Mars Hill Church planning to add 100 new video sites

Alex, it is shaky to use Paul’s apostolic authority as a precedent for distance ministry. For one thing, Driscoll isn’t an apostle. And, what Paul did in the first century is apples to oranges different than what Driscoll and others are doing. What Paul did was out of necessity; church planting was out-pacing the ability of these churches to have mature elders. Think of how shaky some of those churches were. Paul was in a place a few weeks, a church was started, people were saved and then he left. He had to exercise his authority from a distance. But there were limitations to it. My guess is that Paul was with some of these believers only 2-3 times and most got 1 letter, a few 2. My feeling from his epsitles is that when dealings with some problems, he wished he could have been there in person. So, my point about Titus and Timothy is that it he knew that these churches needed pastoral authority in place. Yes, they needed to obey Paul, but these churches needed the presence of more accesible pastoral authority. Paul is an exception, a Timothy and Titus are the norm and the best thing for a church.

I have no doubt that Driscoll’s 100 sites will have elders in place, but why can’t these men preach? Is it because Driscoll is the superstar who will draw people? Probably. Is distance ministry a necessity? I don’t think so. There doesn’t seem to me to be any shortage of evangelical men wanting to start churches. I am in a county of only 40,000 people. We have had at least 4 evangelical churches started in the last 5-6 years. Those are in addition to the 18 or so sound evangelical churches we already had. Now, if this is being done in rural Pennsylvania, I would bet my life that it is being done in the 100 places Driscoll would want to start a church. So what is the necessity? Maybe Mars Hill has a sense that they and Driscoll are indispensable and that they are needed in all of these places.

[Jonathan Charles] Alex, it is shaky to use Paul’s apostolic authority as a precedent for distance ministry. For one thing, Driscoll isn’t an apostle.

Right he isn’t an Apostle so again this is non sequitur, no one is proposing Driscoll is an Apostle. The pointing to Paul serves to address exactly what the original question asked:

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 not imply further equivocations which you drew.

As to the remainder of your post I mostly agree there is a difference between Paul’s work as an Apostle and that of a Pastor/teacher though there may be many similarities. But that isn’t what was in view in the question and irrelevant to the isolated question. I was only addressing the isolated question about relationships with a distant shepherd and how one watches out for the souls of sheep who are remote from them.

Now I am happy to further explore just how such an assembly of believers distant from their shepherd could exist and fall within the bounds of Scripture but no such inquiry or follow-up has been made, nor have I spent a lot of time thinking about it since again my only focus was the issue of relationships and distance with regard to ministry.

As far as Driscoll and the Mars Hill ministry is concerned it isn’t for me to determine who does and does not need to listen to Driscoll or how many. I don’t listen to him and wouldn’t with the exception of occasionally reading or listening so I may speak fairly and informed and determine whether he is continuing in his errors and path away from sound doctrine or has become positive to sound teaching and is teaching as such.

non sequitor must be the word of the day. My point is that Paul being a long-distant shepherd is totally irrelevant to this conversation. I wouldn’t even call it a “precedent” as you did, because that implies that these 2 cases (Driscoll’s and Paul’s) have something to do with each other-they don’t. As an apostle, Paul, as long as he was alive, would have shepherd responsibilities over the churches, but he clearly saw a need for each church to have its own teacher(s) on the ground. Paul fulfilling his apostolic responsibilites has nothing to do with what Driscoll is doing, and God help me keep from laughing out of my seat if he moves from using Francis Asbury to Paul as an example for such a ministry.

[Jonathan Charles] non sequitor must be the word of the day. My point is that Paul being a long-distant shepherd is totally irrelevant to this conversation. I wouldn’t even call it a “precedent” as you did, because that implies that these 2 cases (Driscoll’s and Paul’s) have something to do with each other-they don’t. As an apostle, Paul, as long as he was alive, would have shepherd responsibilities over the churches, but he clearly saw a need for each church to have its own teacher(s) on the ground. Paul fulfilling his apostolic responsibilites has nothing to do with what Driscoll is doing, and God help me keep from laughing out of my seat if he moves from using Francis Asbury to Paul as an example for such a ministry.

Well I am glad to have introduced you to “non sequitur”.

As to the illustration of Paul, it served to answer an inquiry:

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?

If you don’t wish to view Paul’s Apostolic ministry as Shepherding then of course you don’t have to, however I it still serves to answer the question. And again if one wishes to further explore the issue without a priori colors, it might be worthwhile to perform such an examination as to whether one can function as a Pastor with one or more congregants at a distance. But of course if one begins with the exclamation that either it simply cannot be done or that it isn’t biblical without laying out an argument and dealing with the rebuttals to such argument, well I doubt they are going to discover anything further than their nose.

It appears to me that your frustration is that you want it (my cursory example) to exhaustively address the issue as a whole. It doesn’t. As I said it only answers the earlier isolated/limited inquiry. However, you do appear to be descending in your responses so it might be a good place to move on from this single point seeing you have stressed yours and I have made mine clear as well and either explore the merits on the whole of Shepherding at a distance or some other element of the issue.

I think the problem with Alex’s answer to the question, “How can one shepherd from a distance” is that Paul wasn’t shepherding. He was ministering, indeed. He was overseeing. He was exercising eldership. He was engaging in one side of one part of shepherding: feeding the flock (by one side, I mean the giving out of the food; the other side of feeding is ensuring that the sheep are eating & being nourished—it took Paul months to find out if what he sent was even accepted. And even after he found out his food was accepted, he had no way of knowing if, in the meantime, they had regurgitated the meal). But he wasn’t shepherding. Inherent in being a shepherd is day in, day out care of the sheep, both as a flock & as individuals. I’m sorry, no matter how you cut it, that cannot be done from a distance. Paul was an apostle, functioning as an apostle in all of his “distance ministry.” As such, he provides an example of how one may teach or exercise apostolic authority from a distance, but not for pastoring (shepherding) a flock. Incidentally, the distinction between apostle & pastor is made in Eph. 4:11-12.

Bryan,

You might find yourself needing to walk this one back a bit when you state:

Paul wasn’t shepherding

John MacArthur faithfully records in his message “Priorities of a Faithful Teacher”:

[URL=http://put_url_here] http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg55-24.htm[/URL]

Paul was a faithful shepherd of God’s flock. His life was often in danger as he preached the gospel and nurtured the church. He was deeply concerned about the church’s welfare. False teachers were teaching a false gospel, and some within the professing church were “paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1). In addition, Paul was concerned about Timothy’s spiritual life and therefore encouraged him to be courageous and faithful for the Lord.

While it might be that his shepherding was as an Apostle but it certainly was shepherding. I doubt you will find too many theologians of any sort that would state so emphatically that “Paul wasn’t shepherding”.

It might be that this of interest also where Peter stated in 1 Peter 5 1-4:

1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

Peter, the Apostle, not only addresses elders but identifies himself also as an elder and then instructs regarding how “elders” are to shepherd…meaning he views himself a shepherd as well.

[Alex Guggenheim] Bryan,

You might find yourself needing to walk this one back a bit when you state:

Paul wasn’t shepherding

John MacArthur faithfully records in his message “Priorities of a Faithful Teacher”:

[URL=http://put_url_here] http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg55-24.htm[/URL]

Paul was a faithful shepherd of God’s flock. His life was often in danger as he preached the gospel and nurtured the church. He was deeply concerned about the church’s welfare. False teachers were teaching a false gospel, and some within the professing church were “paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1). In addition, Paul was concerned about Timothy’s spiritual life and therefore encouraged him to be courageous and faithful for the Lord.

While it might be that his shepherding was as an Apostle but it certainly was shepherding. I doubt you will find too many theologians of any sort that would state so emphatically that “Paul wasn’t shepherding”.

It might be that this of interest also where Peter stated in 1 Peter 5 1-4:

1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

Peter, the Apostle, not only addresses elders but identifies himself also as an elder and then instructs regarding how “elders” are to shepherd…meaning he views himself a shepherd as well.

I still contend Paul wasn’t shepherding a flock, in the true sense of the word, when he wrote his letter to the Colossians, etc. I’ll agree that there are aspects of shepherding that Paul engaged in when he wrote his letters, as I indicated in the earlier post. But the full-orbed work of a shepherd requires the presence of the shepherd with the sheep. There is an intimacy and immediacy involved in shepherding. For example, only a shepherd-in-residence, if you will, can provide an ongoing example for the flock, as Paul exhorted Timothy & Titus to be in their pastoral work (1 Timothy 4:12, Titus 2:7), and as Peter exhorted the pastors in 1 Peter 5.

As far as Peter goes, I had thought of that passage, but it changes nothing. An apostle could shepherd a flock—could serve as a pastor to a congregation, as Paul did with every congregation he planted…for a while. But when Paul moved on, he left the shepherding of the flock to his successor (I believe 1 Cor. 3:10 refers to this). And even though Peter, an apostle, was also the shepherd of a flock somewhere (Babylon=Rome?), I wouldn’t consider his letter to be “shepherding” the believers or the elders he was writing to. He was teaching the people, yes; and he was exhorting the elders, as well…but the shepherding of scattered believers was for the “elders in residence” among them.

A good illustration of this distinction occurred to me this morning. On the way out of the service, a church member said to me, “I have a problem and I really don’t know what to do about it. Do you have a couple minutes?” Of course, after nearly everyone had left, I met with this person & gave some teaching & direction—some shepherding—which was greatly appreciated. On the way home, I thought to myself, “If that person saw me, the ‘pastor,’ on a big-screen beamed in from Washington, how could I possibly have shepherded her? I could’ve taught a lesson…could’ve preached a message & impacted those who watched/heard. But I couldn’t have tended the flock, that is, I couldn’t have cared for the hurts, worked through a dilemma, offered advice on a pointed question, rejoiced with the couple celebrating their 45th anniversary this week, or prayed specifically for the member who had cancer surgery the other day. These are some of the elements unique to the full-orbed task of shepherding. Teaching/preaching, or feeding, is something shepherds do, to be sure—they are, after all, “shepherd-teachers.” But others do that work as well (e.g. Eph. 4:11) without doing the shepherding work of the pastor of a local church.

The talking head beamed in on the big screen from afar may be a well-known preacher or teacher, but to that group assembled in the dimly lit room watching him, he’s not—nor indeed can be—their shepherd.

Your objections are rather ontological and not an actual survey of relevant pastoral or ecclesiastical doctrine but it is good to see you have revised your absolute statement about Paul not shepherding and accept that in some degree he was a shepherd, which is exactly why I chose him as a cursory example to respond to the inquiry about shepherding at a distance. As to your claim that one who is not literally present cannot shepherd, one can make such a claim but simply stating this does not make it so. I have yet to find a developed rebuttal beyond sentimental protests or personal observations.

You might be under the impression that I am defending “Driscoll” or any such practice as the thread mentioned, I am not. Remember I am addressing, still specifically, the question I have quoted several times by Jim Peet. So let me be clear as I said earlier regarding the topic as a whole:

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.

Now I am prepared to say why I believe distant shepherding is possible in some instances and it still be within the bounds of Scripture. But still that question hasn’t come up and no one I see is interested in exploring it seeing that all of the protests are emphatic, meaning they begin with “it isn’t legitimate” hence no real conversation or dialog of discovery can take place with such persons since they have already invalidated the premise, hence they aren’t going to explore or accept findings to the contrary.

I do understand your view regarding the role of a Shepherd though so don’t imagine I don’t hear you. It seems clear that we do not share definitions and boundaries in this area so I cannot see us progressing a lot further but maybe…?

Alex,

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

[Greg Long] Alex,

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

The first part of my response to this question is what appears to be a certain theological assumption contained within it, that is that an assembly must qualify itself geographically in a local manner. I don’t believe that is Scripturally mandated. That is to say, though it can be assumed that most assemblies are local at no point do the Scriptures require that a Pastor only shepherd or believers only be shepherded in a local manner.

So, with that in view they are part of a local church with respect to their relationship to the Pastor/teacher as they sit under his teaching, even in a remote location or a campus in another state or even another country. The people in both locations identify the Pastor/teacher as their shepherd. That is one immediate and significant qualifier.

I am not being sentimental; I have just attempted to point out that Paul, because he was an apostle, was a distant shepherd to many congregations. No elder today has the the office and the responsibility that Paul had over all the churches. It is silly to use Paul as any kind of precedent. If there is any precedent, it is that Paul sought to put elders in every church who would carry on the ministry of the word in the presence of the people.

Alex, the Greek word for “church” means “assembly”—people assembled together.

Paul tells the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 5:

4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

And in ch. 11:

1 Cor 11:17-34

17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

And when I come I will give further directions.

Paul’s point hinges on the fact that the Corinthians should ‘come together’ to observe the Lord’s Supper.

So, local churches are to “come together” for worship, excommunication, and communion. In what sense can a campus in one state fulfill this Scriptural mandate with a campus in another state?

Just somethin’ about this reads like tentacles instead of arms and legs…

To better understand the idea behind Mars Hill Church and its practical applications their own website answers some questions, though not always with expected or agreed upon answers.

“Mars Hill meets in multiple locations at multiple times on Sundays. Using satellite and internet technology we have most sermons broadcast to our different locations, certain Sundays our local pastors will preach live at their location. This method of meeting allows the people of Mars Hill to grow in numbers and faith while staying in their own communities, being missionaries for Jesus there. Below are listed a cross-section of news and events from around Mars Hill. We encourage you to find a campus near you.”

A survey of their material notes some of the following: Most campuses gather locally for communion each week. Local campus pastors do preach locally. Small groups are an integral part of every local campus. The younger age demographic of the church is more likely to communicate with mulitiple web tools for social networking, communication and education. While the musical tastes, use of web feed and other items prompt questions there are many not so subtle endorsements for the Gospel, biblical masculinity and femininity, high view of marriage and fidelity, membership, local approach to practical ministry.

Perhaps rather than raising “strawmen” for each campus might we consider “hearing” their material first before answering the matter?

Seth, I understand all that. I’ve watched Driscoll’s sermon on their use of video, regularly listen to his podcasts, and have read much of the relevant material. I understand that each campus has its own pastor and celebrates communion as a campus. But in what sense is the campus in Albuquerque “coming together” for communion with a campus in Seattle? And in what sense is Driscoll the “pastor” of campuses at which he is normally not present?