Two Services or Build?
Forum category
Cornerstone has been at the 80% capacity mark for sometime and we have seen our growth level off. We are still a small church (averaging in the 100s) and I’m a little reluctant to go to two services at this size as it may kill our momentum (this has been my experience at another church). We have the money to remodel to get us larger sanctuary, larger foyer, but that would not include any more classrooms. To get more classrooms, we would have to build (not remodel) and that means a capital campaign…and with the economy where it is in Elkhart, I’m reluctant to do that as well.
So here are some questions:
What has been your experience with two services in smaller churches?
What are factors that you would consider in making a decision like this?
Do you know of any articles, books, etc., that may shed some light (I’ve done some searching, but you may have come across different articles)?
Thanks!
So here are some questions:
What has been your experience with two services in smaller churches?
What are factors that you would consider in making a decision like this?
Do you know of any articles, books, etc., that may shed some light (I’ve done some searching, but you may have come across different articles)?
Thanks!
- 384 views
Just so you understand my heart, I want to add this as well…DISCIPLESHIP is our goal, not growing a large church. I’ve often mentioned to our people that we don’t want to grow any faster than we can effectively disciple people. In other words, I don’t want a church of 200+ until we can effectively teach them to KNOW God’s Word and LIVE it in their lives. In fact, one of the reasons we have waited to address the issue to be better prepared for effective discipleship. I can unpack that further as far as methodology is concerned for those interested. Just wanted to clarify in case the “why” question came up!
Senior Pastor, Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN
In my experience, a church going to two services turns into two (sometimes different) churches. The fellowship of the entire body is retarded to the place where a member may be greeted as a visitor if they go to the “other service.”
Factors to Consider (randomly ordered)
I will say that every two-service church I’m aware of (all of three) has not worked—there was no additional growth during the time of the two service approach. IMO, the two-service option should only be used as an interim measure to expand the facilities, and even a last resort at that.
Factors to Consider (randomly ordered)
- The potential for growth. You said that you have leveled off. It is possible that the potential is not there, even if there was room to grow.
- The temperature of the leadership and membership. What do they want to do? Are they willing to commit to long-term plans?
- The ability of your leadership team to manage this project. Can they be the ones to focus on the capital project?
- The willingness of your volunteers. Presumably a two-service Sunday would involve the first service, Sunday School, and second service. Are you volunteers willing to commit that amount of time. (Think choir members, song leaders, accompanists who will be in all three services)
- The measurement of the membership rather than the Sunday morning attendance. The membership is the “real” church, not necessarily the Sunday morning attenders. I would be hesitant to consider expansion of two services if I’m only at 50% capacity in the evening.
I will say that every two-service church I’m aware of (all of three) has not worked—there was no additional growth during the time of the two service approach. IMO, the two-service option should only be used as an interim measure to expand the facilities, and even a last resort at that.
Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.
[Matthew Olmstead] In my experience, a church going to two services turns into two (sometimes different) churches. The fellowship of the entire body is retarded to the place where a member may be greeted as a visitor if they go to the “other service.”Thanks, Matthew.
Factors to Consider (randomly ordered)Sorry, I don’t have any books for you.
- The potential for growth. You said that you have leveled off. It is possible that the potential is not there, even if there was room to grow.
- The temperature of the leadership and membership. What do they want to do? Are they willing to commit to long-term plans?
- The ability of your leadership team to manage this project. Can they be the ones to focus on the capital project?
- The willingness of your volunteers. Presumably a two-service Sunday would involve the first service, Sunday School, and second service. Are you volunteers willing to commit that amount of time. (Think choir members, song leaders, accompanists who will be in all three services)
- The measurement of the membership rather than the Sunday morning attendance. The membership is the “real” church, not necessarily the Sunday morning attenders. I would be hesitant to consider expansion of two services if I’m only at 50% capacity in the evening.
I will say that every two-service church I’m aware of (all of three) has not worked—there was no additional growth during the time of the two service approach. IMO, the two-service option should only be used as an interim measure to expand the facilities, and even a last resort at that.
As far as potential for growth, I would say there is a great deal of potential in our area. We are close to Granger, a city that is booming. Elkhart is undergoing difficult times, but we have well over 300k+ people in our area (probably closer to 500k). We have seen growth…some of our leveling off has to do with members that have graduated to heaven. Also, we have moved in our worship and aprox. 15-20 have left for that reason as well. Even so, we have still seen growth. All in all, the potential is there.
Your others thoughts are appreciated…good things to ponder. Thanks for sharing!
Senior Pastor, Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN
Many churches are going to a multi-site or multi-service structure because it is monetarily beneficial.
In my opinion, and in my experience, two services or two sites means two churches. Exegetically, ekklesia, is a single gathering of people in a single place at a single time.
Check out the latest 9 Marks Journal for some great biblical thoughts from a church (Capitol Hill Baptist, D. C.) that will not employ multiple services or multiple sites because they are convinced the local church is a single gathering of believers.
The question we should be asking is not “will it work” or “will it not work”; but “is it biblical?” What is the true nature of a church? Below I will share a brief bit of an article I have written for the upcoming edition of The Baptist Bulletin on this subject:
In my opinion, and in my experience, two services or two sites means two churches. Exegetically, ekklesia, is a single gathering of people in a single place at a single time.
Check out the latest 9 Marks Journal for some great biblical thoughts from a church (Capitol Hill Baptist, D. C.) that will not employ multiple services or multiple sites because they are convinced the local church is a single gathering of believers.
The question we should be asking is not “will it work” or “will it not work”; but “is it biblical?” What is the true nature of a church? Below I will share a brief bit of an article I have written for the upcoming edition of The Baptist Bulletin on this subject:
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 twenty-seven books in the New Testament, nine were written to specific local churches, another twelve 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 twenty-seven New Testament books, twenty-three are written by or about or to people within local churches. It is apparent that God cares greatly about the local church.I believe a multi-service structure is exegetically out of bounds as well.
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. 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 Diotrophes 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 implies 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 come together as an ekklesia, they do 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 multi-site expansion structure appears to be out of bounds. And if it is, the “one church, many locations” mantra is an exegetical contradiction in terms.
Ken Fields
Not too dissimilar from what others have said, but what about splitting into two churches? Perhaps asking people from the congregation who may live a little ways away to voluntarily start a church plant that could be loosely affiliated with your own church until the new church can be on its own feet. For argumentation as to why this is a good idea check this sermon by Tim Keller - Under point 5, Movement - Why to Plant Churches: http://sermons.redeemer.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display…
To be clear, I’m not talking about separate sites for the same church; I’m talking about two separate churches, one a plant of from the other.
To be clear, I’m not talking about separate sites for the same church; I’m talking about two separate churches, one a plant of from the other.
Jamie, I think that maybe it would be best to at least consider splitting off and creating a daughter church somewhere in the area, as Audrey said. Is that at all feasible, or did you consider and discard the possibility of doing so?
The church I’m in now pulls in people from the immediate area and another area approx. 20-25 mins away. We’ve talked [just in very, very generic terms] about taking the people 20-25 mins away and asking them to consider a church plant.
The church I’m in now pulls in people from the immediate area and another area approx. 20-25 mins away. We’ve talked [just in very, very generic terms] about taking the people 20-25 mins away and asking them to consider a church plant.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
A great book on the subject was written by a Christian architect Ray Bowman (Baker Books) and called, “When NOT to Build.” It should give you the perspectives you seek.
"The Midrash Detective"
Audrey, Jay…
It’s one of the ideas that we are pondering and is certainly in the mix. I LOVE the idea of smaller churches networking together to get the job accomplished. In many ways, it can be more effective than one large church. There are some factors to consider…and I have to admit it’s not high on our list. Not sure that NOW is the time to plant, but I understand that can be argued.
Ed,
Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll look it up.
It’s one of the ideas that we are pondering and is certainly in the mix. I LOVE the idea of smaller churches networking together to get the job accomplished. In many ways, it can be more effective than one large church. There are some factors to consider…and I have to admit it’s not high on our list. Not sure that NOW is the time to plant, but I understand that can be argued.
Ed,
Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll look it up.
Senior Pastor, Harvest Bible Chapel, Fort Wayne, IN
[Audrey] Not too dissimilar from what others have said, but what about splitting into two churches? Perhaps asking people from the congregation who may live a little ways away to voluntarily start a church plant that could be loosely affiliated with your own church until the new church can be on its own feet. For argumentation as to why this is a good idea check this sermon by Tim Keller - Under point 5, Movement - Why to Plant Churches: http://sermons.redeemer.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display…How is this different than having two services? Leadership? What if Jamie “pastors” both churches? I am not advocating two services for Jamie’s church (the size seems still a bit small to have two, but that IS ONLY a gut reaction). Do we find anywhere in the NT where there was a singular leader of multiple churches (I truly can’t think at the moment)?
To be clear, I’m not talking about separate sites for the same church; I’m talking about two separate churches, one a plant of from the other.
I am a little surprised by the negativity toward multiple services as an option. that should be your first option to consider. To claim it is somehow unbiblical is not exegetically sustainable.
the key to multi-service options is strong leadership among the elders, deacons, paid staff and volunteer staff(those giving 10+ hours per week to the church), substantive small group interaction that deepens group Bible study while enhancing accountability for the spiritual disciplines, and intensive community outreach that focuses the church on real church growth, not sheep stealing. Keep everything focused through the lens of the great commission and organize in a manner that does not limit the number of people who can hear about Jesus.
with that being said, i would only consider a two service option if you believe based upon attendance trends, that you are going to max out your facilities, or that the 80% ceiling is due to the “feeling” of being maxed out. You are going to push leadership to a new level and your volunteers to a stretching point with the obvious goal of training more volunteers and leaders over time to handle the growth. So, it is a great challenge that will require a team of leaders, not just a one man show. If you have the team, move forward, if not, create the team first. Mark Driscoll’s Vintage Church is a good resource for sorting some of the multi-service ideas out.
the key to multi-service options is strong leadership among the elders, deacons, paid staff and volunteer staff(those giving 10+ hours per week to the church), substantive small group interaction that deepens group Bible study while enhancing accountability for the spiritual disciplines, and intensive community outreach that focuses the church on real church growth, not sheep stealing. Keep everything focused through the lens of the great commission and organize in a manner that does not limit the number of people who can hear about Jesus.
with that being said, i would only consider a two service option if you believe based upon attendance trends, that you are going to max out your facilities, or that the 80% ceiling is due to the “feeling” of being maxed out. You are going to push leadership to a new level and your volunteers to a stretching point with the obvious goal of training more volunteers and leaders over time to handle the growth. So, it is a great challenge that will require a team of leaders, not just a one man show. If you have the team, move forward, if not, create the team first. Mark Driscoll’s Vintage Church is a good resource for sorting some of the multi-service ideas out.
[dmicah] I am a little surprised by the negativity toward multiple services as an option. that should be your first option to consider. To claim it is somehow unbiblical is not exegetically sustainable.dmicah,
the key to multi-service options is strong leadership among the elders, deacons, paid staff and volunteer staff(those giving 10+ hours per week to the church), substantive small group interaction that deepens group Bible study while enhancing accountability for the spiritual disciplines, and intensive community outreach that focuses the church on real church growth, not sheep stealing. Keep everything focused through the lens of the great commission and organize in a manner that does not limit the number of people who can hear about Jesus.
with that being said, i would only consider a two service option if you believe based upon attendance trends, that you are going to max out your facilities, or that the 80% ceiling is due to the “feeling” of being maxed out. You are going to push leadership to a new level and your volunteers to a stretching point with the obvious goal of training more volunteers and leaders over time to handle the growth. So, it is a great challenge that will require a team of leaders, not just a one man show. If you have the team, move forward, if not, create the team first. Mark Driscoll’s Vintage Church is a good resource for sorting some of the multi-service ideas out.
Those of us who are wary of the two-service structure are not being negative; we are simply asking that we search the Scriptures regarding the nature and structure of the church.
It seems that the two-service or multi-site structure is a man-made corporate structure to expand one congregation into two (while placing both congregations under a single leadership structure—which historically is known as connectionalism, an unbiblical kind of polity) rather than a biblical option.
The question we must wrestle with is this: what is the biblical teaching regarding the nature and structure of the local church (ekklesia)?
Ken Fields
Those of us who are wary of the two-service structure are not being negative; we are simply asking that we search the Scriptures regarding the nature and structure of the church.Ken, I can certainly appreciate searching the Scriptures. I just disagree with your conclusion. First, you started your initial comment with the idea that two services/multi-site churches made the move for monetary reasons. To me this argues for preconceptions against multiple services prior to arriving at Biblical reasons for not having two services. Second, (and i am not writing this in a mean way) I think your exegesis of ekklesia is inaccurate. Locking down on one Greek word, and then attaching elements of time to it is not best or the most representative explanation of a church body.
It seems that the two-service or multi-site structure is a man-made corporate structure to expand one congregation into two (while placing both congregations under a single leadership structure—which historically is known as connectionalism, an unbiblical kind of polity) rather than a biblical option.
The question we must wrestle with is this: what is the biblical teaching regarding the nature and structure of the local church (ekklesia)?
Further, to describe a multi-site/multi service church as “a man-made corporate structure” is a subtle tainting of the argument that somehow these church systems are inherently worldly. It is also flawed because every church, or for that matter every Christian institution, has a man-made corporate structure aspect to it, at least in North America. To follow this line of thinking would to be argue against Christian academies/dayschools, Christian colleges/seminaries and parachurch ministries. It is also saying there is literally only ONE SINGLE way to operate a church.
You will not find those prohibitions in the NT, nor will you find prohibitions against devising a multi-service option. Jesus and the apostles gave us very few rules as to the way a church should “look/feel” and operate. This was due to the foreseen expansion into all the nations of the world. Each culture will have its influence as to how “church” is conducted. Obviously we must never stray from the life, death, resurrection, evangelism, discipleship, baptism, communion and mutual care that defines the body of Christ. Beyond that, we are not given written definitions as to the specifics of operations.
So i would argue that to limit churches in the way you are making your case is outside of Biblical authority. It is inferential and therefore a matter of personal conviction. You believe that a single meeting/single body is a better way. But there is no evidence that multi-service/multi-site is unbiblical. I think that is a tenuous position to maintain.
Best Regards,
mp
[dmicah]mp,
Ken, I can certainly appreciate searching the Scriptures. I just disagree with your conclusion. First, you started your initial comment with the idea that two services/multi-site churches made the move for monetary reasons. To me this argues for preconceptions against multiple services prior to arriving at Biblical reasons for not having two services. Second, (and i am not writing this in a mean way) I think your exegesis of ekklesia is inaccurate. Locking down on one Greek word, and then attaching elements of time to it is not best or the most representative explanation of a church body.
Further, to describe a multi-site/multi service church as “a man-made corporate structure” is a subtle tainting of the argument that somehow these church systems are inherently worldly. It is also flawed because every church, or for that matter every Christian institution, has a man-made corporate structure aspect to it, at least in North America. To follow this line of thinking would to be argue against Christian academies/dayschools, Christian colleges/seminaries and parachurch ministries. It is also saying there is literally only ONE SINGLE way to operate a church.
You will not find those prohibitions in the NT, nor will you find prohibitions against devising a multi-service option. Jesus and the apostles gave us very few rules as to the way a church should “look/feel” and operate. This was due to the foreseen expansion into all the nations of the world. Each culture will have its influence as to how “church” is conducted. Obviously we must never stray from the life, death, resurrection, evangelism, discipleship, baptism, communion and mutual care that defines the body of Christ. Beyond that, we are not given written definitions as to the specifics of operations.
So i would argue that to limit churches in the way you are making your case is outside of Biblical authority. It is inferential and therefore a matter of personal conviction. You believe that a single meeting/single body is a better way. But there is no evidence that multi-service/multi-site is unbiblical. I think that is a tenuous position to maintain.
Best Regards,
mp
Thanks for your willingness to interact with me regarding this issue. I am passionate about it because I do believe that the multi-site (and the multi-service) structure is a cultural phenomonon outside the bounds of Scripture.
You may disagree with me on that, and that’s ok! But I would be interested in your thoughts regarding several of the biblical commands that a multi-congregational (including multi-site and multi-service) structure appears incapable of obeying.
How does a multi-congregational church report a member’s unrepentant sin to the church if it is multi-congregational (Matthew 18:17, “tell it to the church”), especially if the sin is confined to a member in another of the church’s congregations meeting in another site?
How could the Apostle John rebuke Diotrophes 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)?
How does a multi-congregational church obey the command to partake of the Lord’s Supper upon “coming together” in the same place (1 Corinthians 11:18, 20, 33)?
Are the ordinances to be observed by portions of the church separately (multiple congregations); or are they to be observed by the local church as a whole?
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?
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)?
Do you have a problem with connectionalism?
So what does multi-congregational on steroids look like? Well (although I appreciate Driscoll and would agree with him theologically, his church now has a campus some 1456 miles from Seattle … and he has taken on the responsibility as the pastor of the “church” to shepherd and love and care for those people some 1500 miles away), it looks like this: http://www.flamingoroadchurch.com/main (with a congregation in Lima, Peru). And this: http://www.northcoastchurch.com/north_coast_melrose/ (with a consumer-driven service especially formulated for your own taste).
Ken Fields
[KenFields]Ken,[dmicah]mp,
Ken, I can certainly appreciate searching the Scriptures. I just disagree with your conclusion. First, you started your initial comment with the idea that two services/multi-site churches made the move for monetary reasons. To me this argues for preconceptions against multiple services prior to arriving at Biblical reasons for not having two services. Second, (and i am not writing this in a mean way) I think your exegesis of ekklesia is inaccurate. Locking down on one Greek word, and then attaching elements of time to it is not best or the most representative explanation of a church body.
Further, to describe a multi-site/multi service church as “a man-made corporate structure” is a subtle tainting of the argument that somehow these church systems are inherently worldly. It is also flawed because every church, or for that matter every Christian institution, has a man-made corporate structure aspect to it, at least in North America. To follow this line of thinking would to be argue against Christian academies/dayschools, Christian colleges/seminaries and parachurch ministries. It is also saying there is literally only ONE SINGLE way to operate a church.
You will not find those prohibitions in the NT, nor will you find prohibitions against devising a multi-service option. Jesus and the apostles gave us very few rules as to the way a church should “look/feel” and operate. This was due to the foreseen expansion into all the nations of the world. Each culture will have its influence as to how “church” is conducted. Obviously we must never stray from the life, death, resurrection, evangelism, discipleship, baptism, communion and mutual care that defines the body of Christ. Beyond that, we are not given written definitions as to the specifics of operations.
So i would argue that to limit churches in the way you are making your case is outside of Biblical authority. It is inferential and therefore a matter of personal conviction. You believe that a single meeting/single body is a better way. But there is no evidence that multi-service/multi-site is unbiblical. I think that is a tenuous position to maintain.
Best Regards,
mp
Thanks for your willingness to interact with me regarding this issue. I am passionate about it because I do believe that the multi-site (and the multi-service) structure is a cultural phenomonon outside the bounds of Scripture.
You may disagree with me on that, and that’s ok! But I would be interested in your thoughts regarding several of the biblical commands that a multi-congregational (including multi-site and multi-service) structure appears incapable of obeying.
How does a multi-congregational church report a member’s unrepentant sin to the church if it is multi-congregational (Matthew 18:17, “tell it to the church”), especially if the sin is confined to a member in another of the church’s congregations meeting in another site?
How could the Apostle John rebuke Diotrophes 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)?
How does a multi-congregational church obey the command to partake of the Lord’s Supper upon “coming together” in the same place (1 Corinthians 11:18, 20, 33)?
Are the ordinances to be observed by portions of the church separately (multiple congregations); or are they to be observed by the local church as a whole?
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?
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)?
Do you have a problem with connectionalism?
So what does multi-congregational on steroids look like? Well (although I appreciate Driscoll and would agree with him theologically, his church now has a campus some 1456 miles from Seattle … and he has taken on the responsibility as the pastor of the “church” to shepherd and love and care for those people some 1500 miles away), it looks like this: http://www.flamingoroadchurch.com/main (with a congregation in Lima, Peru). And this: http://www.northcoastchurch.com/north_coast_melrose/ (with a consumer-driven service especially formulated for your own taste).
one thing i have noticed is that it seems more of your discussion is against multi-site. I am not sure that I have fallen down on one side of the debate on multi-site campuses that are outside of a particular city because basically, as most of your questions allude to, it is essentially denominationalism at that point. Or if there is one lead pastor who maintains “leadership” over that far away church, he is basically taking the role of Apostle instead of shepherd and since no one is living that has seen Jesus face to face, Apostles aren’t really around. So i won’t take a hard line for the folks with campuses hundreds of miles away.
For time’s sake, i am not going to respond one by one to your questions (i am in a meeting..supposed to be paying attention). The biggest issue we disagree on is the philosophical approach to church. You are saying that by default churches who cannot meet these qualifications specific to those particular situations/texts are therefore out of the bounds of Scripture. Whereas i would take a position that while church principles/ordinances/mandates apply in any situation, operations or modal expression of a church body are rarely, if ever, specified. I also think that such lack of specification is intentional in that it is not limiting to the body of the church. For instance, I am not aware of anyone who busts into synagogues these days and declares the Messiah and then argues with the Rabbinic leadership the way that Paul did. We don’t believe that a church must be confined to a house, or a field, or a marketplace as the early church did. We have adapted meeting locations according to the times. So it is my position that the mode of a church body meeting is adaptable and not prescribed by implication through one of your situational questions, i.e. Diotrophes. In other words, if a 21st century church can’t handle a sinning brother in the exact same way they did in the first century, then it must be out of the bounds of Scripture. I don’t think that follows logically.
The church in Jerusalem immediately became more than 3000 people and then continued to grow at a rapid rate. So essentially the first church was a megachurch. I believe it to be more scriptural that the Jerusalem body almost immediately split into smaller bodies in differing locations and with differing elders/pastors meeting at different times throughout the week. Yet it appears from Acts 11 and Acts 21 that the main church leaders would gather and discuss the growth of believers/church throughout the area. (I understand that the presence of Apostles makes it a little different than now.) In some manner you can envision that this plurality of general church leadership would communicate and lead the specific smaller bodies, but not all bodies met together each day and/or week. But again, even in the text, there is no prescription for exactly how a particular church looked or ran in a given location.
Church bodies that get large today face a lot of challenges in finding a suitable building or place to build. With government rules on zoning and parking the way they are, or the option to move the ministry 20 miles to a rural area just for land (not a good option), it makes sense to stay central to the area of ministry and conduct multiple services. Without beating a dead horse, that is where I fall down on the side of liberty in Christ. A church ministers autonomously as it sees fit within the spectrum of explicit truth.
Perhaps one of the main issues for you is the idea that one pastor cannot handle that much ministry. We have a plurality of elders and believe that to be the biblical model of governance which allows for an exponential amount of mutual care and teaching among the body.
Again, i personally believe that multi-site campuses that are outside of a local church’s proximity, are probably not the best possible scenario, though I am not sure it can be argued that they are UNbiblical, not expedient perhaps. I like a lot of Driscoll’s preaching and the way Mars Hill is taking the gospel to the streets. This was a slammed out reply, I hope this makes sense.
Our church is in the midst of this now. We are on the verge of being too big for our building but we need to pay off a former debt before embarking on building. We do not have an early service, then Sunday School, then an 11:00 service. Rather, at 9:30 there is one church service going on with several groups in Sunday School, and at 11:00 they switch: there is another church service and other Sunday School classes. The children through sixth grade have Sunday School at 9:30 and children’s church at 11 like usual.
The advantage to this set-up is that you can have twice as many Sunday School classes in the same amount of space, because some groups are having class during the second service when normally all the adult classrooms would be empty. At our church we broke up the larger adult SS classes into smaller groups so as to have smaller fellowships and allow more men to teach.
The disadvantages:
1. If your family is in different age groups (our church’s SS classes are divided by age), then the whole family doesn’t get to worship together because some will be in class while the others are in church. That’s only for Sunday morning, though. Sunday night we’re all together because there is not quite the crowd as there is in the morning (we don’t have much of a drop-off, though, between morning and night).
2. This is further complicated if you bring a visiting family who are also divided up into different classes and services. They might be as amenable to that as members are. Plus sometimes if you have out-of-town relatives or guests visiting, you might only be in one service (in my case, my relatives don’t go to church, so getting them into even one service is doing well, plus we only have one shower in the house, so getting a lot of extra people through the showers and dressed is not always possible for an early service). Then you have to decide whether everyone goes to the class or service they’d normally be in or goes to the same service. Going to a new church can be disconcerting in itself, but if everyone is scattered in different directions the whole time you are there it can be even more so.
3. If new members join in one of the morning services, the people in the other service won’t know it unless you have some kind of bulletin board of new members or it’s announced in other services.
4. It just feels disjointed. It’s like when you have guests over and can’t fit everyone around the table, so some eat in different rooms. That’s ok for as long as guests are there, but you wouldn’t want to do it as a family for years.
In all honesty, I really didn’t like it when we first started doing it, but I have gotten used to it now. But I still wish we could be all together as a church family soon.
It’s not always easy to just split off into another church. That might be the right move for some, but it’s not automatic that when a church reaches x number of people it should split. When the church has for years been building relationships and unity, it would be traumatic for some to just lose half the fellowship. And personally, I would think a church in the 100s would be too small to split. We went to a church for four years that had about 100, and I just can’t imagine it splitting: they were short-handed for various ministries as it was. And it would depend a lot on whether the people were spiritually mature and ready to split off into a separate group or not.
I don’t think I agree with the arguments against a multi-site church. Isn’t that what the churches in people’s houses in the New Testament were, under the apostles’ leadership? They couldn’t have been very big if they met in houses. I’m not saying we should go back to that because that’s the way they did it in Acts, but there is not much specific instruction in Scripture about church size or exactly how they are supposed to meet. I don’t think a two-service or multi-site structure is bad just because it is a man-made structure — so is Sunday School and other things churches use today.
The advantage to this set-up is that you can have twice as many Sunday School classes in the same amount of space, because some groups are having class during the second service when normally all the adult classrooms would be empty. At our church we broke up the larger adult SS classes into smaller groups so as to have smaller fellowships and allow more men to teach.
The disadvantages:
1. If your family is in different age groups (our church’s SS classes are divided by age), then the whole family doesn’t get to worship together because some will be in class while the others are in church. That’s only for Sunday morning, though. Sunday night we’re all together because there is not quite the crowd as there is in the morning (we don’t have much of a drop-off, though, between morning and night).
2. This is further complicated if you bring a visiting family who are also divided up into different classes and services. They might be as amenable to that as members are. Plus sometimes if you have out-of-town relatives or guests visiting, you might only be in one service (in my case, my relatives don’t go to church, so getting them into even one service is doing well, plus we only have one shower in the house, so getting a lot of extra people through the showers and dressed is not always possible for an early service). Then you have to decide whether everyone goes to the class or service they’d normally be in or goes to the same service. Going to a new church can be disconcerting in itself, but if everyone is scattered in different directions the whole time you are there it can be even more so.
3. If new members join in one of the morning services, the people in the other service won’t know it unless you have some kind of bulletin board of new members or it’s announced in other services.
4. It just feels disjointed. It’s like when you have guests over and can’t fit everyone around the table, so some eat in different rooms. That’s ok for as long as guests are there, but you wouldn’t want to do it as a family for years.
In all honesty, I really didn’t like it when we first started doing it, but I have gotten used to it now. But I still wish we could be all together as a church family soon.
It’s not always easy to just split off into another church. That might be the right move for some, but it’s not automatic that when a church reaches x number of people it should split. When the church has for years been building relationships and unity, it would be traumatic for some to just lose half the fellowship. And personally, I would think a church in the 100s would be too small to split. We went to a church for four years that had about 100, and I just can’t imagine it splitting: they were short-handed for various ministries as it was. And it would depend a lot on whether the people were spiritually mature and ready to split off into a separate group or not.
I don’t think I agree with the arguments against a multi-site church. Isn’t that what the churches in people’s houses in the New Testament were, under the apostles’ leadership? They couldn’t have been very big if they met in houses. I’m not saying we should go back to that because that’s the way they did it in Acts, but there is not much specific instruction in Scripture about church size or exactly how they are supposed to meet. I don’t think a two-service or multi-site structure is bad just because it is a man-made structure — so is Sunday School and other things churches use today.
[KenFields][dmicah]I am by no means a theologian, or an expert on this topic, but I do have a few thoughts answering the above 4 questions
How does a multi-congregational church report a member’s unrepentant sin to the church if it is multi-congregational (Matthew 18:17, “tell it to the church”), especially if the sin is confined to a member in another of the church’s congregations meeting in another site?
How could the Apostle John rebuke Diotrophes 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)?
How does a multi-congregational church obey the command to partake of the Lord’s Supper upon “coming together” in the same place (1 Corinthians 11:18, 20, 33)?
Are the ordinances to be observed by portions of the church separately (multiple congregations); or are they to be observed by the local church as a whole?
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?
1. For the church discipline matter, most of the churches I have attended would resolve matters of church discipline in the evening service so as not to involve too many visitors. Having two services in the morning does not interfer with having the church as a whole meet together at other times for other purposes. In general, morning services are times of worship and preaching. Other services and meeting times are used for business meetings and church discipline matters, and could very well also be used for observence of church ordinances.
2. If the church is regarrded strictly as a “visible, tangible, assembly of believers in one place” then how would you account for underground churches in countries without religious freedom? They are not visible to others, but are kept as secret meetings. Many times they have to frequently move and rotate sites of meeting.
3. Just a personal example, one of the churches I have been a member of has just recently moved to having a single morning service instead of two. However, the church successfully had two morning services for many years. (I’m not sure how long, they had been operating that way long before my family started attending.) They had the resources to have a single service in the multipurpose room and at times used that room for evening services when the congregation was too large for the auditorium, but chose to continue on in the two services. There were pbenifits to doing things that way, and there were negative aspects of it, but in general it worked well for that church. You cannot point to any Scripture that forbids this. There are principles to abide by, yes, but I do not believe that this church was in violation of these principles.
Discussion