Mars Hill and Ecclesiology

[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.

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?

For the same reason that the idea of a Christian who wishes permanently to live in the immature world of pablum, rather grow into Christian maturity is profoundly disturbing. Elders who are part of one congregation have no business overseeing issues at the other, for one. You say there is one session - is this true, actually, in practice? Are there elders in one congregation who undertake disciplinary concerns, or otherwise exercise spiritual oversight in the other congregation? If so, how can this be appropriate? Are the elders elected by the whole body, or one congregation? If only the one congregation of which the elder candidate is a part, how can you call yourself "one church", when in practice you're more like a 'mini presbytery'? If this is the case, how is that appropriate? How is it that an elder is elected from one congregation but has oversight over the other????

If, on the other hand, the whole body elects elders to the "one session", how is this appropriate, when only one congregation truly knows the elder candidate?

It is also disturbing from the point of view of the Constitutional documents of the PCA, which, as Rich points out, proscribes the idea of permanent mission works.

 

[Jack K]

You were claiming that the "biblical model" was one Church per city.

I shouldn't have put it that starkly. Mostly, I wanted to say that I don't see a biblical model for limiting things to one meeting place per church.

Sometimes we need to get beyond our "edifice complex." Rather than set up in one corner of the community and hope everyone comes to us, we need to take the gospel out and meet where the people are. This may mean one service is held in our building and another at the community center across town. Perhaps evening meetings or mid-week ones take place in homes all over the city.

I'm also suggesting that there doesn't have to be one "mother" group while the rest of these gatherings are designated "mission" efforts. Certainly, that's one good model. But sometimes you also might just have a single church desiring to get out more and not be so building-bound.

So I'm not talking about mission efforts. I'm talking about churches that want to be more than just the church at 12th and Main and truly be the church in the city (or the county).

Let's not allow Mark Driscoll or the Episcopalians to define what it means to be "multi-site." It doesn't have to be a pastor building his personal empire. Nor does multi-site have to mean a cluster of churches controlled by a bishop. Can't we meet in more than one place and still be Presbyterian? Lots of Presbyterian churches do this in order to better reach their communities, including the PCA church (staunchly in the "confessional" camp, by the way) in my town.

There are many models that might fall under the larger heading of "multi-site." I merely mean to suggest that we judge each by its particular details.

I really don't mean to be disrespectful when I ask if you believe that a single Presbyterian church may only meet in one location, and that additional locations may only be used if they are considered "mission" efforts. It sounds like you're saying that, but I'm not sure because so far you've spoken as if all extra meeting places mean a mission church has been planted. Does it really have to be such? Or may a church feel free to get up and move around the city?

 

[raekwon]

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.

Rich,

They're not mission churches.

 

[SRoper]

I really don't mean to be disrespectful when I ask if you believe that a single Presbyterian church may only meet in one location, and that additional locations may only be used if they are considered "mission" efforts. It sounds like you're saying that, but I'm not sure because so far you've spoken as if all extra meeting places mean a mission church has been planted. Does it really have to be such? Or may a church feel free to get up and move around the city?

The objection isn't that the congregation is meeting at different locations throughout the week; the objection is there are de facto multiple congregations that are calling themselves a single congregation for the purpose of organizing a session. At the multi-site church you mention, people that attend the Ardmore services usually don't attend the Salem service and very rarely attend the Yadkin Valley service. I have seen people that permanently move from one service to another take their membership vows again in front of the de facto new congregation. Why would they do this if they were still in the same congregation? Also, it is telling that the services don't only have separate locations but separate web sites.

Now I do see some difficulty for those who are OK with multiple services but not multiple locations (which probably accounts for some of the frustration from the multi-site advocates here). Personally, I think both should be temporary situations. Have to meet at two times or two places to accommodate everyone? Time to plant a new church.

 

[Jack K]

If, on the other hand, the whole body elects elders to the "one session", how is this appropriate, when only one congregation truly knows the elder candidate?

Speaking to my experience, not Rae's...

This is no more difficult an issue than any large church has with helping the membership know the elder candidates. It takes extra effort when there are multiple services and the candidate attends a different service than you do, lives in a different part of town, goes to a different Sunday school class than you've chosen, etc. Maybe you only see him at midweek gatherings or the occasional whole-church function. Large churches need to give much attention to helping members meet officer candidates. It's one of the difficulties they face simply due to size... whether they all attend services in the same place or not.

In my experience, the whole church chose the officers. Some elders and deacons were particularly assigned to care for folks from a particular site. But this was hardly different from what most large churches do... assigning officer responsibilities based on neighborhood groups or ministry groups so that people are less likely to be missed.


---------- Post added at 12:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------

The objection isn't that the congregation is meeting at different locations throughout the week; the objection is there are de facto multiple congregations that are calling themselves a single congregation for the purpose of organizing a session. At the multi-site church you mention, people that attend the Ardmore services usually don't attend the Salem service and very rarely attend the Yadkin Valley service. I have seen people that permanently move from one service to another take their membership vows again in front of the de facto new congregation. Why would they do this if they were still in the same congregation? Also, it is telling that the services don't only have separate locations but separate web sites.

Yes. And with that particular church I too have questions about the way some of those new sites were handled. There have been, in the entire history of that church, more sites than those you mentioned and some have been handled better than others. I haven't been there in a while, but I understand the newer ones have played more loosely with Presbyterian principles than the older ones did.

This only reinforces my point, actually, which is that "multi-site" does not mean the same thing in every instance. Each ought to be evaluated for what is actually happening.

 

[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.

Rich,

They're not mission churches.

What are they then and how do you square your model with our Constitution? The BCO admits to Churches (either mission or particular) and has no category of which you speak.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So I'm not talking about mission efforts. I'm talking about churches that want to be more than just the church at 12th and Main and truly be the church in the city (or the county).

The problem with your whole analysis is that you don't seem to have a Presbyterian mindset if you believe any Presbyterian Church should think this way. The whole point of a Presbyterian polity is that we're not just a Church at a particular location but a particular Church of interconnected and mutually accountable Churches with a common aim of seeing Churches planted and matured within a larger geographic region.

I really don't mean to be disrespectful when I ask if you believe that a single Presbyterian church may only meet in one location, and that additional locations may only be used if they are considered "mission" efforts. It sounds like you're saying that, but I'm not sure because so far you've spoken as if all extra meeting places mean a mission church has been planted. Does it really have to be such? Or may a church feel free to get up and move around the city?

I didn't state that a Church has to always be in one place and be bound geographically. This is all about overall goal.

There may be initially issues of necessity or prudence that cause a Church to move around a city or area but there are also other issues that arise that are imprudent if it's always all over the place.

My problem is when a whole community could be served by mutliple particular Churches but when Churchmen (who call themselves Presbyterian) take it as their aim to leave that area unserved by a particular Church. In other words, I could see a situation where a Church might have to have services around a city because it is not yet possible to plant a Church in a given location but if they're never aiming toward establishing Churches where they could be established then there's something wrong.

Let me give you an example of a Presbyterian spirit in Church planting from Northern VA. Ron Bossom planted Harvester in Springfield decades ago. When the Church grew to the point where it could support another congregation he helped plant a Church. This has continued for successive generations and the Potomac Presbytery is filled with Churches that are children or grandchildren of those planting efforts. That's how Presbyterians branch out across a city. Ron could have a massive Church. It would not be as massive as the collective congregations of the Potomac Presbytery are and the members of that mega-Church would not be as well cared for as they are by the multiple Churches with the plurality of elders and the entire Presbytery that is represented. That's how Presbyterians plant Churches.

 

[Jack K]

I've obviously not made myself clear.

I like church planting. I think it's usually the best way to expand. Especially when a church starts drawing people from across the way, creating more churches is generally better than creating a bigger church. The church I've been referring to most has done some multi-site stuff but LOTS of church planting, with generally good success. I was there for much of it.

I'd hate to see a church's multi-site nature thwart other churches from springing up. That'd be a model to be concerned about.

But I'm not convinced that ALL instances of a church having services in multiple locations necessarily thwarts the creation of strong, new churches... or destroys a Presbyterian system. It doesn't have to get in the way of these things. For instance:

- A church could start services at a new site as a test run to explore a church plant.

- A church could hold one service in one part of the community and its second service on the other side of town so that most members have at least one service nearby, or to make it more inviting for everyone to bring neighbors to at least one service. If you're going to meet twice each Sunday (or three times, or whatever), why not do your best to be where your people live? Again, they may eventually become separate churches, but do you have to force them to move that direction just because they spread out?

- A church in a traditional building could hold one of its services in a less imposing place to outsiders, just to be more welcoming.

- A smaller church could join people in two different communities into one church in order to have stronger leadership for both congregations, including being able to afford to pay a pastor.

Just some examples. My point is that you have to look at the details, not assume that anything "multi-site" necessarily keeps new churches from forming. In fact, it seems to me that the larger PCA churches I'm aware of that do some of the multi-site thing are also among the most active in planting new, independent churches. They have a "spread out" mentality that, far from inhibiting the creation of new churches, has resulted in some cases in the creation of entire new presbyteries.

 

[Owen Smith]

Just had a look through some of the videos posted above - did anyone else find the discussion between Driscoll, MacDonald and Dever rather un-edifying?
After having not really talked about the scriptural imperatives for churches (Most of Dever's attempts were sneered at), to then ask that they vote on whether Multi-Site-ing is Biblical is a truely bizarre leap.

I also had a look at the video of Driscoll explaining the beginning of 1 Peter 1... It was a very impressive attempt of eisegesis. He was also at high risk of equating himself with the Apostle. The only difference he noted (between what he is doing and what the Apostle was doing) was in regards to more advanced technology. Yet, 1 Peter 5 seems to clear this matter up... Peter as an elder and as a witness to the sufferings of Christ to other elders . Whilst it could be advocated that there are similarities with communication between church elderships (my pastor to your pastor), the idea that Peter was merely running a Multi-Site church is to demean his Apostleship and/or elevate elders like Driscoll above godly restraint. I expect/hope Driscoll would reject such.

To me, the idea that a languishing church should become part of a massive multi-site mega church seems a bit counterintuitive to me. My inclination would be to downscale as opposed to upscale. Maybe that would mean 6 people meeting in a living room reading the Bible together and being encouraged in godliness - praise God. We are a family/community first not an institution.

The other aspect that I dislike is the virtual preacher idea - I don't go as far as Dever (Did anyone else find his comments on old recorded sermons bizarre? I could understand a comment such as "it's disconnected from the congregation" or "it's spoken to a particular people in a particular time and so becomes harder to understand and more difficult to apply the more dated it gets", but he seemed to be indicating that the Holy Spirit only works through the proclaimation of the Word when the preaching was done today or recently? Some of the most powerful talks I've read were in books where the author is long dead) - but I do agree that the Pastor needs to be intune with his congregation.
Someone commented earlier on Driscoll's "introversion" comment... I found that truely bizarre. I'm sorry Driscoll, but my understanding of Ephesians is that we have been freed into a community of believers who are to build itself up in love into Christ. If your introversion is keeping you that seperated from your congregation then you need to repent of it. Introversion doesn't mean you have no connection to your congregation, just that you may need to approach that connection in different ways. You may find it hard to connect, but as with Moses - God made your mouth (and your whole being) - he is the one who equips both the introvert and the extrovert to build up his body in love.

I agree with Jack in the sense that each implementation of multi-site should be weighed according to its merits... but I, personally, have yet to see a church doing [multi-site] well (that is - not numeric growth, nor word of mouth assent, but a community of believers building itself up in love into Christ). I found it interesting that Driscoll accussed Dever of being the more likely to have his church built around him. I actually think there's alot of danger with the MH approach because when Driscoll does depart or, Lord forbid, if he were to walk away from the faith - the dependence of the Multi-Site churches on his teaching is likely to cause the churches to splinter. Certainly, there are elders/pastors being raised in those congregations, but the church has been fed from the disembodied teaching of Driscoll. When he's gone, the elders are going to find it hard to teach a certain way lest those people, who flocked to hear Driscoll, say "but Driscoll says this".
I recall reading an article on Pyromaniacs bemoaning people who pledge allegiance to their favorite Christian author/etc and so devalue their local pastor. The critique being - Spurgeon/Luther/[insert favorite teacher here] is not weeping over your soul, is not on the ground nurturing you. Don't torture your pastor by constantly using "but [so-and-so] says this" as a smokescreen to having to submit to Biblical teaching and pastoring. I think the same critique stands here. The apostles were not a substitute for having godly elders praying for, teaching and nurturing you... even less so should external teachers be. Rather, their way of life should be visible and accessible to all. Otherwise things can easily turn into an academic exercise and fail in the orthodoxy of living out the faith.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I've obviously not made myself clear.

I like church planting. I think it's usually the best way to expand. Especially when a church starts drawing people from across the way, creating more churches is generally better than creating a bigger church. The church I've been referring to most has done some multi-site stuff but LOTS of church planting, with generally good success. I was there for much of it.

I'd hate to see a church's multi-site nature thwart other churches from springing up. That'd be a model to be concerned about.

But I'm not convinced that ALL instances of a church having services in multiple locations necessarily thwarts the creation of strong, new churches... or destroys a Presbyterian system. It doesn't have to get in the way of these things. For instance:

- A church could start services at a new site as a test run to explore a church plant.

- A church could hold one service in one part of the community and its second service on the other side of town so that most members have at least one service nearby, or to make it more inviting for everyone to bring neighbors to at least one service. If you're going to meet twice each Sunday (or three times, or whatever), why not do your best to be where your people live? Again, they may eventually become separate churches, but do you have to force them to move that direction just because they spread out?

- A church in a traditional building could hold one of its services in a less imposing place to outsiders, just to be more welcoming.

- A smaller church could join people in two different communities into one church in order to have stronger leadership for both congregations, including being able to afford to pay a pastor.

Just some examples. My point is that you have to look at the details, not assume that anything "multi-site" necessarily keeps new churches from forming. In fact, it seems to me that the larger PCA churches I'm aware of that do some of the multi-site thing are also among the most active in planting new, independent churches. They have a "spread out" mentality that, far from inhibiting the creation of new churches, has resulted in some cases in the creation of entire new presbyteries.

You've made yourself perfectly clear and I clearly don't agree with the idea.

If a Church is able to support services in multiple locations then it ought to be aiming at establishing Churches in those locations. Full stop. For every pragmatic reason you can give to why it seems like a multi-site is a good reason, I can point out a number of reasons why a mission work with an aim toward particularization is an even better idea. I am not against a Church having services in multiple locations when a local assembly cannot yet support planting a Church. The problem I have is the inherent aim that a multi-site model remain which would inhibit the formation of Churches. There is an incipient attitude that has already been demonstrated that "...why form a mission work or particularize if people don't even want it...?" Attitudes reflect leadership.

Part of thinking in a catholic manner and outside the boundaries of a Church is to get people to start thinking in connected ways that a Presbyterian spirit is supposed to evoke. Most people don't necessarily think in terms of building but associate with their particular Church and its leadership. They don't consider the larger Presbytery and I even have to gently remind people in my own congregation that we're not Baptists (no offense intended) but that our Church authority and commitments extend beyond the local Session. The "large particular congregation spreading out over a region" inherently focuses the Churchman internally. While you claim that people are having a regional focus, that regional focus is "...my particular Church is going to work this region..." rather than the idea that the collective Churches in a region will tackle the problem together. It won't be a single session deciding to spread out over an area but multiple sessions pooling resources to do so.

Multi-site, in the end, is against a Presbyterian spirit on how the Church grows, how a Presbytery works together for a region, and how I believe people are cared for. I'm fine with the fact that you disagree but, then again, you're not required to take vows to a Constitution that you believe represents what the Scriptures and the light of nature reveal as to the prudent way that the Kingdom of God is spread in an area. Your arguments are based in pragmatism and decidedly not consistent with the whole system of doctrine by which Presbyterians have historically argued for how Churches are formed and governed. You can continue to give me all the pragmatic arguments you want but it simply further illustrates the gulf between a Presbyterian conviction on the way Churches ought to be governed and a community served by the Gospel and your own eclectic theology in the matter.

 

[Jack K]

Yeah, I guess we will disagree.

I've thought of one more example: When I was in college and part of a Reformed church (CRC, still faithful at the time and the only one within a hundred miles), at one point we held our morning services at our building a few miles away and our evening services in a rented room on campus. It gave us a presence both on campus and off. The crowd that attended the two services was largely the same, but those of us who were students found it easier to invite friends to the on-campus service. I also appreciated the shorter walk in the evening, as I had no car.

I suppose we could have divided into two churches, a student one and a non-student one, but I'm so glad that church didn't do that. It was far healthier for the on-campus community and the off-campus folks to form one body together.

That's not just pragmatic. That's concern for the unity of God's people, for the spread of the gospel and for the discipleship of young people. And it surely wasn't done in an attempt to thwart the Presbyterian model and corner the market in Reformed churches. We would have loved for there to be more of them.

That's a different multi-site model from the Mars Hill version. I don't think they should be lumped together for identical criticism.

And I don't really see how the Presbyterian vows I took later in life should have forced me to condemn that church's practice because it didn't hold all its services in the same building.

 

[raekwon]

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.

Rich,

They're not mission churches.

What are they then and how do you square your model with our Constitution? The BCO admits to Churches (either mission or particular) and has no category of which you speak.

In simplest terms, it's another time and place that our church meets for worship on the Lord's Day. Expecting that such a thing particularize as a necessity is like expecting a church's evening service to particularize.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I've thought of one more example: When I was in college and part of a Reformed church (CRC, still faithful at the time and the only one within a hundred miles), at one point we held our morning services at our building a few miles away and our evening services in a rented room on campus. It gave us a presence both on campus and off. The crowd that attended the two services was largely the same, but those of us who were students found it easier to invite friends to the on-campus service. I also appreciated the shorter walk in the evening, as I had no car.

I don't think a stated Evening Service is in the same category. In the example cited, it is the same particular Church that is called to both the morning and evening services. That's not what I've been talking about. You keep obsessing over physical location. I've made clear that is not the issue and if you read me carefully you will see that.

In simplest terms, it's another time and place that our church meets for worship on the Lord's Day. Expecting that such a thing particularize as a necessity is like expecting a church's evening service to particularize.

I suppose if we buy into the post-modern idea that words have whatever meaning we assign them then I can see your point. People don't organize an additional congregation with an additional TE for the evening service. An evening service is not held in the morning at the same time as another morning service across the city. An evening service is not set up with the idea that the people that attend the evening service (along with that service's TE) may particularize into a particular Church if they decide they want to become a particular Church.

 

[toddpedlar]

If, on the other hand, the whole body elects elders to the "one session", how is this appropriate, when only one congregation truly knows the elder candidate?

Speaking to my experience, not Rae's...

This is no more difficult an issue than any large church has with helping the membership know the elder candidates. It takes extra effort when there are multiple services and the candidate attends a different service than you do, lives in a different part of town, goes to a different Sunday school class than you've chosen, etc. Maybe you only see him at midweek gatherings or the occasional whole-church function. Large churches need to give much attention to helping members meet officer candidates. It's one of the difficulties they face simply due to size... whether they all attend services in the same place or not.

In my experience, the whole church chose the officers. Some elders and deacons were particularly assigned to care for folks from a particular site. But this was hardly different from what most large churches do... assigning officer responsibilities based on neighborhood groups or ministry groups so that people are less likely to be missed.

So let's suppose we had a "two-site" church with separated meeting places, preaching elders, but a single session overseeing both congregations with elders elected by the whole, somehow, and elders attached to the two congregations.

First and simplest question... why in the world, if each congregation has its own meeting place, its own preaching elder, and ruling elders selected from among its ranks, aren't the two churches acting as sister (but particular) churches? Is there any rational reason to NOT particularize and come to a fuller maturity as an individual congregation?

Addressing your situation (and not Rae's, who hasn't replied to my questions) I have similar concerns.

1) Is the membership single or dual? That is, are members attached to one or both congregations, or are they considered part of the whole?
2) How are the elders to be elected if the two congregations really are two different congregations meeting at different places and having essentially separate "lives"? Do you honestly believe it's appropriate for members in one congregation to be ruled by a session made up of elders, in part, who are based at another?

Again, as I think has been hinted at in this thread, the situation of two geographically separated congregations that have everything they need to serve as particular congregations (elders from within their ranks, separate meeting place, separate pastor, etc.) is not as similar to a single large congregation that has multiple meeting times at the same location as you imply. I think they're very, very different situations.

Incidentally, what there IS in similarity between these two is exactly the reason why I think congregations should not actually get so large as to require multiple meeting times - but daughter churches should be birthed. I understand the logistical concerns people have that drive them to think that multiple meeting times is a good idea, but I don't think they outweigh the problems you acknowledge. In this case, I think the solution to each is the same... divide and particularize rather than act in some hybrid mode when it's really not necessary or helpful for the health of the church.

 

[Kevin]

A clarification. In #63 Rich left the impression that there is only one method of governing a mission church according to the BCO.

" (a mission)...falls under the session of a particular church until it (the mission) is able to particularize."

This is often the case. And in larger, more established and in geographically limited presbyteries may happen all of the time. However this is not what the BCO requires in every case. BCO 5-3 states that "presbytery may provide for such government in one of several ways.." It then list three ways that this government may be provided. The option Rich mentioned above is one of those ways.

 

[KMK]

I don't see how the multi-site model would square with the LBC either.

Chapter 26

Paragraph 8. A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons.

Paragraph 9. The way appointed by Christ for the calling of any person, fitted and gifted by the Holy Spirit, unto the office of bishop or elder in a church, is, that he be chosen thereunto by the common suffrage of the church itself; and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer, with imposition of hands of the eldership of the church, if there be any before constituted therein; and of a deacon that he be chosen by the like suffrage, and set apart by prayer, and the like imposition of hands.

If all sites are members of the same particular church but do not meet together, how are officers going to be 'chosen and set apart by the church'. How can there be any 'common suffrage' in such a model?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

A clarification. In #63 Rich left the impression that there is only one method of governing a mission church according to the BCO.

" (a mission)...falls under the session of a particular church until it (the mission) is able to particularize."

This is often the case. And in larger, more established and in geographically limited presbyteries may happen all of the time. However this is not what the BCO requires in every case. BCO 5-3 states that "presbytery may provide for such government in one of several ways.." It then list three ways that this government may be provided. The option Rich mentioned above is one of those ways.

That is true. I didn't mean to imply otherwise but the larger issue is that there are two types of Churches that our BCO recognizes and it is clear that the goal of a mission is to particularize.

 

[Jack K]

I don't think a stated Evening Service is in the same category. In the example cited, it is the same particular Church that is called to both the morning and evening services. That's not what I've been talking about. You keep obsessing over physical location. I've made clear that is not the issue and if you read me carefully you will see that

Agreed. They are different categories. And that's my main point.

In my mind, the word "multi-site" is about physical location. A "site" is a location. That's what the word means. I don't believe more than one "site" is the hub of the issue. Some uses of more than one site are far different than other uses of more than one site. Not all are mission endeavors. That's why I spoke up when "multi-site" was condemned hands down without clarification.

Multiple "congregations" that remain one church is another matter. I'm probably more open to the concept than you are, having been through some difficult experiences with church plants that went independent too soon, but in the main I would agree with you that forming new churches is the best way to grow and the right model for government. In fact, not long ago I argued that the church I now attend should deal with its growth by doing a plant rather than adding a service (they didn't listen to me).

 

[Jack K]

So let's suppose we had a "two-site" church with separated meeting places, preaching elders, but a single session overseeing both congregations with elders elected by the whole, somehow, and elders attached to the two congregations.
First and simplest question... why in the world, if each congregation has its own meeting place, its own preaching elder, and ruling elders selected from among its ranks, aren't the two churches acting as sister (but particular) churches? Is there any rational reason to NOT particularize and come to a fuller maturity as an individual congregation?
Addressing your situation (and not Rae's, who hasn't replied to my questions) I have similar concerns.
1) Is the membership single or dual? That is, are members attached to one or both congregations, or are they considered part of the whole?
2) How are the elders to be elected if the two congregations really are two different congregations meeting at different places and having essentially separate "lives"? Do you honestly believe it's appropriate for members in one congregation to be ruled by a session made up of elders, in part, who are based at another?

Although I've seen this model (membership was singular and elders elected by all), I'm not really a big fan of it. So I'm not interested in defending it as better than separate churches because I'm not convinced it typically is better. I don't wish to condemn out of hand those who try it as a means to break free from our obsession with our buildings, but I see concerns too.

My point was just that larger churches that are committed to shepherding do find ways to work through the issues that come from being many people who don't always know each other personally. Small church people sometimes can't imagine that any large church could truly practice effective shepherding. But it can be done if a church is committed to it.

 

[Edward]

I'm not sure that the multisite model has proven successful with Presbyterian churches. The earliest I can recall was Perimeter in Atlanta which peaked at about 5 sites as best I recall. My understanding is that they eventually evolved into particularized churches.

And it appears that the Redeemer NYC example will not likely long survive Keller's retirement as separate pastors rather than a single superstar appear to have been chosen for the several locations.

Corrections of mis-recollections or mis-understandings are desired, as are examples where the model has proven effective over a long period.

 

[Kevin]

Edward, the longest period of sustained "multi-site" to use the modern term was the Canadian West from 1870 to 1820's by the Presbyterian Church of Canada. Of course they were following the example of the early days post reformation in Scotland. It is still practiced (in a version with separate sessions, but only one head pastor) in the PCC to this day.

In the old days in Scotland and in the west the pastors of these multiple congregations were called superintendents.

 

[Edward]

separate sessions, but only one head pastor

That's going to be a different animal than the one session/one senior pastor multisite. Indeed, there are in the PCA (or at least there were a few years ago) cases where very small particular churches in a region will share the cost, and the time, of a senior pastor. But each is separately governed.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

separate sessions, but only one head pastor

That's going to be a different animal than the one session/one senior pastor multisite. Indeed, there are in the PCA (or at least there were a few years ago) cases where very small particular churches in a region will share the cost, and the time, of a senior pastor. But each is separately governed.

Isn't that what a "circuit rider" church does? My wife's old UPCUS church was like that, seperate session, and shared the cost of a minister with other churches on the "circuit."

 

[Edward]

Isn't that what a "circuit rider" church does?

That's the term I'd generally use.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm going to post this and then close the thread because this has drifted from a discussion of Mark Driscoll and on to whether multisite is appropriate for the PCA. First, I do repent of being more harsh and not striving toward the uplifting and honoring of others. I hope this post at least gives explanation as to why I get so passionate about seemingly obscure things like this.

There's a bit of misunderstanding that can occur when one is discussing an issue as to what the critical points of the discussion are. Those who are arguing for a Constitutional position may seem as if they're simply being stubborn for the sake of the Constitution itself. At the shorthand level that's somewhat true but it belies a greater concern.

The irony is that many of us bewail the actions of activist Judges and the decisions of the Supreme Court that treat a document as "living". Sadly, Christians have been leading the way for quite some time with the Scriptures themselves. As Al Mohler points out, many Bible studies consist of those who read a passage and then discuss "...what does that passage mean to *me*...?

One of the interesting things that has stuck with me when I studied hermeneutics is how the underlying philosophy for interpretation will always govern how you interpret a passage. For instance, in the Roman Catholic Church, the interpretive grid over centuries became the accepted tradition. Historical theology becomes the grid by which a passage is to be understood. This is why a Roman Catholic apologist can read a text and be convinced that something teaches purgatory because, before the passage is even read, the conclusion of the matter has already been settled.

The other interesting thing about the study of hermeneutics was the rise of Reader Response and postmodern deconstruction. Most of us decry the latter but practice the former. We're not so much interested in what the historical and grammatical meaning of a passage really is but, on the surface of it, what it means to me.

Now, ironically, what has marked the Reformed Churches over the centuries is the conviction that we would really seek to understand original intent in the Scriptures. We would also understand our Confessions and other Constitutional documents and agree to them according to the words in those documents. Our Constitutional documents are not Scripture but the process of understanding their meaning is the same method. You determine what the words mean and then you either agree or disagree with them.

Now, why is this important? Some don't even believe that a Church should have a Constitution or a Confession because all I need is Jesus and the Scriptures? Because the Scriptures call Churches to the unity of the faith.

The reason why I wrestle with people over this so hard is because I'm extremely concerned about the direction we're going as those who claim a Reformed, Confessional heritage. We default to *I believe the Scriptures and Constitution mean this* and *You believe they mean this* but that's OK. The purpose for these documents is that *WE* might confess them together and when you say you confess them that we actually know what is being confessed.

You see, I wouldn't leave the Church over some of these issues but it scares me to death when people say they submit to our Constitution but redefine words in the process. "We're not ordaining deaconesses, we're appointing them." I could live with female deacons if the *Church* confessed it together but I am grieved that we've become a Church that is comfortable with reader response.

I have literally witnessed a Presbytery examine a man who was taking an exception to our Standards on paedocommunion nod in general agreement when one Elder stood up and said: "Why are we giving this man a hard time? He's written down the Biblical reasons he believes in this." It seemingly didn't occur to anyone who read it that he was writing all the reasons why he disagrees with our Standards. When it was asked that he take exception to every place in the Standards and the BCO that are against PC, it was voted down by a 2/3 majority. The TE being examined pointed out that he could read those portions of the standards and BCO as allowing his view. This, again, caused no alarm because (as the reasoning went), as long as he could affirm that he agreed with the words, it didn't matter what the words in the Standards meant.

I fear we're getting to the point where it really doesn't matter that we subscribe to anything because each person is allowed to determine what that means to him. We've already witnessed a number of public trials where Presbyteries exonerate TE's who clearly hold to views contrary to our Standards. It's not that the Presbyteries decide to take a stand and say: "We need to amend our Constitution" but rather "We don't care" or "We are able to make his words fit".

Am I saying multisite is just as bad as these dangerous errors? No, I'm not. I wouldn't leave the PCA over a decision to amend the BCO to permit it. Those committed to this model should make their exceptions known so we can settle whether it is prudent or not. I'm just deeply saddened that, increasingly, it doesn't really matter to many whether we amend it or not.

God will work everything out and there's no perfect Church. I don't even bear ill will toward those who are doing these sorts of things. I'm just grieved over this slide where those who point out a need for Constitutional integrity are increasingly viewed as simply purists over trivial matters. In themselves the specifics are often trivial. It's the spirit of the age that is profoundly destructive. All our major trials are simply the tip of a much larger iceberg of apathy over the idea that we should be striving for unity according to what we confess together. It matches a growing apathy over whether we can agree on what the Words of Scripture themselves mean.