Mars Hill and Ecclesiology

[py3ak]

To add to Pastor Wallace's point, the picture in the NT is of teaching and oversight going together. When one person does all the preaching from miles away, not only can't he oversee, he can't adapt the teaching to the particular needs of the congregation.

 

[VictorBravo]

To add to Pastor Wallace's point, the picture in the NT is of teaching and oversight going together. When one person does all the preaching from miles away, not only can't he oversee, he can't adapt the teaching to the particular needs of the congregation.

Excellent point. I was thinking about that very thing demonstrated in a dramatic way a few Lord's Days ago. The preacher was prepared to address a certain text in a certain way. He had his sermon notes before him all laid out when one of the members of this local body collapsed and had to go to be taken to the hospital (happily, he was stabilized and is now doing well).

After the excitement was over and order restored, the preacher began his sermon on the same text, but he put his notes aside and focused on the Sovereignty of God, the frailty of life, the call of the Gospel, and the unity of the local church.

It was exactly on point and what was needed by his congregation. A satellite-fed preacher has no way to look upon the faces and expressions of his flock and adjust his message to immediate concerns and circumstances.

 

[toddpedlar]

To add to Pastor Wallace's point, the picture in the NT is of teaching and oversight going together. When one person does all the preaching from miles away, not only can't he oversee, he can't adapt the teaching to the particular needs of the congregation.

Excellent point. I was thinking about that very thing demonstrated in a dramatic way a few Lord's Days ago. The preacher was prepared to address a certain text in a certain way. He had his sermon notes before him all laid out when one of the members of this local body collapsed and had to go to be taken to the hospital (happily, he was stabilized and is now doing well).

After the excitement was over and order restored, the preacher began his sermon on the same text, but he put his notes aside and focused on the Sovereignty of God, the frailty of life, the call of the Gospel, and the unity of the local church.

It was exactly on point and what was needed by his congregation. A satellite-fed preacher has no way to look upon the faces and expressions of his flock and adjust his message to immediate concerns and circumstances.

Precisely my thoughts, Vic. The Biblical case is not a quickly-assembled thing, but requires us to look at the way the Bible speaks about the pastoral role. In order to preach, one must be an elder in the church, this much is very clear, and not in dispute. The elder, though, is exhorted to KNOW the flock... if the elder who is tasked with preaching doesn't KNOW his flock, how can he effectively serve in his role? This is just as true of those elders who happen to preach as it is those who are rulers only and rarely ascend the pulpit to preach to the flock.

Multisite (and, indeed, mega-church) pastors cannot possibly hope to know their flock (or any significant portion thereof) in any substantial way.

If multisite churches are ok, then I think it's ok for churches to assemble with no pastor at all, and simply listen to tapes of the "best preachers". While this might be ok on a temporary basis in extreme circumstances, it is NO way for the church of Christ to operate.

 

[raekwon]

Are you guys assuming that multisite means video sermons?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Yes

. Multi-site of what I have seen you describe in the past Rae is what most of us call a Presbytery.

 

[raekwon]

Yes

. Multi-site of what I have seen you describe in the past Rae is what most of us call a Presbytery.

I've seen that quipped before, but no, it's not. I'll be back later with more.

 

[toddpedlar]

Yes

. Multi-site of what I have seen you describe in the past Rae is what most of us call a Presbytery.

I've seen that quipped before, but no, it's not. I'll be back later with more.

Multi-site is most often (in my mind) associated with streamed sermons, yes...

however, I'm aware of course of Redeemer and the way Redeemer's network works, and some would call it a multisite example (but I don't think that's fair... it's more like a presbytery, as has already been discussed - though there are ways in which it cannot be so considered)

 

[Bill The Baptist]

The following link is to a short video discussion between Driscoll, MacDonald and Dever. In my opinion Driscoll and MacDonald's reasoning is very illogical.

Multiple Sites: Yea or Nay? – The Gospel Coalition Blog

I have seen this clip before, and you can tell that Dever does not agree with the way that Driscoll and Macdonald operate their churches, but he really doesn't say much. in my opinion, that is the main problem to with the Gospel Coalition, they are too much of a mutual congratulation society.

 

[Goodcheer68]

I have seen this clip before, and you can tell that Dever does not agree with the way that Driscoll and Macdonald operate their churches, but he really doesn't say much. in my opinion, that is the main problem to with the Gospel Coalition, they are too much of a mutual congratulation society.

Dever tried, it was just the other two were obnoxiously talking over and past him.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Actually both Driscoll and Macdonald have since resigned from the Gospel Coalition, so there probably was some pushback behind the scenes. Still, it would have been nice to see Dever challenge them a little more.

 

[moral necessity]

Having watched the video again...

If I were a pastor, it would seem arrogant to me to think that what another church needed was to hear my sermons from 100 miles away. And, I would hope that I would never think that the office of pastor allows me to be an "introvert," meaning: "to be entirely disconnected from the flock and merely exegeting passages of scripture." That is not the biblical definition of pastor at all, in my opinion.

Blessings!

 

[kvanlaan]

Not sure how relevant this is, but I can't help but mention: my brother goes to a multi-site church (the Meeting House, run out of Oakville, Bruxy Cavey as head dude). When my brother's marriage was falling apart, all he could do was look up at the big screen and listen, there was no conversation, no knowledge by the pastor that someone in the body of that church was dying inside. There was no community, no body of believers, just people having an 'edgy' service with their Tim Hortons coffee in their cinema chair. No elder visited, ever, to help with faith life issues or family issues. But it's progressive, and way cooler than ours.

 

[KSon]

The belief that preaching and shepherding are not interrelated is the most-concerning thing. The corporate proclamation of the Word is then the basis for the private ministry of the Word. To compartmentalize one and think the other is unaffected is foolish.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The belief that preaching and shepherding are not interrelated is the most-concerning thing. The corporate proclamation of the Word is then the basis for the private ministry of the Word. To compartmentalize one and think the other is unaffected is foolish.

I could not agree more. This compactly summarizes my concern.

As I grow older (and by God's grace I hope I'm becoming wiser), I am starting to realize increasingly how the Reformed system of doctrine fits together Biblically. Soteriology, Sacramentology, and Ecclesiology and all the other Theological parts are not simply legos that one can pick or choose to assemble whatever creative structure one desires. They all hang together or eventually come tumbling down.

I just don't think too many people today are in contact with the real challenges of visiting people in their lives and connecting the ministry of the Church to it. To ask the question: "Where does Scripture forbid this kind of model?" not only assumes that the Scriptures are some sort of lego set for creative models but also belies a profound ignorance of how preaching is connected with the organic unity of the ministry of a Church.

 

[Andres]

But if a congregation is failing and there is a group of members that want to keep it alive this may be an option.

I'd rather my church close it's doors than come under the headship of Driscoll and Mars Hill.

 

[Moireach]

Interesting discussion. I tried listening to Driscoll for a short while but I didn't last long because of his constant references to the growth of his church and just constantly talking about Mars Hill.

But my previous congregation, in the Free Church of Scotland, actually did do something slightly similar. A tiny congregation on the outskirts of Glasgow had been vacant for a long time and couldn't get supply often enough, so they set up a live video stream so that they could watch the sermon in one of the Glasgow congregations. Do you believe this is unBiblical?

 

[Reformed Irish Man]

Interesting discussion. I tried listening to Driscoll for a short while but I didn't last long because of his constant references to the growth of his church and just constantly talking about Mars Hill.

Before I came to know and love reformed theology I used to listen regularly to Driscoll. I probably listened to a sermon everyday. I used to think, as I hear many say, that Driscoll is reformed. From where I am now theologically I look back and shudder.

 

[N. Eshelman]

I think I know what Rae is saying... or will be saying...

In the RPCNA we have a couple of congregations that could be defined as multi-site. They have one roll, one session, one budget, but are meeting in two locations. Each of them have a pastor (or an associate pastor) who preaches each week. The point is to separate completely when its deemed appropriate.

Like I said, we have a couple... I can only think of two: one in Colorado and one in Arizona. It is not power-hunger driven Driscollesque video sermons... but it is real pastoring, but for the sake of a church plant to grow roots, they are taking their time.

 

[raekwon]

What Pastor Nathan said is so close to how our church does multisite that I only need to make one clarification: particularization of every new site isn't necessarily in view (but is a possibility).

 

[Jack K]

And it's similar to how the PCA church I was last a part of does multi-site, too. We stopped automatically going with the old type of "church planting" when a few of our plants ran into issues that might have been avoided with more experienced elders. We tried some instead as new congregations of the same church, so that our full session was still running things with some of those elders (teaching and ruling) assigned particularly to work with the new congregation. They may go independent in time.

Multi-site doesn't necessarily mean weak pastoring, nor does it necessarily denote a power-hunger preacher. Sometimes it means better pastoring.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

But it should go without saying that it is such a fundamentally different thing than Mars Hill et al are doing to be something completely outside the discussion of multi-site Vis-à-vis Driscoll/MacDonald.

 

[Jack K]

But it should go without saying that it is such a fundamentally different thing than Mars Hill et al are doing to be something completely outside the discussion of multi-site Vis-à-vis Driscoll/MacDonald.

Absolutely. It's not multi-site that matters, but the particular multi-site model and the purposes and attitudes of the people involved.

 

[toddpedlar]

What Pastor Nathan said is so close to how our church does multisite that I only need to make one clarification: particularization of every new site isn't necessarily in view (but is a possibility).

Really? Only a "possibility"? Is this merely a pragmatic statement (i.e. it may take decades for them to be healthy and large enough to particularize), or is there truly an intention that such additional sites could actually be kept in this subsidiary role in perpetuity? If so, that's profoundly disturbing. Slowly-dividing church plants (like those Pastor Eshelman describes) are one thing - perpetual 'subchurches' is another.

 

[raekwon]

What Pastor Nathan said is so close to how our church does multisite that I only need to make one clarification: particularization of every new site isn't necessarily in view (but is a possibility).

Really? Only a "possibility"? Is this merely a pragmatic statement (i.e. it may take decades for them to be healthy and large enough to particularize), or is there truly an intention that such additional sites could actually be kept in this subsidiary role in perpetuity? If so, that's profoundly disturbing. Slowly-dividing church plants (like those Pastor Eshelman describes) are one thing - perpetual 'subchurches' is another.

Well, I can only speak for us, and we're learning along the way. Right now, we have two congregations. We do not have a "subchurch" that takes its orders from any sort of mothership or anything like that. We are one particular church, one session, one philosophy of ministry, etc, with two congregations (and looking toward planting more). Each congregation has its own preaching pastor. If one of the congregations gets to the point where they feel God calling them to particularize (for whatever reason), then the wheels can be put into motion for that, but that may or may not happen.

Why is this profoundly disturbing?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rae,

Is the goal to leave them indefinitely as a mission Church unless they desire otherwise? How do you square this with our Constitution:

5-1. A mission church may be properly described in the same manner as
the particular church is described in BCO 4-1. It is distinguished from a
particular church in that it has no permanent governing body, and thus must
be governed or supervised by others. However, its goal is to mature and be
organized as a particular church as soon as this can be done decently and in
good order.

It sounds to me that you don't have, as a goal, to organize your mission Churches as particular Churches. Maybe I'm missing something. I can understand the desire to birth multiple mission Churches that fall under your Session but when you say:

If one of the congregations gets to the point where they feel God calling them to particularize (for whatever reason), then the wheels can be put into motion for that, but that may or may not happen.

Wouldn't the "reason" be that our Constitution urges the particularization of Churches as the goal? You seem to leave in doubt as to whether this is the goal of planting these mission Churches and, if so, you are in direct violation of our Constitution.

 

[Jack K]

Let me speak to how it worked with my church...

It wasn't that one congregation was the mother church and the other a secondary, mission church. Both congregations (or in our case, all three) were equally part of the larger church. It was not much different than a large church having three separate services to accommodate all its members except that in our case the three services were (1) held in three different locations and (2) each had their own primary pastor and support staff.

The reason for doing it this way instead of three services at the same location was to better spread throughout the city. The reason each had its own pastor and was considered a separate congregation was to avoid the "megachurch" feel where things are too big and the members don't really get to know the guy who's preaching to them, and to allow all to meet at the same time. Again, we could have "planted" individual churches but multi-site allowed for stronger and more seemless leadership as each new congregation got off the ground. At least one of these congregations has decided, after a time, to become its own church.

It's interesting to me that it seems so strange to us (to me too, at first) that a church might hold services in more than one location around the city. The biblical model seems to be one church per city rather than one meeting place per church. Yet as soon as we decided that part of our church would meet in a second location, others complained that that it was against the rules to spread out around the city and still be one, unified church.

Sadly, the loudest complaints came from pastors of smaller churches who seemed disturbed that our church was growing, period. How could we be allowed to get away with that? There must be something improper about our methods!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's interesting to me that it seems so strange to us (to me too, at first) that a church might hold services in more than one location around the city.

Doesn't seem strange to me at all Jack. I grew up Roman Catholic and am quite familiar with the Episcopal form of Church government.

Obviously Presbyterians believe that the "biblical model" is precisely the form of Church government we hold to or we wouldn't practice it.

Which is the Apostolic Church? - Thomas Witherow

 

[moral necessity]

in my opinion, it's a case where technology and pragmatism has found its way to "improve" upon God's model. I wouldn't really want to be a part of it. Local tithes imply local accountability, etc, etc...

Blessings and fellowship to those who differ.

 

[Jack K]

It's interesting to me that it seems so strange to us (to me too, at first) that a church might hold services in more than one location around the city.

Doesn't seem strange to me at all Jack. I grew up Roman Catholic and am quite familiar with the Episcopal form of Church government.

Obviously Presbyterians believe that the "biblical model" is precisely the form of Church government we hold to or we wouldn't practice it.

Which is the Apostolic Church? - Thomas Witherow

Are you saying the Presbyterian model requires that if a church holds more than one service a week all those services must be held in the same meeting space... that the church is defined by the building rather than by the people?

I grew up in a church that served a large physical area. We had a morning service on one side of the area, and an afternoon service 12 miles away from the site of the morning service. Most people attended one or the other, so there were, in effect, two congregations although we were one church. Neither congregation probably would have been viable and able to support itself on its own. Were we violating some Presbyterian principle by reaching two communities at a time and meeting in two different places?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It's interesting to me that it seems so strange to us (to me too, at first) that a church might hold services in more than one location around the city.

Doesn't seem strange to me at all Jack. I grew up Roman Catholic and am quite familiar with the Episcopal form of Church government.

Obviously Presbyterians believe that the "biblical model" is precisely the form of Church government we hold to or we wouldn't practice it.

Which is the Apostolic Church? - Thomas Witherow

Are you saying the Presbyterian model requires that if a church holds more than one service a week all those services must be held in the same meeting space... that the church is defined by the building rather than by the people?

Fallacy: False Dilemma

I grew up in a church that served a large physical area. We had a morning service on one side of the area, and an afternoon service 12 miles away from the site of the morning service. Most people attended one or the other, so there were, in effect, two congregations although we were one church. Neither congregation probably would have been viable and able to support itself on its own. Were we violating some Presbyterian principle by reaching two communities at a time and meeting in two different places?

Read the book. You were claiming that the "biblical model" was one Church per city. I am all for mission works. My Church is involved in cooperating with like-minded Churches in the area to partner in the support of planting mission Churches in this region. We pool our resources to more rapidly establish mission works. A mission work, if you read our BCO, falls under the session of a particular Church until it is able to particularize. It, in turn, then matures to the point where it can plant more Churches. This is the way Presbyterianism has operated for hundreds of years and we believe it is the Biblical model (which is why we have Presbyterian in our name).

The goal for any Church is to see that men are maturing to the point that they can become Elders in the Church if so called. Some circumstances don't permit this and I don't think any Church should rush to lay hands on men that are not ready or called to the office of Elder. I've been in two mission works and, in one case, the Church didn't particularize for almost 10 years because it took that long to ordain its first elders. It was prudent and it remained a viable mission work that served a community. What the mother Church didn't do however was plant it with the end in mind that it simply remain an extension of the Church and its session. The mission Church and its mother Church prayed that God would raise up Elders. It was a desire, it was a goal, there was a purpose in mind because congregations need elders to shepherd them.

Starting a Church with the goal that it be a perpetual mission work is not Presbyterian. Creating satellite congregations with no goal that any of them particularize is not Presbyterian. Special circumstances always exist but that's why they're special circumstances and we don't organize ourselves around the exceptional circumstances.

Now, men can say: "Well I don't care that it's not Presbyterian because I think the Bible teaches some other form of Church government."

I'm fine with that.

Just don't claim to be Presbyterian and don't assert that Presbyterians are following any other form of government than that which they believe they have been called upon based on the Scriptures.