# Michael Horton talks about the Church plant movement



## J. Dean (May 25, 2011)

And it's a good clip. 

[video=youtube;_RJ0W5Yb3N8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RJ0W5Yb3N8&feature=feedu[/video]


----------



## Pilgrim (May 25, 2011)

As a Baptist my ecclesiology would differ from Horton's. But he acknowledges that in the clip. Once upon a time people used to argue about these things. Now, not so much, except on the PB. 

What Horton is getting at is an indifference when it comes to ecclesiology. I think this is most evident with the multisite phenomenon, which is perhaps more episcopal than it is anything else. Instead of planting a new church, they want a franchise that they can control. 

There's also a disturbing amount of pragmatism among some of the YRR's--if it works it must be right. If they're reaching people, who are we to judge the methods, etc. If you object you are denounced as wanting to go back to the 50's or whatever. It's simply assumed that you are arguing for "tradition" for tradition's sake or out of personal preference. Sometimes you never even get to the point of discussing what the Bible says about ecclesiology. 

The theology of Keller and Driscoll is much better than the church growth people of the 80's and 90's. But they're still the gurus of this movement as much as Warren and Hybels were of the church growth movement of the past generation. Back when I had a blog a year or two ago, I blogged about some of this.


----------



## Fly Caster (May 25, 2011)

Seems strange seeing a Reformed guy interviewed in front of bookless bookshelves.


----------



## sastark (May 25, 2011)

Thanks for sharing. Horton had some good points!


----------



## FenderPriest (May 25, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> There's also a disturbing amount of pragmatism among some of the YRR's--if it works it must be right. If they're reaching people, who are we to judge the methods, etc. If you object you are denounced as wanting to go back to the 50's or whatever. It's simply assumed that you are arguing for "tradition" for tradition's sake or out of personal preference. Sometimes you never even get to the point of discussing what the Bible says about ecclesiology.



Chris, this may be the case with _some_ "Young, Restless, Reformed", but I don't think the "main guys" would all say this. Take, for example, a _great_ one liner from Daniel Montgomery from the recent Plant! conference. Regarding church planting models, he says, "Just because you survive a plane crash doesn't mean it's a good model to follow." Daniel is one of the major Acts 29 guys, and pastors in Louisville, KT. His point is quiet different than what you're presenting, and there are many - like Sojourn in Acts 29, and Sovereign Grace Ministries - that are much more thoughtful in how they plant churches.


----------



## KMK (May 25, 2011)

Fly Caster said:


> Seems strange seeing a Reformed guy interviewed in front of bookless bookshelves.



That's because he got a Kindle!


----------



## kodos (May 25, 2011)

So true. Some of my coworkers and I were talking about this very thing. There's a huge YRR megachurch near me that's started a plant that one of my colleagues goes to. Hearing what goes on in this 'plant' makes me sad. Young pastor who has made some obvious errors in his preaching (not sure if he even has any seminary training under his belt), no elders (the sending church itself only has 7 elders with a flock of > 10,000), etc., etc. 

Frustrating.


----------



## torstar (May 25, 2011)

KMK said:


> Fly Caster said:
> 
> 
> > Seems strange seeing a Reformed guy interviewed in front of bookless bookshelves.
> ...


 

Those 2,000,000 pages of untranslated Dutch theology are on Kindle?


----------



## Rufus (May 25, 2011)

kodos said:


> So true. Some of my coworkers and I were talking about this very thing. There's a huge YRR megachurch near me that's started a plant that one of my colleagues goes to. Hearing what goes on in this 'plant' makes me sad. Young pastor who has made some obvious errors in his preaching (not sure if he even has any seminary training under his belt), no elders (the sending church itself only has 7 elders with a flock of > 10,000), etc., etc.
> 
> Frustrating.


 
There's a problem with having young-untrained pastors because there generally newer to the faith, have a low understanding of it (compared to a long time believer or a seminarian) and there expected to lead a church.


----------



## Pilgrim (May 25, 2011)

FenderPriest said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > There's also a disturbing amount of pragmatism among some of the YRR's--if it works it must be right. If they're reaching people, who are we to judge the methods, etc. If you object you are denounced as wanting to go back to the 50's or whatever. It's simply assumed that you are arguing for "tradition" for tradition's sake or out of personal preference. Sometimes you never even get to the point of discussing what the Bible says about ecclesiology.
> ...



I didn't say that they weren't careful but simply asked whether or not some of the approaches today could be justified scripturally. I believe that's Horton's point as well. I was looking at this through the lens of historic Baptists as well as the Reformed like Horton that once upon a time had definite ideas about how church was supposed to be done and had arguments from scripture to back it up. Now, that's often shunted aside in favor of what works. A lot of thought was put into Saddleback too. You can look up the video with Dever, Driscoll and James MacDonald where Dever attempts to argue from the scripture only to be cut off with arguments about numbers and what works.


----------

