Redeemer Presbyterian NYC forms 4 congregations, selects lead pastors.

[Soonerborn]

Redeemer Presbyterian NYC forms four congregations, selects lead pastors


What is interesting, is the church is forming 4 new congregations but they will still have only one session. (quote below from the article):

"Remember that although we will become four neighborhood-based congregations, we will still be one church under one Session and we will work side by side in many areas of ministry as one unified body seeking to renew this city with the gospel."

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Redeemer Presbyterian NYC forms four congregations, selects lead pastors


What is interesting, is the church is forming 4 new congregations but they will still have only one session. (quote below from the article):

"Remember that although we will become four neighborhood-based congregations, we will still be one church under one Session and we will work side by side in many areas of ministry as one unified body seeking to renew this city with the gospel."

Got a link?

 

[Soonerborn]

The link is embedded in the text on the first line. Is it not working?

 

[Zenas]

BCO experts: Can you do that?

 

[goodnews]

Dr. Keller is still going to be preaching regularly, isn't he?

 

[raekwon]

BCO experts: Can you do that?

I wouldn't dare call myself a "BCO expert," but I'm fairly certain that there's nothing in the BCO that prohibits such a practice. It's still one church, moving to a "parish" model under one session. That's essentially how my church (which is MUCH MUCH MUCH smaller than Redeemer) is planting right now, as a matter of fact. We have a pastoral intern who's about to finish his ordination trials. Soon after ordination, he'll be sent out with a launch team to plant a new Grace Central congregation in a nearby neighborhood. One session -- one church -- two locations, each with its own preaching pastor. (Plus, if the plant one day decides that they want to themselves be particularized, they can do that.)

Our presbytery has had no problem with this model.

 

[Romans922]

It makes no sense to me Rae (no offense to you) to have basically two congregations, two pastors and one session... Why not just be two particularized churches? So I guess the questions of this thread really are:

"Is it in line with the constitution of the PCA to do the 'parish model'?"

AND

"Is it in line with Scripture to do the 'Parish Model'?"

 

[raekwon]

It makes no sense to me Rae (no offense to you) to have basically two congregations, two pastors and one session... Why not just be two particularized churches? So I guess the questions of this thread really are:

"Is it in line with the constitution of the PCA to do the 'parish model'?"

AND

"Is it in line with Scripture to do the 'Parish Model'?"

No offense taken. I'm about to leave the office, but I'll get back to this thread. I'll just say in short that it makes sense for some churches and maybe not so much for others -- and that (off the top of my head) neither I nor our brothers in the Ohio Presbytery can think of anything in our constitution or in Scripture that prohibits it. More detail later.

 

[Jack K]

The model is gaining popularity. My old church (PCA) has done several plants the old way, but recently started thinking the multiple congregations under one church model is a better idea. The basic thinking is it provides better support for new congregations—financially, leadership-wise, sharing of resources—rather than just sending them off to sink or swim. Yet it retains the benefits of a new congregation in its own community. Congregations that do a lot of church planting have been thinking this way for several years now.

Perhaps the real news in this article is Rev. Leo Schuster leaving Houston to join the work in New York.

 

[sastark]

The model is gaining popularity. My old church (PCA) has done several plants the old way, but recently started thinking the multiple congregations under one church model is a better idea. The basic thinking is it provides better support for new congregations—financially, leadership-wise, sharing of resources—rather than just sending them off to sink or swim. Yet it retains the benefits of a new congregation in its own community. Congregations that do a lot of church planting have been thinking this way for several years now.

Perhaps the real news in this article is Rev. Leo Schuster leaving Houston to join the work in New York.

The problem is, you just gave a great argument for the practical benefits of Episcopalianism. Shouldn't Presbyterian churches be governed by the Presbyterian model?

 

[raekwon]

The model is gaining popularity. My old church (PCA) has done several plants the old way, but recently started thinking the multiple congregations under one church model is a better idea. The basic thinking is it provides better support for new congregations—financially, leadership-wise, sharing of resources—rather than just sending them off to sink or swim. Yet it retains the benefits of a new congregation in its own community. Congregations that do a lot of church planting have been thinking this way for several years now.

Well, Jack basically made the arguments for me. Sharing of resources -- financial & physical (ie: office space & equipment). Unified vision, identity, and government. Such a model wouldn't work or be wise for every PCA church out there, to be sure, but it will for some. A few examples are the aforementioned Redeemer, Harbor Presbyterian in San Diego and CrossPoint in the Seattle/Puget Sound region.

The problem is, you just gave a great argument for the practical benefits of Episcopalianism. Shouldn't Presbyterian churches be governed by the Presbyterian model?

Churches doing this can still be governed by Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders and can still be members of a presbytery. What's mutually exclusive about this model and presbyterian church government?

 

[toddpedlar]

The model is gaining popularity. My old church (PCA) has done several plants the old way, but recently started thinking the multiple congregations under one church model is a better idea. The basic thinking is it provides better support for new congregations—financially, leadership-wise, sharing of resources—rather than just sending them off to sink or swim. Yet it retains the benefits of a new congregation in its own community. Congregations that do a lot of church planting have been thinking this way for several years now.

Well, Jack basically made the arguments for me. Sharing of resources -- financial & physical (ie: office space & equipment). Unified vision, identity, and government. Such a model wouldn't work or be wise for every PCA church out there, to be sure, but it will for some. A few examples are the aforementioned Redeemer, Harbor Presbyterian in San Diego and CrossPoint in the Seattle/Puget Sound region.

The problem is, you just gave a great argument for the practical benefits of Episcopalianism. Shouldn't Presbyterian churches be governed by the Presbyterian model?

Churches doing this can still be governed by Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders and can still be members of a presbytery. What's mutually exclusive about this model and presbyterian church government?

Very briefly, the congregations are all governed by a board of elders, the majority of which have nothing to do with the congregations they rule over (except the title 'ruling elder'). Elders are to be part of *A* church - and if they have actual ruling authority over churches of which they are not actually a part, it is not much different than episcopalianism (except that there's a plurality of bishops). This is quite simply NOT "presbyterian".

 

[Grillsy]

As a church plant, we are ruled by the Session of Grace OPC in Columbus. This is particularly for accountability considering we, as of yet, do not have elders.
I'm not ready to say that our arrangement is somehow Episcopalian.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

To shed a bit more light on this, the long-term plan is for these churches to branch off into their own congregations with their own Session, etc. Redeemer has grown so large so quickly to suddenly break off into "splinter" churches would be very unwise. These satellite churches are intended to build a community in a specific location in Manhattan, and for those congregations to become autonomous with their own Session in the next 5-10 years.

As Rae pointed out, there is ample precedent for this in the PCA. Briarwood - the flagship church in the PCA - used this model 25 years ago when they had a satellite congregation called "Briarwood South." It was the exact same model that Redeemer is using, and provided a bridge for the eventual split into Oak Mountain Church, a thriving autonomous congregation.

 

[raekwon]

The model is gaining popularity. My old church (PCA) has done several plants the old way, but recently started thinking the multiple congregations under one church model is a better idea. The basic thinking is it provides better support for new congregations—financially, leadership-wise, sharing of resources—rather than just sending them off to sink or swim. Yet it retains the benefits of a new congregation in its own community. Congregations that do a lot of church planting have been thinking this way for several years now.

Well, Jack basically made the arguments for me. Sharing of resources -- financial & physical (ie: office space & equipment). Unified vision, identity, and government. Such a model wouldn't work or be wise for every PCA church out there, to be sure, but it will for some. A few examples are the aforementioned Redeemer, Harbor Presbyterian in San Diego and CrossPoint in the Seattle/Puget Sound region.

The problem is, you just gave a great argument for the practical benefits of Episcopalianism. Shouldn't Presbyterian churches be governed by the Presbyterian model?

Churches doing this can still be governed by Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders and can still be members of a presbytery. What's mutually exclusive about this model and presbyterian church government?

Very briefly, the congregations are all governed by a board of elders, the majority of which have nothing to do with the congregations they rule over (except the title 'ruling elder'). Elders are to be part of *A* church - and if they have actual ruling authority over churches of which they are not actually a part, it is not much different than episcopalianism (except that there's a plurality of bishops). This is quite simply NOT "presbyterian".

I would contend that the different locations/congregations in such a model do constitute *A* church, Todd, but I understand your position. In addition to the sharing of resources I pointed to above, there can be shared ministry among the congregations in such a model (for instance, home groups that include families from different congregations). Yes, there's a diversity in the meeting location/time and in the man in the pulpit, but does that necessarily make it another church? I'm not convinced of that.

 

[Christusregnat]

Just as sidelight: the Westminster Divines (at least the Presbyterians) believed in a parish model. In fact, Gillespie argues for Presbyterian government based on the fact that there were several congregations in Jerusalem, but it is referred to as one "church at Jerusalem," and from all appearances one parochial presbytery over all of the smaller congregations.

I'll see if I can locate the reference.

Cheers,

 

[Romans922]

Adam that is precisely the problem here. For Redeemer NYC, they are basically making themselves no longer a congregation but a little presbytery. I don't think that is what Gillespie was referring to. Of course it is the church at Jerusalem, but did they have elders over the whole city or in each church?

 

[Jack K]

The model is gaining popularity. My old church (PCA) has done several plants the old way, but recently started thinking the multiple congregations under one church model is a better idea. The basic thinking is it provides better support for new congregations—financially, leadership-wise, sharing of resources—rather than just sending them off to sink or swim. Yet it retains the benefits of a new congregation in its own community. Congregations that do a lot of church planting have been thinking this way for several years now.

Perhaps the real news in this article is Rev. Leo Schuster leaving Houston to join the work in New York.

The problem is, you just gave a great argument for the practical benefits of Episcopalianism. Shouldn't Presbyterian churches be governed by the Presbyterian model?

I think to call it episcopalian goes a bit far. In none of these examples are we talking about congregations separated by vast distances. In each case it's a single church in a single city choosing to hold its services in several different locations. Must we really insist on a separate set of elders for each building utilized? Are we that tied to being a church in a building as opposed to a church in the city?

The elders in such a church are not necessarily any less in touch with parts of the church than they are in a large church that holds multiple services at one location. Keeping the elders in touch may take extra effort in such situations, but is doable for a committed session with proper repesentation from all segments of the church.

The arguments that make presbyterianism, in my opinion, the best form of church government come from the fact that it seems to be the model of the early church in the Bible. But keep in mind that the church in Jerusalem had at least 3,000 members, meeting "from house to house." Did each house have it's own independent leadership? The biblical account would suggest not. They were one church. I wonder if we've fallen into the trap of associating a "church" with a particular building when the Bible doesn't do this?

Besides, as others have pointed out, new congregations in new locations often move toward becoming independent churches. An intermediate step in that process is not only wise, but doesn't violate either the rule or the spirit of presbyterianism.

 

[KMK]

I agree that this is growing in popularity among baptistic churches as well. Some mega-churches are creating a plurality of churches. Each has its own ruling 'elders', worship teams, ushers etc., but each church receives the same sermon (and powerpoint) delivered by the ruling elder. Or, in some cases, a simulcast is beamed into the satellite 'campuses' of the main pastor's sermon at the main campus.

 

[raekwon]

I agree that this is growing in popularity among baptistic churches as well. Some mega-churches are creating a plurality of churches. Each has its own ruling 'elders', worship teams, ushers etc., but each church receives the same sermon (and powerpoint) delivered by the ruling elder. Or, in some cases, a simulcast is beamed into the satellite 'campuses' of the main pastor's sermon at the main campus.

Not a big fan of that simulcast stuff.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

To shed a bit more light on this, the long-term plan is for these churches to branch off into their own congregations with their own Session, etc. Redeemer has grown so large so quickly to suddenly break off into "splinter" churches would be very unwise. These satellite churches are intended to build a community in a specific location in Manhattan, and for those congregations to become autonomous with their own Session in the next 5-10 years.

As Rae pointed out, there is ample precedent for this in the PCA. Briarwood - the flagship church in the PCA - used this model 25 years ago when they had a satellite congregation called "Briarwood South." It was the exact same model that Redeemer is using, and provided a bridge for the eventual split into Oak Mountain Church, a thriving autonomous congregation.

Makes sense. It's really not splitting into four congregations as much as planting 3 mission works right now that will particularize at some point.

 

[reformedminister]

It was just a matter of time that the multi-site church model found it's way into the reformed camp. I wonder what is next?

 

[raekwon]

It was just a matter of time that the multi-site church model found it's way into the reformed camp. I wonder what is next?

I dunno. Creativity and flexibility?

 

[Edward]

BCO experts: Can you do that?

I recall that Perimeter in Atlanta started out with that model - multiple campuses, one session. They eventually moved to separate congregations, with a common participation through Perimeter ministries.

I was surprised to see that Leo Schuster was going from CTK in Houston to one of the Redeemer campuses. CTK is about ready to move into their first permanent facility.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I too was surprised that Schuster was leaving. Not only is the church about to move to their first building, but Redeemer Theological Seminary Houston (which they refer to as RTS Houston even though Reformed Theological Seminary Houston, thus RTS Houston as well, is two miles down the street, which is quite odd) starts this Fall as well.

 

[Jack K]

I was surprised to see that Leo Schuster was going from CTK in Houston to one of the Redeemer campuses. CTK is about ready to move into their first permanent facility.

I too was surprised that Schuster was leaving. Not only is the church about to move to their first building, but Redeemer Theological Seminary Houston (which they refer to as RTS Houston even though Reformed Theological Seminary Houston, thus RTS Houston as well, is two miles down the street, which is quite odd) starts this Fall as well.

Yup. I was surprised to see the multi-congregation model get all the attention on this thread, since that idea's been around (and used) in the PCA for some time and Redeemer NYC was already halfway there with its multiple service locations. The real news is that each location will now have a TE dedicated to that site, and Leo Schuster is joining the work there. Keep in mind that Keller is not too far from retirement age.

 

[Christusregnat]

Adam that is precisely the problem here. For Redeemer NYC, they are basically making themselves no longer a congregation but a little presbytery. I don't think that is what Gillespie was referring to. Of course it is the church at Jerusalem, but did they have elders over the whole city or in each church?

Andrew, yes I believe that the presbytery would have been over the whole city of Jerusalem.

With a help of a Sandanista friend, I was able to track down the reference I was thinking of (or at least one of them) from the Westminster Assembly's Directory for Presbyterian Church Government:

Of Particular Congregations.

IT is lawful and expedient that there be fixed congregations, that is, a certain company of Christians to meet in one assembly ordinarily for publick worship. When believers multiply to such a number, that they cannot conveniently meet in one place, it is lawful and expedient that they should be divided into distinct and fixed congregations, for the better administration of such ordinances as belong unto them, and the discharge of mutual duties.

The ordinary way of dividing Christians into distinct congregations, and most expedient for edification, is by the respective bounds of their dwellings.

First, Because they who dwell together, being bound to all kind of moral duties one to another, have the better opportunity thereby to discharge them; which moral tie is perpetual; for Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. [33]

Secondly, The communion of saints must be so ordered, as may stand with the most convenient use of the ordinances, and discharge of moral duties, without respect of persons.

Thirdly, The pastor and people must so nearly cohabit together, as that they may mutually perform their duties each to other with most conveniency.

It slightly touches on this subject matter. Note that they do not assign a time-line for particularization.

The particularly interesting part is their use of Matthew 5:17-18 to bulster the parish system from Deuteronomy 15. Maybe I can push this thread to the Theonomy subforum

[33] Deut. 15:7,11. Matt. 22:39. Matt. 5:17.

Cheers,

 

[toddpedlar]

To shed a bit more light on this, the long-term plan is for these churches to branch off into their own congregations with their own Session, etc. Redeemer has grown so large so quickly to suddenly break off into "splinter" churches would be very unwise. These satellite churches are intended to build a community in a specific location in Manhattan, and for those congregations to become autonomous with their own Session in the next 5-10 years.

As Rae pointed out, there is ample precedent for this in the PCA. Briarwood - the flagship church in the PCA - used this model 25 years ago when they had a satellite congregation called "Briarwood South." It was the exact same model that Redeemer is using, and provided a bridge for the eventual split into Oak Mountain Church, a thriving autonomous congregation.

If these four congregations are in fact viewed eventually as independent congregations without oversight of Keller as the "head pastor" then that's good, and proper. His letter didn't give any hint of that, however - though I understand the scope of the letter does not seem to have included the 'full plan'.

 

[Jack K]

To shed a bit more light on this, the long-term plan is for these churches to branch off into their own congregations with their own Session, etc. Redeemer has grown so large so quickly to suddenly break off into "splinter" churches would be very unwise. These satellite churches are intended to build a community in a specific location in Manhattan, and for those congregations to become autonomous with their own Session in the next 5-10 years.

As Rae pointed out, there is ample precedent for this in the PCA. Briarwood - the flagship church in the PCA - used this model 25 years ago when they had a satellite congregation called "Briarwood South." It was the exact same model that Redeemer is using, and provided a bridge for the eventual split into Oak Mountain Church, a thriving autonomous congregation.

If these four congregations are in fact viewed eventually as independent congregations without oversight of Keller as the "head pastor" then that's good, and proper. His letter didn't give any hint of that, however - though I understand the scope of the letter does not seem to have included the 'full plan'.

I strongly doubt Keller's design in all this is to become a "head pastor" over a kingdom of subservient churches. Rather, I suspect it's just the opposite. He's preparing the church(es) for the day when he will step down by spreading them out and enabling new leadership. This is far more compatible with all he's written about church planting than is the rather farfetched theory that he desires to become Archbishop of NYC.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

To shed a bit more light on this, the long-term plan is for these churches to branch off into their own congregations with their own Session, etc. Redeemer has grown so large so quickly to suddenly break off into "splinter" churches would be very unwise. These satellite churches are intended to build a community in a specific location in Manhattan, and for those congregations to become autonomous with their own Session in the next 5-10 years.

As Rae pointed out, there is ample precedent for this in the PCA. Briarwood - the flagship church in the PCA - used this model 25 years ago when they had a satellite congregation called "Briarwood South." It was the exact same model that Redeemer is using, and provided a bridge for the eventual split into Oak Mountain Church, a thriving autonomous congregation.

If these four congregations are in fact viewed eventually as independent congregations without oversight of Keller as the "head pastor" then that's good, and proper. His letter didn't give any hint of that, however - though I understand the scope of the letter does not seem to have included the 'full plan'.

I strongly doubt Keller's design in all this is to become a "head pastor" over a kingdom of subservient churches. Rather, I suspect it's just the opposite. He's preparing the church(es) for the day when he will step down by spreading them out and enabling new leadership. This is far more compatible with all he's written about church planting than is the rather farfetched theory that he desires to become Archbishop of NYC.

Exactly. The idea is to get these 3-4 separate churches in place in the next decade to coincide with Tim's likely retirement at that time. Though he has made no announcement to that effect, I think that's the general understanding.