# Betraying the Reformation



## py3ak

Dr. Trueman has an excellent piece on how the premise of multi-site ministries commits some of the very failings the Reformation protested.

Thoughts about the piece?

(Let's keep this one on topic: it's not about Dr. Trueman overall, it's not about tone, it's about the argument: do multi-site ministries represent a return to absenteeism and pluralism? And if so, why are people who self-identify as Reformed or Calvinistic embracing this enthusiastically?)


----------



## sdesocio

Scottish Presbyterianism had the similar issues during the killing times (not enough local oversight). Would we deny that they were genuinely Reformed?


----------



## fredtgreco

sdesocio said:


> Scottish Presbyterianism had the similar issues during the killing times (not enough local oversight). Would we deny that they were genuinely Reformed?


I think we would if the issue then was not the result of ministers being killed and worship being outlawed. Here is the issue is basically that they want a star preacher and won't find local oversight, in spite of the fact that there are hundreds of Reformed ministers without a congregation.


----------



## py3ak

Is it your contention that difficulty finding a sufficiency of ministers for remote areas in times of persecution is comparable to opening a new video link campus in an area that already has Reformed churches?


----------



## Andres

I'd buy what Trueman is selling. As Fred and Ruben have noted, the multi-site, megachurch pastor of today seems to set up this style of church simply for no other reason than numbers. And the infatuation with numbers seems not due to a desire for God's glory, but rather a preoccupation with self-glory.


----------



## py3ak

> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your contention that difficulty finding a sufficiency of ministers for remote areas in times of persecution is comparable to opening a new video link campus in an area that already has Reformed churches?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like your tone, Mister!
Click to expand...


Join the crowd, hooligan.


----------



## Philip

I agree with his argument (any deficiencies in tone I tend to think are snarky Britishisms---most Brits I know write this way).


----------



## kvanlaan

My brother goes to a church like that - when he was having marital issues, there was no district elder that knew what was going on. There was no deacon to ask him about more practical issues. There was a live, 3D pastor but while he's there as Bruxy's proxy to answer questions; he doesn't feed the flock.


----------



## kodos

Seeing the ragged, hungry, and spiritually weak flocks that come out of these multi-site campuses with their Star Preachers - I think Carl Trueman is absolutely correct. I came out of this sort of thing and as a fledgling Christian I was happy to discover the PuritanBoard and eventually get into a smaller capital R, Reformed church and really learned the importance of ecclesiology. The impact its had on my family has been profound and I'm grateful to God that there are still smaller churches that labor and toil hard for each and every family put under their care.


----------



## Zach

I think the concerns are pretty valid, Mars Hill Church has churches throughout the Northwest, with a site coming to Orange County and one already in New Mexico. Why? Because people like Mark Driscoll. I think the range of Mars Hill shows the kind of "veneration of the saints" Trueman talks about in the article and that they are ultimately trying to spread the Driscoll "brand". However, I think somewhere in the middle is what Bethlehem Baptist did, keeping their church in one city. I don't see from them the same spreading of John Piper's "brand" but that they outgrew their building. Unfortunately, the reality is that if they would have divided people would have gone to whatever church John Piper was going to pastor because he's a talented preacher. I don't think it's unbiblical to say that some people are exceptionally talented preachers. But, at the end of the day people should go to hear the word preached from whoever is preaching it because its the word of God, not the man in the pulpit. Its certainly less than the best way and I know I would want no part of it, but I think its unfair to criticize all multi-site churches as obsessed with numbers. 

What do you all think of Redeemer in NYC where the Pastors will rotate through the various different sites, preaching from the same text, to avoid people trying to flock to wherever Tim Keller is going to be?


----------



## Rufus

I wouldn't throw every large multi-site church out with the bathwater however it does bring up a big issue, I know/have heard of a Gospel Coalition (Maybe a different group) talk where Mark Driscoll and another guy (both preaching at large mutli-site churches) where suggested by Mark Dever that they, while growing up the church, should have had somebody else there preaching. 



> What do you all think of Redeemer in NYC where the Pastors will rotate through the various different sites, preaching from the same text, to avoid people trying to flock to wherever Tim Keller is going to be?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I was a member of a Church for many years that branched out with Satellite Churches in different cities via media link. The satellite churches all had Elders that operated in their functions at the local level. The Pastor was exceptionally gifted at exegeting the scriptures expositionally and driving home application as the Puritans of old. I am not sure of the effectiveness of those satellite churches as I moved on to a Presbyterian Church. I did have my questions concerning the practice. The building we were using did have to have many expansions and even utilized our old sanctuary with a video link to accommodate the growing crowd. We even went to three services to accommodate the growing crowd. In fact they just worshiped in their new auditorium this past weekend which they had to build to help with the crowd. My concern has always been how big is too big? How many people can they effectually shepherd and take responsibility for? Looking at Richard Baxter's duties and his book the Reformed Pastor just makes me cringe at the responsibilities that might be neglected and even pushed aside when trying to minister to the crowd the all sufficient Word of God. How big is too big? 

When I look at the giftedness of Charles Spurgeon and the crowds that thronged to listen to him as he faithfully preached the word of God I have many questions that arise concerning the mega church criticisms and look at the fruit of the ministry of the Word of God through his life. When does size need to be considered? When does the giftedness of a Pastor's gift go beyond being a gift? I am not so sure it is always a look at me situation. I am not so sure the the phrase cult of personality is always applicable. It is a love for the good preaching of the Word of God that draw people to some of this situation. After all, many people love to listen to sermons online because the Word of God is vital in their lives and that is all the people are pursuing. Is it unbalanced to make accommodations for such? I believe it can be on many levels because the body is set up to function locally. The first place the word of God it is supposed to be fed upon is in the home. But the ecclesiastical offices can't function weekly in the home as the Lord has appointed. We need to meet congregationally for the offices to function the way God intended. 

Many who have come to faith in this past century have not done so by the means set up in the scriptures. We have leaned heavily upon Revival tactics such as so called crusades (Billy Graham). The Church is no longer the center of our Society and society has divorced the Church as God's appointed means. This has caused a big problem in my estimation. It also leads to a lot of Church jumping. And it relegates God's appointed means as something that isn't that important. It has lead many Churches to accommodate the entertainment scenario to keep its members. I have been guilty of it in my life also. The ends justifies the means has become our motto instead of God's means is the important factor for solid fruit. There is a lot we need to figure out after examining the history of the Church and God's appointed means. We have become accustomed to the extraordinary and forsaken the ordinary and right means of grace in my estimation. After all, McDonalds and fast food is now the ordinary when in fact the ordinary consisted of hard work and meal prepared by mother. We have turned the extraordinary into the ordinary. 

Am I making any sense?


----------



## Jack K

Video-link pastoring is a bad idea, for all the reasons Dr. Trueman mentioned. But we need to be careful NOT to react by badmouthing all things big and/or multi-site.

It is NOT necessarily bad for a church that has more than one service, at different times, to hold these in different places around town... either for the sake of outreach, convenience or whatever.

It is NOT necessarily bad for a church to grow so large that the chief preaching pastor doesn't personally know everyone. We shouldn't assume that just because a church is large that must mean it is neglectful in pastoral oversight or is pandering to a celebrity preacher mindset. Large churches do have to take measures to avoid these pitfalls, but small churches have their own challenges and bad tendencies.



Zach said:


> What do you all think of Redeemer in NYC where the Pastors will rotate through the various different sites, preaching from the same text, to avoid people trying to flock to wherever Tim Keller is going to be?



Keller is trying to (1) prepare his church and his associate pastors for the day when he will retire and (2) avoid some of the pitfalls that come with being a celebrity preacher. I think his model will ultimately prove better than, say, Driscoll's.


----------



## py3ak

I suppose technically a church that meets in a school on Sunday morning and at a congregant's home on Wednesday is multi-site - but what I understood to be usually meant by multi-site is the use of video technology to import one preacher into multiple locations: that seems like it would inevitably be pluralism, doesn't it?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Rufus said:


> I wouldn't throw every large multi-site church out with the bathwater however it does bring up a big issue, I know/have heard of a Gospel Coalition (Maybe a different group) talk where Mark Driscoll and another guy (both preaching at large mutli-site churches) where suggested by Mark Dever that they, while growing up the church, should have had somebody else there preaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> What do you all think of Redeemer in NYC where the Pastors will rotate through the various different sites, preaching from the same text, to avoid people trying to flock to wherever Tim Keller is going to be?
Click to expand...

I watched the same video. It was Mark Dever talking with Mark Driscoll and James Macdonald. Both Driscoll and Macdonald use the multi-site, video method and Dever challenged them with the obvious question, why not just raise up pastors and elders and start new churches. Of course being that it was the Gospel Coalition, whose main aim seems to be mutual congratulation, he really didn't challenge them all that much. It would be good to see an interview such as this where the multi-site model was really challenged


----------



## Andres

Zach said:


> Mars Hill Church has churches throughout the Northwest, with a site coming to Orange County and one already in New Mexico. Why? Because people like Mark Driscoll.



I would say it has more to do with Mark Driscoll liking Mark Driscoll.


----------



## dudley

"The problem with the way `Reformed' is often used today is that it divorces certain things (typically the five, or more often, four points of Calvinism) from the overall Reformation vision of pastoral care, church worship, Christian nurture and all-round approach to ministry. The Bible becomes sufficient for the doctrines of grace; but what works, what pulls in the punters, becomes the criterion for everything else, especially ecclesiology and pastoral practice."

I think he hit the nail on the head in the above paragraph.
We must maintain the principles of the Reformation and continue the Protestant Reformation in the 21st century.

Sola Scriptura
Sola Fide
Sola Gratia
Solus Christus
Soli Deo Gloria

The protestant doctrine of Justification by faith alone in Christ alone must be maintained.

I think that many cradle Protestants have forgotten the essence of what the Protestant reformation was about. I believe that we should promote the principles of the Reformation always to our protestant youth. I see in my own life a rebith of the priciples of the Reformation by converts like me to the Reformed Protestant faith.

I do think that ex roman Catholics like myself who are now protestants (15 Million of us in the United States alone) are more authentically protestant than many cradle Protestants because we searched for and found the truth like the reformers of the 16th century. I also think that the reasons and the principles of the Protestant reformation have not been taught to many cradle Protestants in recent years perhaps in the name of Ecumenism which I think was a detraction by Rome to subvert again the truths of the glorious Protestant Reformation.

Roman Catholics are taught and I also believed that the Protestant Reformation was a rebellion solely against authority of the Roman magesterium and the pope. I left the Roman catholic church at first as a rebellion against papal authority and what I saw as abuse of that authority. However as I studied the Protestant Reformation and Protestantism I began to see another picture. I began to understand the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura and began to see that being Protestant was not just a protest but a stand for the truth of the Gospel alone and the authority of scripture alone. I now believe as a Presbyterian that we Protestants should dare not compromise the Gospel by sweeping the Reformation under the rug. The Gospel is too important." 

I have become a true Protestant in every way in recent years. It is also why I openly renounce Roman Catholicism as did the Reformers. It is why I openly renounce the pope of Rome as they did and why I now believe the Roman catholic church is an apostate church. It is why I openly declare my self a Reformed Protestant and I am thankful that by the amazing grace of God I am now a Presbyterian. I work to give testimony to the true Faith, the Reformed faith and the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Romanists have a man made religion designed by the papacy for over 1500 years. Those man made traditions I list below and also why I am no longer a Roman catholic but a Reformed Protestant. I hope others may read this and be guided out of the bondage of popery as I was.

Was the Protestant Reformation necessary? I believe so. The communication and purity of the Gospel was at stake. Amidst all the conciliation's going on today, we need to keep this in mind: things have not changed that much." 

It is why I left the Roman catholic church and why I am now a Reformed Protestant. It is why I am now a Communing member of the Presbyterian church.

The following is from a recent article in the National catholic reporter by a Jesuit priest on why so many catholics are becoming Protestants.

"Sometimes churches bleed, and in America this is occurring most acutely in the Roman Catholic Church where one out of every ten Americans is an ex-Catholic. In a recent Catholic National Reporter article, “The Hidden Exodus: Catholics Becoming Protestants,” the Rev. Thomas Reese S.J. provides reasons for the crisis:

People are not becoming Protestants because they disagree with specific Catholic teachings; people are leaving because the church does not meet their spiritual needs and they find Protestant worship service better.

Nor are the people becoming Protestants lazy or lax Christians. In fact, they attend worship services at a higher rate than those who remain Catholic.

Thus, both as believers and as worshipers, Catholics who become Protestants are statistically better Christians than those who stay Catholic. We are losing the best, not the worst."

The good news is that the Protestant churches are gaining some of the best. Cradle Protestants need to recognize the beauty and truth of the Reformed Protestant faith and never let the Protestant Reformation be over. The Protetsnat Reformation is the protest against heresy and the proclamation of the true Gospel of Christ.We must always continue that cause!


----------



## steadfast7

I think it's possible to view the multisite approach, not as a failed attempt at pastoring a flock digitally, but a means of evangelizing the masses who need to hear the gospel and are not likely to walk into a traditional church anytime soon. Why not view the video-link sermon as something that Whitefield and Wesley would have done, had they the technology. Their main purpose was to maximize reach, and we don't condemn them for it. Note also, that most "sites" have what they call a "campus" pastor, who looks after the pastoral and administrative needs of the local congregation gathering there. He may even preach and do teaching sessions as well, so the people are not that far away from pastoral care.


----------



## py3ak

Almost every bad idea has been justified under the rubric of maximizing reach and preaching the Gospel to those otherwise unlikely to hear. If this is what's going on, then why are established Reformed churches losing people to the latest multimedia center? Because the people already in the Reformed churches are unlikely to walk into a traditional church?

I believe Carl Trueman is right in his polemic against the cult of celebrity: it is not the only problem in the church (for instance, the Bayly brothers are right to identify egalitarianism creeping and rampant as a major issue; Doug Wilson is right to identify heresies about food as a big issue; and others are right to identify Doug Wilson and his crew as a major issue), but it is a severe problem that it seems relatively few are willing to touch. And yet the Lord is quite clear: _how can ye believe, which receive honor one of another and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?_ And I believe Dr. Trueman is right to identify the phenomenon of multi-site churches with an ever growing empire centered around one personality who becomes the basis and center of the entire structure as another instance of the cult of celebrity. The cultural forces that make a celebrity out of someone simply for being notorious are not absent from the church.


----------



## Edward

Deleted by writer as off topic


----------



## Romans922

A multi-site church is a contradiction. In an era where 'church' is defined as a building and not an assembly (which is the correct definition), to have a multi-site church is to have multiple churches or assemblies. The same goes for having more than one worship service that is the same service (music/sermon) [as opposed to morning and evening worship]; multiple services means multiple assemblies or churches.


----------



## Andres

Edward said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT necessarily bad for a church to grow so large that the chief preaching pastor doesn't personally know everyone. We shouldn't assume that just because a church is large that must mean it is neglectful in pastoral oversight or is pandering to a celebrity preacher mindset. Large churches do have to take measures to avoid these pitfalls, but small churches have their own challenges and bad tendencies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As an officer of one of the larger churches represented on the board I applaud your grasp of the situation.
Click to expand...


Actually having a large church isn't the situation in this thread. We could debate that in another thread if someone would like, but Trueman's article and this thread are dealing with multi-site churches.


----------



## steadfast7

how can the cult of celebrity be avoided? Even Calvin ensured that he be buried in an unmarked grave for this very reason, and there have always been famous Reformed preachers that the masses have followed like groupies - that's just the nature of man.


----------



## Zach

Andres said:


> Zach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mars Hill Church has churches throughout the Northwest, with a site coming to Orange County and one already in New Mexico. Why? Because people like Mark Driscoll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say it has more to do with Mark Driscoll liking Mark Driscoll.
Click to expand...


I didn't want to say it that way, but I think you're right. Did you happen to watch the video of him, McDonald, and Dever that was posted in another thread and Sean mentioned in this one? Driscoll asked Dever something about, "How many pastors are in your church?" and responded with something akin to, "Well I have more, I win." I know it was something numerically, Driscoll had more, and he thought he was superior. He just comes across as very arrogant sometimes...


----------



## Grimmson

This multi-site and video feed idea should not surprise us in here; particularly when some smaller churches have a hard time bring in someone to preach that they can afford, because it is cheaper in the long term and potentially bring more people in because of that big name. I am not defending the position, but I can see how it can emerge. And as a churchman it saddens me. I think part of the issue why some of these smaller churches lack someone filling their pulpits is due to the lack of previous pastors training their replacement (apprentice style model) and an over-reliance on seminaries, as reinforced by the requiring of the MDIV degrees. There is not the focus of the local pastor teaching reformed theology to a group of men that would soon be their replacement in the church and can be used to spread the Gospel to other areas, like as was pointed out by the reason the reformers stayed were they were at:



> they were too busy training people to go to places where there was no Reformation witness to have found the idea of church planting on the doorstep of faithful churches to be an attractive idea



I think these video feeds are a direct result of the following:
1) personality driven ministries that already exist
2) lack of solid teaching by pastors that care (care which cannot be taught or reinforced by seminaries because of strict deadlines of academics over personal care) 
3) a focus on teaching outside of a local assembly of believers (I mean the local church)
4) requirements beyond scripture for the office of a pastor
5) high cost for outsourcing solid Christian education outside of the church to nondenominational ministries and seminaries. 

The issue here should not be video or pod cast streaming in churches, but instead of the vacuum that exists that these are filling and how that vacuum got there.


----------



## py3ak

steadfast7 said:


> how can the cult of celebrity be avoided? Even Calvin ensured that he be buried in an unmarked grave for this very reason, and there have always been famous Reformed preachers that the masses have followed like groupies - that's just the nature of man.



There's a difference between recognizing that a battle will necessarily be ongoing and deciding it's not a fight we even want to have.


----------



## kvanlaan

Does this not make them just one degree shy of being a televangelist?


----------



## Peairtach

*Randy*


> Many who have come to faith in this past century have not done so by the means set up in the scriptures. We have leaned heavily upon Revival tactics such as so called crusades (Billy Graham). The Church is no longer the center of our Society and society has divorced the Church as God's appointed means. This has caused a big problem in my estimation. It also leads to a lot of Church jumping. And it relegates God's appointed means as something that isn't that important. It has lead many Churches to accommodate the entertainment scenario to keep its members. I have been guilty of it in my life also. The ends justifies the means has become our motto instead of God's means is the important factor for solid fruit. There is a lot we need to figure out after examining the history of the Church and God's appointed means. We have become accustomed to the extraordinary and forsaken the ordinary and right means of grace in my estimation. After all, McDonalds and fast food is now the ordinary when in fact the ordinary consisted of hard work and meal prepared by mother. We have turned the extraordinary into the ordinary.
> 
> Am I making any sense?



You're making perfect sense, Randy. Our society is dislocated and doesn't get the balance between the individual and the collective right. Not that any society is perfect in this or anything else, but individuals and societies are to image forth God in His plurality and unity.

God comes to bring healing and balance to congregations, churches and societies, as people are converted and as the principles of His Word are increasingly followed.



> Remember the Law of Moses, My servant, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD. And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse." (Mal 4:4-6, NKJV)


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Reformation21 on the subject of "video screen churches:" Is the Reformation nearly over? Perhaps, but maybe not for the reason you think, - Reformation21 Blog

"Yet these small church pastors can only offer their people hard work and the need for real get-your-hands-dirty commitment. By contrast, the video hook-up brings the fetish to town and makes few demands upon anyone beyond the tech guy, the head of physical plant and the local praise band. In today's consumer world, there is no doubt who has the more attractive product to sell. Presumably the cancer wards will offer similar video link-ups when members of the virtual congregation lie dying and in need of final comfort."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Reformation21 on the subject of "video screen churches:" Is the Reformation nearly over? Perhaps, but maybe not for the reason you think, - Reformation21 Blog
> 
> "Yet these small church pastors can only offer their people hard work and the need for real get-your-hands-dirty commitment. By contrast, the video hook-up brings the fetish to town and makes few demands upon anyone beyond the tech guy, the head of physical plant and the local praise band. In today's consumer world, there is no doubt who has the more attractive product to sell. Presumably the cancer wards will offer similar video link-ups when members of the virtual congregation lie dying and in need of final comfort."



Well said.


----------



## steadfast7

I think the ideal is being made an enemy of something good. Why cant we be thankful that more people are having the chance to hear a gifted communicator expound the doctrines of grace. If it turns out they are not a true church then let God remove their lampstand. only let rejoice that Christ is preached.


----------



## sdesocio

From my first post there seemed to be a suggestions that the circumstances behind why a church is Reformed or not...this seems odd. 
If the suggestion that to be a faithful reformed church a local preacher is needed, then we must say that regardless of the reasons a church without a local preacher is missing a vital element of what it means to be Reformed. (I don't agree with this line of thinking). 

I'm gonna follow Clowney and point out that the Scriptural use of the word Church encompasses both regional groups and small home groups.


----------



## au5t1n

Josh, you _do_ realize CCRPC's currently a multisite church, right?


----------



## py3ak

sdesocio said:


> From my first post there seemed to be a suggestions that the circumstances behind why a church is Reformed or not...this seems odd.
> If the suggestion that to be a faithful reformed church a local preacher is needed, then we must say that regardless of the reasons a church without a local preacher is missing a vital element of what it means to be Reformed. (I don't agree with this line of thinking).
> 
> I'm gonna follow Clowney and point out that the Scriptural use of the word Church encompasses both regional groups and small home groups.



It doesn't seem like the point should be terribly hard to follow. The Reformation protested certain things (absenteeism and pluralism). They decried them as things that should not be encouraged or promoted. That doesn't mean that every church that perhaps had a circuit riding preacher was in sin, but it does mean that this is not the ideal we're working toward. And there is all the difference in the world between being providentially hindered from obtaining something and _not seeking it at all_. 

It has always been understood that the work of Reformation does not happen from one day to the next. But the (pretty simply and straightforward) point of the article is that in deliberately pursuing pluralism and the accompanying absenteeism, churches claiming a Reformation mantle are embracing the very things the Reformation protested. However you slice it, that's not very Reformational.

Dennis, that line of argument won't work. If you read the article you will notice it is not just that these multi-sites are reaching people otherwise unreached: it is that they are leaching people out of churches without the celebrity pastor, but with local accountability. It's not those who protest this phenomenon who are making the ideal the enemy of the good - those who promote it are making the good the enemy of the ideal.


----------



## M21195

Andres said:


> I'd buy what Trueman is selling. As Fred and Ruben have noted, the multi-site, megachurch pastor of today seems to set up this style of church simply for no other reason than numbers. And the infatuation with numbers seems not due to a desire for God's glory, but rather a preoccupation with self-glory.



Self-glory and MONEY


----------



## sdesocio

The Reformation wasn't about protesting "absenteeism and pluralism". And while I'm not as well read as I should be, I've never seen a reference to the word pluralism being used in the sense it is used above. I wonder if it is a novelty that Dr. Trueman created.

My point isn't to necessarily defend multisite ministry, but to argue that suggesting that such ministry is by default historically unreformed is not a good argument. 
Arguing from history is at best a secondary reference, the line of thinking from Dr. Trueman seems at best to be tertiary.


----------



## steadfast7

The multisite churches that I know of: Mars Hill and Bethlehem Baptist are not "Reformed Churches" and have never claimed to be. If they were, then there is reason to protest their actions. As it stands, they have every right to be 5-point Calvinists and spread their message however they want, don't they? In these multisite campuses, are they not hearing the word rightly preached, and receiving the sacraments? What other definition of church is there?


----------



## py3ak

sdesocio said:


> The Reformation wasn't about protesting "absenteeism and pluralism". And while I'm not as well read as I should be, I've never seen a reference to the word pluralism being used in the sense it is used above. I wonder if it is a novelty that Dr. Trueman created.
> 
> My point isn't to necessarily defend multisite ministry, but to argue that suggesting that such ministry is by default historically unreformed is not a good argument.
> Arguing from history is at best a secondary reference, the line of thinking from Dr. Trueman seems at best to be tertiary.



Your own lack of awareness seems quite a shaky foundation on which to found a speculation about a professional historian. A source as accessible as Wikipedia is better informed: "The holding of more than one benefice is termed pluralism."



steadfast7 said:


> The multisite churches that I know of: Mars Hill and Bethlehem Baptist are not "Reformed Churches" and have never claimed to be. If they were, then there is reason to protest their actions. As it stands, they have every right to be 5-point Calvinists and spread their message however they want, don't they? In these multisite campuses, are they not hearing the word rightly preached, and receiving the sacraments? What other definition of church is there?



They're not Reformed, but they may need to give up the claim to be "Reformational" as well. That doesn't mean there's nothing left to criticize. The cult of celebrity is still a major problem; the carelessness with regard to what other churches may already exist in another area is a problem. And no, none of us have a right to do things however we want: whether we like to confess it or not, we are bound to the word of God. And the word of God places "feeding" and "oversight" together, onto the shoulders of the same people, and makes it be specifically of the flock among them, not of the flock in distant places.

And beyond all that, there is also the question for those who are looking for a church to attend, if a multi-site church should be considered when local churches are available.


----------



## fredtgreco

py3ak said:


> sdesocio said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Reformation wasn't about protesting "absenteeism and pluralism". And while I'm not as well read as I should be, I've never seen a reference to the word pluralism being used in the sense it is used above. I wonder if it is a novelty that Dr. Trueman created.
> 
> My point isn't to necessarily defend multisite ministry, but to argue that suggesting that such ministry is by default historically unreformed is not a good argument.
> Arguing from history is at best a secondary reference, the line of thinking from Dr. Trueman seems at best to be tertiary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your own lack of awareness seems quite a shaky foundation on which to found a speculation about a professional historian. A source as accessible as Wikipedia is better informed: "The holding of more than one benefice is termed pluralism."
Click to expand...

One could actually argue that pluralism (the holding of more than one benefice) was *THE* proximate cause of the Reformation. It was Archbishop Albert's desire to add the open bishopric of Mainz to his already two offices that led to the payment of a large bribe to the Pope, who arranged for the funding through the Fuggers, who were paid off by a special dispensation for the selling of indulgences, that were sold by, yes, Tetzel.


----------



## steadfast7

py3ak said:


> They're not Reformed, but they may need to give up the claim to be "Reformational" as well.


You're making the smaller issues of the Reformation into the main thing. "Reformational" is a simple adjective. Even Brian McClaren has the right to use that label if he chooses. the five solas and the five points are clearer markers of the Reformation's essence. Your complain is little more than a branding issue, like Starbucks suing coffee companies that use a green circle on their logos.


----------



## sdesocio

Ha. Fred there you go you got me.


----------



## py3ak

steadfast7 said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not Reformed, but they may need to give up the claim to be "Reformational" as well.
> 
> 
> 
> You're making the smaller issues of the Reformation into the main thing. "Reformational" is a simple adjective. Even Brian McClaren has the right to use that label if he chooses. the five solas and the five points are clearer markers of the Reformation's essence. Your complain is little more than a branding issue, like Starbucks suing coffee companies that use a green circle on their logos.
Click to expand...


Dennis, no: on your logic, I have the right to call myself Wesleyan, if I should so choose. People choose adjectives not only because they sound cool, but because they want to be identified with something - they want to make a connection between their brand and another, if you want to use marketing language. But not all brands are associated. Hopefully as people learn more about the Reformation, they will either embrace it or have the honesty to admit that they really don't want to be associated with it.

The Reformation was born out of crises of several kinds, often overlapping. I don't know that Dr. Trueman is the first to do so, but he certainly has drawn attention to the pastoral crisis that was part of what led to the Reformation, both with regard to the question of assurance and with regard to the lack of pastoral care. That there were other issues also doesn't mean that this one is minor.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

I thought these thoughts on the "multi site video link" church from Thabiti Anyabwile were pretty interesting:

Multi-Site Churches Are from the Devil – Pure Church by Thabiti Anyabwile


----------



## Zach

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> I thought these thoughts on the "multi site video link" church from Thabiti Anyabwile were pretty interesting:
> 
> Multi-Site Churches Are from the Devil – Pure Church by Thabiti Anyabwile



Thanks for sharing this Mark. The original post and this post have definitely made me rethink my position on multi-site churches.


----------



## dudley

*I agree*



GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Reformation21 on the subject of "video screen churches:" Is the Reformation nearly over? Perhaps, but maybe not for the reason you think, - Reformation21 Blog
> 
> "Yet these small church pastors can only offer their people hard work and the need for real get-your-hands-dirty commitment. By contrast, the video hook-up brings the fetish to town and makes few demands upon anyone beyond the tech guy, the head of physical plant and the local praise band. In today's consumer world, there is no doubt who has the more attractive product to sell. Presumably the cancer wards will offer similar video link-ups when members of the virtual congregation lie dying and in need of final comfort."



I agree with Trumann “The Reformation was about more than a doctrinal insight into justification; it was also about abolishing the fetishisation of certain great figures as if they possessed some special magic and about instituting an ideal of educated, personal, local ministry.” 

I left the Roman catholic church like the reformers did. I rejected the notion of the pope as head of the church and having some magical abilities above others. I rejected the notion of the roman catholic priesthood as did the reformers and their supposed magical ability to change a bread wafer and wine into the actual physical body and blood of Christ at the Roman catholic worship they call the mass .which denies Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary for all who place their faith in Him alone.

I renounced the Roman catholic pope and have done so many times on the PB because I believe like the reformers I wanted to abolish such a figure as if he possessed some special magic. I became a Reformed protestant and a Presbyterian because I believed in the ideals of the reformation the five solas and I wanted a church that was composed of educated , personal local ministry , which I found at he First Presbyterian church of Manasquan where I became a full member last October by public affirmation of faith.

The large mega churches to me resemble in so many ways the huge Roman catholic church I left. However I predict a new and continued Protestant Reformation in the coming years. Many more Catholics will be leaving in the future and I do think many will become protestants as I did and 15 million others alone in the US in the last 2 decades.


----------



## steadfast7

py3ak said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're not Reformed, but they may need to give up the claim to be "Reformational" as well.
> 
> 
> 
> You're making the smaller issues of the Reformation into the main thing. "Reformational" is a simple adjective. Even Brian McClaren has the right to use that label if he chooses. the five solas and the five points are clearer markers of the Reformation's essence. Your complain is little more than a branding issue, like Starbucks suing coffee companies that use a green circle on their logos.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dennis, no: on your logic, I have the right to call mywelf Wesleyan, if I should so choose. People choose adjectives not only because they sound cool, but because they want to be identified with something - they want to make a connection between their brand and another, if you want to use marketing language. But not all brands are associated. Hopefully as people learn more about the Reformation, they will either embrace it or have the honesty to admit that they really don't want to be associated with it.
> 
> The Reformation was born out of crises of several kinds, often overlapping. I don't know if Dr. Trueman is the first to do so, but he certainly has drawn attention to the pastoral crisis that was part of what led to the Reformation, both with regard to the question of assurance and with regard to the lack of pastoral care. That there were other issues also doesn't mean that this one is minor.
Click to expand...

Granted, there were many issues that acted as kindling for the Reformation. But what does Luther say is "*the article* of the standing or falling church"? If a church or movement wants to align themselves with the central theological tenets of the Reformation, I don't see how they ought to be excluded on the grounds that the other issues are not central to their ethos. Who gets to decide what it means to be "Reformational"? If one cannot be "Reformational" by standing upon THE ARTICLE, then that word has lost meaning, in my opinion.

---------- Post added at 07:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 AM ----------

Also, as an add-on, it's not these celebrity preachers of our day who are guilty of "pluralism", but even our contemporary Reformed heroes: Pastors, who also double as seminary lecturers, traveling speakers, authors, radio hosts, ministry heads, etc. Should they not be rebuked as well for potentially failing to keep their flock and get to know their parishioners personally?


----------



## VictorBravo

steadfast7 said:


> Also, as an add-on, it's not these celebrity preachers of our day who are guilty of "pluralism", but even our contemporary Reformed heroes: Pastors, who also double as seminary lecturers, traveling speakers, authors, radio hosts, ministry heads, etc. Should they not be rebuked as well for potentially failing to keep their flock and get to know their parishioners personally?



And your point is? 

Or . . . : Well, yes, they should be. I think some of these folks were included in the rebuke that opened this thread. 

But even if for some reason one doesn't think they were, how does that detract from the points Trueman raised? He doesn't have to criticize every wrong he comes across. Sometimes he saves those for another post.


----------



## py3ak

steadfast7 said:


> Granted, there were many issues that acted as kindling for the Reformation. But what does Luther say is "*the article* of the standing or falling church"? If a church or movement wants to align themselves with the central theological tenets of the Reformation, I don't see how they ought to be excluded on the grounds that the other issues are not central to their ethos. Who gets to decide what it means to be "Reformational"? If one cannot be "Reformational" by standing upon THE ARTICLE, then that word has lost meaning, in my opinion.
> 
> Also, as an add-on, it's not these celebrity preachers of our day who are guilty of "pluralism", but even our contemporary Reformed heroes: Pastors, who also double as seminary lecturers, traveling speakers, authors, radio hosts, ministry heads, etc. Should they not be rebuked as well for potentially failing to keep their flock and get to know their parishioners personally?



Luther also told Erasmus that in speaking of free will he had touched the real root of the division: it is clear that to Luther there was more than one issue, there were a complex of related issues. Obviously the question of Scripture was also tremendously significant. For a fuller perspective, Calvin's analysis in _The Necessity of Reforming the Church_ is possibly the best place to start. I doubt that an atomistic insistence on one doctrine to the exclusion of the whole context in which it arose, and the new circumstances it created is very Reformational.

Working in multiple capacities is not the same thing as pastoring multiple churches. Luther and Calvin had an overwhelming amount of labour - Calvin attributes the slander about his immoderate influence to the vast amount of work he had to undergo. But naturally every minister/professor/author/DJ has to ask himself how much can be done without interfering with being given to prayer and the ministry of the word. A good example of genuine pluralism from last century is J. Frank Norris.


----------



## steadfast7

it comes back to the thinkers who have the time and luxury of pointing to how the culture is deviating from the absolute ideal, and potentially missing that there are some very good things that are coming out of it as well, not least, that Christ is being preached!


----------



## py3ak

Now we're starting to go in a circle.
Criticism of what is wrong does not equate to a lack of appreciation for what is right. Christ told us that in our discipling we are to teach them to observe all things that he commanded. That means that having one thing, even the main thing, right is not sufficiently comprehensive. It also means that we shouldn't set the things in opposition, as though calling for an implementation of the model suggested by 1 Peter 5 is somehow contrary to the gospel being preached.


----------



## steadfast7

py3ak said:


> Luther also told Erasmus that in speaking of free will he had touched the real root of the division: it is clear that to Luther there was more than one issue, there were a complex of related issues. Obviously the question of Scripture was also tremendously significant. For a fuller perspective, Calvin's analysis in The Necessity of Reforming the Church is possibly the best place to start. I doubt that an atomistic insistence on one doctrine to the exclusion of the whole context in which it arose, and the new circumstances it created is very Reformational.


I think it needs to be appreciated that while there were many things, even for Luther, that stirred Reformation, the movement as a whole (as with most movements) need a single battle cry that everyone can rally around. I am convinced that the culture of that time chose theology as that battle cry. and that is the battle cry that continues to ring out in our day, by those who would call themselves Reformational. I believe it is most appropriate.


----------



## py3ak

steadfast7 said:


> I think it needs to be appreciated that while there were many things, even for Luther, that stirred Reformation, the movement as a whole (as with most movements) need a single battle cry that everyone can rally around. I am convinced that the culture of that time chose theology as that battle cry. and that is the battle cry that continues to ring out in our day, by those who would call themselves Reformational. I believe it is most appropriate.



That depends on how narrowly you define theology; obviously for Luther and Calvin it was intensely practical as well, and it certainly wasn't reductionistic. Consider the breadth and scope of the _Institutes_, consider the variety of Luther's writings, consider the involvement of both men in outreach and education. Of course they addressed themselves primarily to the soul of the church - the doctrine of salvation and the worship of God; but they by no means left the problems of the body (e.g., church discipline) unaddressed. They were churchmen as well as theologians: indeed, you might say that they were churchmen because they were theologians, or even vice versa.


----------



## steadfast7

> That depends on how narrowly you define theology; obviously for Luther and Calvin it was intensely practical as well, and it certainly wasn't reductionistic. Consider the breadth and scope of the _Institutes_, consider the variety of Luther's writings, consider the involvement of both men in outreach and education. Of course they addressed themselves primarily to the soul of the church - the doctrine of salvation and the worship of God; but they by no means left the problems of the body (e.g., church discipline) unaddressed. They were churchmen as well as theologians: indeed, you might say that they were churchmen because they were theologians, or even vice versa.


Good point. Now, how closely is the current pastoral situation mirroring the problems in the 16th century? If theology and practice are closely linked, then that is also true of the corrupt Roman church, who believed the same thing. Their practice would have flowed from their theology and vice versa. Can it be said that the current situation with evangelical churches (and their theology) really mirrors the corrupt church _all that much_ when you view everything organically?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

A little leaven affects the whole lump. I am not sure if the current pastoral situation directly mirrors the problems of the 16th Century but I am sure you can trace the same problems back to the three temptations, the lust of the flesh, eyes, and pride of life. So if there is a divergence of the prescribed way that God has set up for ecclesiastical order then it directly does come from the same roots. There are prescribed means and order set up. Are they being violated?


========================

The word Pastor means something. In light of Hebrews 13:17 and 1 Peter 5:1-4 there is a tremendous amount of responsibility concerning it.

(Heb 13:17) Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.



(1Pe 5:1) The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
(1Pe 5:2) Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
(1Pe 5:3) Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
(1Pe 5:4) And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.


----------



## py3ak

steadfast7 said:


> Good point. Now, how closely is the current pastoral situation mirroring the problems in the 16th century? If theology and practice are closely linked, then that is also true of the corrupt Roman church, who believed the same thing. Their practice would have flowed from their theology and vice versa. Can it be said that the current situation with evangelical churches (and their theology) really mirrors the corrupt church _all that much_ when you view everything organically?



Well, what does it say about the theology of the evangelical churches that this is their practice?


----------



## J. Dean

It sounds like the issue is one of a pastor being a pastor vs. being a celebrity speaker and nothing more.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

J. Dean said:


> It sounds like the issue is one of a pastor being a pastor vs. being a celebrity speaker and nothing more.


I think the issue is a bit deeper than this. 
It really asks the question, what is the relationship of a Pastor to his congregation(s). Is he simply a preacher[one who preaches] full stop?
It also asks another important question, what is the relationship of congregations, families, and individuals to their pastor?

Is there a distinction that is being made here between a preacher and a pastor?


----------



## MightyManfred

A multi-site or multi-service "church" is popery! I think mega-churches in general are too. Such none sense elevates a man above the message. Here in Houston, not only has Ed Young, Sr. been preaching and teaching a very wide path and endorsing some of the heresy put on stage by his son in Dallas, he has "satellite" churches around this big city that have "local pastoral teams" for everything in the service except the sermon - which is beamed from Peter's Chair (or whatever he actually calls it) into each satellite facility. I've been referring to Ed Young, Sr. as the Pope of Houston for several years.

Of course, he's not reformed - but he is a prime example of the dangers of this mindset.


----------



## Zach

I was thinking about this some more the other day and the question that I had was when does the local church cease to be local? Can multi-site churches claim to be the local church if the sites are all in the same city? I would say Mars Hill is definitely NOT a local church, but what about Bethlehem Baptist? Maybe someone who knows the meaning of ekklesia could help?


----------



## MightyManfred

I have my own perspective on Bethlehem Baptist - would never join it for many reasons. Thabitti Anyabwile has a good write-up here: Multi-Site Churches Are from the Devil – Pure Church by Thabiti Anyabwile


----------



## Zach

MightyManfred said:


> I have my own perspective on Bethlehem Baptist - would never join it for many reasons. Thabitti Anyabwile has a good write-up here: Multi-Site Churches Are from the Devil – Pure Church by Thabiti Anyabwile



But at what point is a multi-site church in one city, such as Bethlehem Baptist, no difference between a one site mega church? What is the difference between 10,000 people in three buildings and 10,000 in one building?


----------



## MightyManfred

With huge churches even in one building in one meeting, there's no way for the preacher to be a pastor. The office is not meant to be split - the ones who preach are to be the shepherds of the local flock. Piper is a public figure-heard preacher who has allowed himself to become a cult personality. Multiple services or multiple buildings cease to be congregational or Baptist. I just finished reading this book: Amazon.com: Who Runs the Church?: 4 Views on Church Government (Counterpoints: Church Life) (9780310246077): Steven B. Cowan, Stanley N. Gundry, Peter Toon, L. Roy Taylor, Paige Patterson, Sam E. Waldron: Books which provides an over view of 4 major perspective on church government. The authors in favor of the episcopal and democratic congregational views need to go back and study the Bible without imposing their views on the text.


----------

