Mars Hill Church planning to add 100 new video sites

Why not train 100 young pastors and send them out to plant 100 churches?

planting a church is about 1000 times more difficult than adding a site. why not use the administrative base, financial resources and spiritually experienced leadership to expand the influence of the church?

Actually, they have or are in the process of planting about 175 churches right now (excluding their 5 multi-sites). Their acts 29 network is the fruit of Mars Hill’s church planting endeavors. Here is the link to all of their church plants. http://www.acts29network.org/all-churches/

This has been discussed on several other sites, including Sharper Iron and 9 Marks.

The queston that has never been answered for me is, in what sense is a “campus” in one state a part of the same local church (“assembly”) as a campus in another state?

Jesus told us to pray for addtional laborers for the harvest. I’m glad that Driscoll is also involved in planting churches, but I think he is bypassing Matthew 9:37-38 by beaming himself around the country to 100 different sites. Such an approach assumes that noone in these communities is doing any gospel work. I’m sure the kind of communities he would target (larger, well-populated areas) have sound, vibrant churches. Why not partner with these churches? I know adding a site is easier than church planting with a real pastor in place, but I think the latter is more of what Jesus had in mind.

Philip Ryken wrote this in his message on Luke 2:1-7, “He did not save us from a distance, but came as close to us as He possibly could, sympathizing with us in our sufferings.” It made me think about this thread. Can a pastor truly minister to a flock from a distance? Should not Christians be given a man of God who lives and ministers among them? Should not a pastor be able to look in the eyes of those to whom He preaches, being able to speak God’s word knowing their personal situations and being able to sympathize with their sufferings and speak to them.

God certainly isn’t a model for ministry-from-a-distance.

[Jim Peet] From Hebrews 13:24, “Greet all those who rule over you” (third of “those who rule over you” triad: Hebrews 13:7, “Remember”; Hebrews 13:17, “Obey”). How can a congregant have a relationship with a distant shepherd? How can a distant shepherd “they watch out for [the] souls” of remote sheep?

I want to know and be known of my Pastor(s).

Here is a brief (but not heavily explored) and immediate consideration to examine if one wishes to play advocate for the view of rule and care from a distance:

A Pastor’s primary means of guard is through teaching which does not require a face to face relationship. And interestingly, Paul who had rule over the Pastors (I am not saying Paul wrote Hebrews I am simply citing him as an example for the question) as an Apostle and a man they indeed had to obey via his letters along with whole congregations did just that, rule from a distance and via communication outside of face to face. While he may have met with many or most congregations the overall constant for him was Apostolic rule from a distance and via communication outside of face to face. So there is some precedent for this in Scripture not to mention in many contexts outside of the church if one values such comparisons.

Yet, Paul did place pastors in churches (Timothy, Titus).

Where is the line as to when a pastor can “shepherd” his people? Is the number 50, 100, 150, 200, 3000? Must we continue to consider the pastor who preaches the only true pastor at a local church? There are many wonderful and godly men preaching each week in fundamentalist churches with multiple pastors on staff or lay pastors alongside him in the work. With little information as to the structure of the church in Acts regarding the staffing structure, can we allow some liberty for a multisite church or simply large church to provide campus/assistant pastors to much of the labor in the trenches?

Given Pastor Driscoll’s view of elders, and their training in-house, there ought not be a concern that a campus church would have a video feed sermon with no more personal pastoral leadership in place. Our own churches often have multiple counselors eager to sit and pray with those who respond to an invitation. I dare consider the number of churches that have never trained a single pastor, but have their pulpits filled only by men from the outside, my own experience included. It is my prayer that I would be able to train and raise up my replacement from among those who labor here with me. How beautiful would it be if all of our discipleship did in fact lead to raising up and training up our future pastors from among our memberships!

Seth,

Again I ask, In what sense is a campus in one state a part of the same local church (“assembly”) as a campus in another state?

[Jonathan Charles] Yet, Paul did place pastors in churches (Timothy, Titus).

It appears this response is directed toward my post and I will assume it is so that I may respond but if not, then forgive the assumption.

And of course the response is non sequitur, that is that the question or the concern is not how is authority and obedience to such ecclesiastical authority or doctrinal instruction accomplished up close or face to face but at a distant. We already understand the obvious which you are mentioning but that does not address the question I was responding to by Jim Peet:

How can a congregant have a relationship with a distant shepherd? How can a distant shepherd “they watch out for [the] souls” of remote sheep?

And again I point out that there is precedent for distant authority, relationships and shepherding via Paul’s example. Paul was not only in authority over the Pastors but the congregations as well due to his Apostleship.

Someone asked how relationships with a distant shepherd can be done and how, at a distance, a shepherd can watch out for the souls of sheep. I am simply pointing out that it can be done and was done via Paul the Apostle. However, do not assume that it is my position that distant shepherding is desirable or something to purposely be pursued or that I support the church mentioned, the formula it is using or its Pastoral staff and its doctrine or any such ecclesiastical schematics, I am simply responding to the question not necessarily revealing my personal position.

I, personally, believe it can be done but should be done only out of necessity meaning that if there is not a qualified or appropriate Pastor/teacher from whom one can receive sound doctrine to which they can travel to and receive regular teaching. Then they, out of necessity, can receive shepherding from a distance and it is acceptable within the boundaries of Scripture.

*To the post mentioning the size of a congregation. I submit rather robustly that it is never, never, never anyone’s place, position or prerogative to determine, dictate or in any way attempt to set a boundary/limit regarding the size of a congregation. When a person is positive to the teaching ministry of a Pastor/teacher they are, by divine commission and protocol, free to chose to sit under that teacher and receive instruction. And anyone interfering with the exercise of that person’s priesthood is in violation of the privacy and exercise of the individual priesthood granted to them by God. Congregational size is irrelevant.

I’d be curious to see a study conducted in those areas where “satellite campuses” are established to determine whether or not true missionary church planting is occurring. In the four communities where I’ve seen satellite campuses set up, the vast majority of the people who flock to the new work leave other, established churches because of the celebrity being beamed in and/or the contemporary worship service/praise band which their dinky church can’t (and/or won’t) pull off.

Are these works being established because there is no gospel witness in the community, or because there’s no “church like us” in the community? [I’m thinking here of the other thread where someone complained about missionaries saying “there’s no fundamental work where we’re going,” but further investigation reveals that there’s no work that smacks of our brand of fundamentalism.]

1) It is saying that no one else is capable of preaching, so we must beam some “religious big dog”

2) It takes away the interaction between pastor and people and reduces it a very impersonal setting at best.

3) It puffs up the ego of the one being “beamed” all over the place. Why not exercise humility and let others share in the preaching responsibility?

4) As others have said, why not plant a church instead of launching a venue. They could do it like Highview Baptist does in Louisville, KY…. one church in six locations.

[BryanBice] I’d be curious to see a study conducted in those areas where “satellite campuses” are established to determine whether or not true missionary church planting is occurring. In the four communities where I’ve seen satellite campuses set up, the vast majority of the people who flock to the new work leave other, established churches because of the celebrity being beamed in and/or the contemporary worship service/praise band which their dinky church can’t (and/or won’t) pull off.

Are these works being established because there is no gospel witness in the community, or because there’s no “church like us” in the community? [I’m thinking here of the other thread where someone complained about missionaries saying “there’s no fundamental work where we’re going,” but further investigation reveals that there’s no work that smacks of our brand of fundamentalism.]

My thoughts exactly. We have a mega-church in our town, the pastor of whom is being cited more and more often on lists of up-and-coming churches of this style. Multiple thousands of people go there; video campuses have been set up in at least two other cities in our state, and more are being planned. I know many people who have left their local churches to attend this church. It’s exciting; it’s the newest thing in town. Meanwhile many churches are barely making a go of it because their good people have been drained off. Either these churches don’t have resources, or are unwilling to go the edgy direction of the megachurch.

When we first moved here 19 years ago, another church was “the” church to attend. It was never as big as the megachurch, but it was big. It was exciting. It was the place to be. That church is now essentially defunct. After awhile it ceased to be exciting as the people drained off to attend the next big place to go. (And, for the record, it started going downhill when the exciting original pastor left.)

It will be interesting to see where the local megachurch will be in ten years.