Mars Hill and Ecclesiology

Status
Not open for further replies.

JP Wallace

Puritan Board Sophomore
A few days ago (10th) Mark Driscoll posted this on the Mars Hill web site. Carl Trueman referenced it, yet there seems to be little or no discussion about it. I think there should be a lot. I have major concerns at multiple levels, most of which I'm not sure I can even express. Is it only me?

Is Your Church Interested in Becoming a Part of Mars Hill? | Mars Hill Church

I put this on the board for information. I do not want it to become a place to lambast Mark Driscoll. If it becomes that I am sure I or some other moderator will shut it down. That said this is a bizarre development and I'll open batting by saying that this has appearances of cult, romanism, prelacy and well, I could go on.

Thoughts?
 
Interesting read. I wouldn't go so far as to say it reminds me of a cult. It almost kinda seems like 'franchising' a church brand. I know several churches in my area that go month to month or year to year to remain open. Would something like this help some of those congregations? Maybe.

The first point goes to say that this is definitely not something for every small church.

Overall I am kind of intrigued.
 
Not much different from a strongly centralized denomination, really, where all the authority that matters is at the national level.
 
Not much different from a strongly centralized denomination, really, where all the authority that matters is at the national level.

My questions are not about what it is as compared to anyone else, but about what it is in light of Scripture. Driscoll is suggesting that local congregations become part of the 'mother' congregation, not a connected congregation. He is talking about the setting aside of currently elected officers (by some unspecified process), and removing 'live preaching' which will only happen 'some of the time'. Be part of something much bigger he says.

And all this without any biblical basis. Not a single verse. And they are not Presbyterian - they do not believe in presbyterian connectionism which at least is arguably demonstrable from Scripture.

And furthermore most of these denominations which you refer to grew and evolved to the state they are. This appears more like a premeditated plan to become multi-site to the nth degree.
 
I see your concerns Pastor Wallace. I really don't see the problems though. Obviously this is NOT for most churches. But if a congregation is failing and there is a group of members that want to keep it alive this may be an option. Not saying it is the best option but it seems to be an interesting idea.

It does seem to be like they will take over a lot of stuff and have a major say in how the church operates, but if a church is on its last legs it may be what is needed.
 
I am very concerned with the direction this ministry is heading. It seems to me that Mars Hill is quickly becoming about promoting the Mars Hill brand and using the gospel message to that end. In another thought provoking piece Dr. Trueman shows why this ecclesiastical model (or lack there of) is unbiblical and insufficient to ensure that the gospel will continue to be preached.
 
I think the local church model is the one to follow, and this does not seem to follow it. Local churches have local problems and local needs. I remember reading where Calvin was not in favor of having his sermons published for other congregations to use, because they were tailored by him for the audience he was addressing, and were suited to meet the specific needs of his congregation. I would stick to that approach. If other churches want to send money to help the needy churches, then that would be quite charitable.

Blessings!
 
I can't remember if it was Dr. Trueman or Dr. Clark who compared multi-site churches to dioceses with the senior pastor as the bishop. Seems about right--especially under some old models where only the bishop was ordinarily allowed to preach.
 
Is it any less cultlike if the mother church 'beams' in the sermon on a big screen? :barfy:
 
I am very concerned with the direction this ministry is heading. It seems to me that Mars Hill is quickly becoming about promoting the Mars Hill brand and using the gospel message to that end. In another thought provoking piece Dr. Trueman shows why this ecclesiastical model (or lack there of) is unbiblical and insufficient to ensure that the gospel will continue to be preached.

Exactly right.
 
I really don't see the problems though. Obviously this is NOT for most churches. But if a congregation is failing and there is a group of members that want to keep it alive this may be an option. Not saying it is the best option but it seems to be an interesting idea.

It does seem to be like they will take over a lot of stuff and have a major say in how the church operates, but if a church is on its last legs it may be what is needed.

With respect - what works is not always what's right. There are biblical principles at stake here. Mars Hill in my opinion has neither historic nor more importantly an exegetical rationale for any of this. The closet they come will be Driscoll's juvenile exegesis of 1 Peter to support his 'multi-site' hobby horse.
 
Not much different from a strongly centralized denomination, really, where all the authority that matters is at the national level.

My questions are not about what it is as compared to anyone else, but about what it is in light of Scripture. Driscoll is suggesting that local congregations become part of the 'mother' congregation, not a connected congregation. He is talking about the setting aside of currently elected officers (by some unspecified process), and removing 'live preaching' which will only happen 'some of the time'. Be part of something much bigger he says.

And all this without any biblical basis. Not a single verse. And they are not Presbyterian - they do not believe in presbyterian connectionism which at least is arguably demonstrable from Scripture.

And furthermore most of these denominations which you refer to grew and evolved to the state they are. This appears more like a premeditated plan to become multi-site to the nth degree.

Not saying I agree or like it. But aside form the remote preaching, I don't think it's that much different from centralized authority models of the past. The interesting thing is that it's billed as "become part of Mars Hill" rather than "we will control your church." That first way of putting it is one that will appeal better today, but I don't see how in practice they're very different.
 
I assume you know there are OPC churches in Danville and Mifflinburg?

You missed the point. I wish there was a Church that taught the doctrines of the Bible here in my city to the residents of this city. The only presbyterian church in my city is the liberal apostate PC-USA church that has a woman running the show there. There's all the others too. LUtheran,RC, Episcopal,Assemblies of God,Unitarian Universalists! But No Reformed Church.
 
A few thoughts here, in no particular order:

1. When one takes the position that no particular form of government is set forth in the NT, then pretty much anything goes. They teach that congregations should have elders, but (correct me if I'm wrong) it seems that otherwise it is pretty flexible. So flexible that reportedly several years ago Mars Hill did a "reboot" and cancelled everyone's membership, had everyone go through some kind of reorientation class and then had everyone affirm a new statement of faith. I've seen reports that they lost about 1000 members in the process. (Again, correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.)

2. While this doesn't exactly fit with any of the usual models of church government, it does appear that this multi-site phenomenon is often closer to a diocesan model than anything else. In the vast majority of cases, the members never assemble together. (To a lesser extent one could argue likewise with regard to multiple services in a larger church.) Someone mentioned Chuck Smith/Calvary Chapel. I don't know enough about them and their Moses Model to know how much they would have in common with MH.

3. I can't recall ever seeing anything like this campaign in which public appeals are made to come under the umbrella of a certain church. In my area, there was recently a small and apparently struggling church that came under the oversight of a larger church. (This campus does have an onsite pastor and aren't simply showing a pre-recorded video or a simulcast.) I've been told that this isn't seen as a temporary arrangement either. Questionable as some of us might find that to be, it's not the same as having a campus halfway across the country. But MH didn't start out that way either.

4. Churches planting new campuses and maintaining that as a campus of the original church (instead of moving toward it being a particularized local congregation) isn't anything new, but it is becoming more common. As someone mentioned above, it is a way of creating what amounts to a franchise. The main campus maintains control instead of taking the risk of having that church particularize (i.e. become autonomous) and taking a left turn at some point. It's also a way of branding. The general public knows what they're getting with a Mars Hill Campus, a Highview Campus or whatever. It seems that most evangelicals don't have a big problem with it because they don't think the NT has anything to say about the issue one way or another. The exceptions would include folks who the multisite proponents would tend to categorize as "old time" traditional Baptists (Confessional Baptists and Dever types would be in that category for the sake of this discussion) and confessional Presbyterians.

In most cases Dr. Mohler (a member of Highview Baptist, a large multisite church in Louisville) would seem to be in large agreement with Dr. Dever. But this is one case in which they obviously disagree. If I'm not mistaken the church that Dever pastors, Capitol Hill Baptist, intentionally doesn't even have multiple services.

Edit: Here are some brief MacArthur comments on the multisite phenomenon and the implications from a pastoral standpoint http://www.gty.org/blog/B120126
 
Last edited:
I assume you know there are OPC churches in Danville and Mifflinburg?

You missed the point. I wish there was a Church that taught the doctrines of the Bible here in my city to the residents of this city. The only presbyterian church in my city is the liberal apostate PC-USA church that has a woman running the show there. There's all the others too. LUtheran,RC, Episcopal,Assemblies of God,Unitarian Universalists! But No Reformed Church.

Um, sure - it was a pretty easy point to miss.
 
Um, sure - it was a pretty easy point to miss.

What's wrong with wanting a church to be planted where we live? The point that I was making was that I wished the PCA would plant a church in my city so there would be a biblical church teaching biblical doctrine for the people in my city. Having a true presbyterian church planted here has more to do with the advancing of God's Kingdom and simply not me finding a Church for just me and my family.

It's nice to know that Danville & Mifflinburg has an OPC Church in their communities. It just doesn't do any good for the lost in Sunbury!
 
4. Churches planting new campuses and maintaining that as a campus of the original church (instead of moving toward it being a particularized local congregation) isn't anything new, but it is becoming more common. As someone mentioned above, it is a way of creating what amounts to a franchise. The main campus maintains control instead of taking the risk of having that church particularize (i.e. become autonomous) and taking a left turn at some point. It's also a way of branding. The general public knows what they're getting with a Mars Hill Campus, a Highview Campus or whatever. It seems that most evangelicals don't have a big problem with it because they don't think the NT has anything to say about the issue one way or another. The exceptions would include folks who the multisite proponents would tend to categorize as "old time" traditional Baptists (Confessional Baptists and Dever types would be in that category for the sake of this discussion) and confessional Presbyterians.

I'm a confessional Presbyterian AND a multisite proponent (but not the way Mars Hill is doing it). What an enigma! ;)
 
I'm a confessional Presbyterian AND a multisite proponent (but not the way Mars Hill is doing it).

Then perhaps you could provide a biblical rationale for multi-site churches while also explaining what's wrong with Driscoll's approach to it.
 
Is there any biblical rationale for not having multi-site churches besides them not specifically being mentioned? Not saying it is always a good thing but churches can do many things today that weren't possible in biblical times. Multi-site churches wouldn't really be possible without modern communications.
 
Um, sure - it was a pretty easy point to miss.

What's wrong with wanting a church to be planted where we live? The point that I was making was that I wished the PCA would plant a church in my city so there would be a biblical church teaching biblical doctrine for the people in my city. Having a true presbyterian church planted here has more to do with the advancing of God's Kingdom and simply not me finding a Church for just me and my family.

It's nice to know that Danville & Mifflinburg has an OPC Church in their communities. It just doesn't do any good for the lost in Sunbury!

Maybe it would have helped if you had said more than "I wish the PCA would plant a church in my city". If you were trying to express sympathy for the lost in your city, then you probably should have been a tad more verbose.

What you posted sounded like a simple desire that you had a PCA church in your town, and nothing more. I'm not sure how I was supposed to figure out that you were being magnanimous with your desires. Your hidden 'point' was very easy to miss because you didn't indicate anything even remotely close to what your 'point' supposedly was. I simply took what was stated, and made what is a very natural interpretation - that you wished you had a church that teaches Biblical doctrine in your town (which you have confirmed that you don't). I offered you suggestions of OPC churches very nearby because it sounded like, perhaps, you were not clear on the fact that you have some options.

Again - if you wish to communicate something, then do so. If you don't (and you didn't) then you shouldn't get upset when someone takes the only information you offer and interprets the plain sense of the words.
 
Is there any biblical rationale for not having multi-site churches besides them not specifically being mentioned?

Well that's pretty much the only rationale you need. For something so important and foundational one would need to have a positive biblical warrant. We don't legislate our churches on what is not mentioned (mostly) but on what is warranted from exegesis.

There is very clear evidence

a) that elders are to rule the church and
b) that there were to be elders in every city/church

In general then every Reformed church has at least a degree of independence (I'm allowing for presbyterian connectionism and independence here), albeit on the basis of Acts 15 etc. there may be authority fraternal connections as well whether permanent or occasional, but not at the degradation of the local church structure, rather in addition to it.

It should be noted that this is exactly where the Mars Hill programme falls down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top