was no person appropriate to teach us and Pastor us aside from our distant Pastor. We regarded his teaching, and his instruction as his shepherding and heeded his teaching. I personally did not feel the need to have face to face teaching so this format was not a strain on me, personally or spiritually.
However, such a formula is not for everyone. Not all sheep are alike. And this does not mean that those who desire face to face are to be viewed lesser, in fact it might be their spiritual vigor is elevated in such necessities and may be a commentary on the other, but it really need not be a commentary on either, simply a reality.
Our group was formed, not because the church itself sought to enlarge itself by starting a satellite, thus gaining additional membership via establishing a satellite, rather we were already students of the Pastor who were in a same geographical location and chose to remain members and disciples of our Pastor.
And this is the difference I see in many cases. The church itself becomes the one pursuing its enlargement as opposed to members, by volitional and providential circumstances, making choices to remain members or join such a group and by whatever means still receive the teaching of the Pastor.
The one is the pursuit by a church which I find objectionable and the other is the response by distant members or interested parties to the voice of the man they consider their Pastor of whom they seek to remain student
[Bob Hayton] I agree we aren’t necessarily called to reproduce all aspects of the Jerusalem church in Acts. I also don’t think its model necessarily asks us to be multi-site. I do think it should give us pause in condemning outright multi-site ministries.I agree that we shouldn’t outright condemn multi-site churches, but I don’t think they are as necessary as some would like to think, and if they are so necessary because of the lack of qualified leaders(as some seem to indicate), then their necessity is shameful.
[Bob Hayton] I just say that this problem will happen in a single church with just one worship service that has 1200 members too. The pastor can’t always be the one we all go to, …It’s true that 1200 is too many for one man to pastor, and I understand why such a large church would need several elders and deacons to adequately meet the many different needs of the congregation. But pastors are described as ‘shepherds’ for a reason, and it seems strange to me that their knowledge of the needs of the congregation is going to be filtered through who knows how many people- even if you have a plurality of elders, who is really going to have ‘the big picture’ when it comes to the overall spiritual health of the congregation? Where does the buck stop when it comes to making decisions that affect an entire congregation of whom the pastor knows so few people on a personal level?
In my experience at Bethlehem. I met several of the pastors. John Piper probably knew our name, but other pastors definitely knew us. We had contact with the elders and were shepherded by the unifying work of the entire church leadership not necessarily just John Piper. If we needed to speak with our pastor, we probably could have, but we definitely could have spoken to somebody on the pastoral staff.
Church leaders/teachers should be chosen for their knowledge, experience, maturity, wisdom… and ability to mentor- older men with younger men, older women with younger women. It seems to me that quite often these roles are assumed by people who are not qualified according to the guidelines set forth in the Bible because no one knows them well enough to determine if their house is in order and they aren’t given to such vices as greed or envy. The more distance you have between people, the less the accountability. The less the accountability, the more Untouchable Christian Celebrities are created… and aren’t we Fundies supposed to not want that now that Hyles, Roloff, and company have been ‘dethroned’?
I guess what concerns me (even though I love the opportunities for interaction the internet and new technologies provide) when it comes to ministering, I believe much is lost when the connection is virtual instead of personal. Every vibe I get from the Word of God about our relationships with each other as Christians and with our elders/bishops screams intimacy, like that of a close knit family. While there are times we must be away from our loved ones, our heart yearns to see them again face-to-face. Pastor Jumbotron is IMO impersonal and disconnected- there is no desire there to be knit together in Christian love when you don’t know the guy from Frank and Ernest.
[Bob Hayton] Anyway, this has been a good discussion. I’m waiting for Ken to jump back in though!….Bob (and the others),
I don’t plan on re-entering this discussion (time concerns), but let me state what I implied in the article: I did not draft the article to condemn the multi-site structure, but to ask questions I was wrestling with in regards to the multi-site structure.
It still appears to me that many of my questions remain unanswered—such as the questions regarding connectionalism, baptism and church membership, church discipline procedures (“tell it to the church”), and “coming together as an ekklesia” to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.
Now for an anecdotal consideration. I had a brief conversation with John MacArthur regarding the multi-site structure. I will not quote him outright, but suffice to say, he is less than enamored with the multi-site model (I believe he used the words “never” and “Grace Community” in the same sentence).
Although it is likely that I will not participate much in this conversation, I will continue to watch it unfold.
Ken Fields
I do actually tend to not like the whole single pastor only mindset, of one guy being in charge or being the only guy to speak. I think the NT models more of a sharing in teaching responsibilities, but that’s another topic….
Good article and I do understand you are bringing up your problems you have with it and not necessarily write it off.
Blessings,
Bob
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Discussion