Everyone's talking about multi-site churches these days. There are books, seminars, and today we have several thousand multi-site churches in North America. Some of you read my series of posts on the subject last year. Well, last week 9 Marks released it's May/June eJournal.

It's good to see 9 Marks putting out an eJournal that doesn't just criticize mulit-site churches, but also includes a defense of them from men like J.D. Grear, Matt Chandler and Gregg Allison. The whole journal can be downloaded here, and I encourage you to check it out. I won't break down everything said in every article, but I will point out a few of the things that caught my attention.

In the 9 Marks eJournal the most consistent criticism of multi-site churches seems to focus on the issue of the church being an "assembly."

The Greek word ecclesia most often translated as "church" means assembly or gathering. The oft heard mantra "one church many locations" is a contradiction in terms. An un-gathered "church" cannot know one another, love another or bear one another's burdens in the same way a single assembly can. -Thomas White, 9 Reasons I Don't Like Multi-Site Churches

The word ekklesia denotes a literal assembly. Therefore, it should not be used to designate a body of Christians who are not characterized by literally assembling together in the same place. -Grant Gaines, Exegetical Critique of Multi-Site: Disassembling the Church?

I have heard this complaint before, and always wonder if such dissenters are actually arguing that a local church must gather the whole body together (in one place at the same time for worship) in order to function biblically as a church. If so, would the argument against multi-site churches equally apply to a church with multiple services in one location? According to Jonathan Leeman: absolutely.

Both the multi-site and multi-service church models remove "the gathering" from the necessary ingredients of what constitutes a particular church, since neither model requires all the members of a church to gather together in order for them to be a church. Instead, both models equate the local church with its leadership and its corporate structure, since it's the leadership and corporate structure that are the only things that the separate assemblies uniquely hold in common. Leadership is the church. Neither the multi-site church nor the multi-service church is a church. -Jonathan Leeman, Theological Critique of MultiSite: Leadership Is the Church

J.D. Grear addresses this perspective in his article, A Pastor Defends His Multi-Site Church,

Some argue that since a local church is by definition an assembly, a multi-site strategy fundamentally skews the nature of a local church. The essence of a New Testament local church, however, is not "assembly" but "covenant body." If the local church is essentially an assembly, then it only exists when it assembles and only when all the members are present. "Assembly" is a much-needed function, but "covenant" is the essence.

J.D.'s article is a thoughtful, reasonable and biblical defense of a multi-site church. (For full disclosure, I have preached at the church J.D. serves and greatly appreciate his church.) Gregg R Allison also offers a Theological Defense of Multi-Site using a four-fold grid (biblical, theological, historical, and missional) to evaluate this popular trend. This is also very good and worth a read.

Much of the criticisms in the other articles assume too much about churches (if we're allowed to call them that) that have gone multi-site, but some legitimate concerns are raised. For example, what about pastoral care? Jeffrey Riddle raises this issue in his article, Richard Baxter and the Multi-Site Movement.

Gregg Allison addresses this issue by pointing to Mars Hill in Seattle.

The response from responsible multi-site churches is that the pastoral team at each campus/site is responsible to provide the full range of pastoral care for its campus/site.

For example, at Mars Hill Church in Seattle,

Each campus must have its own paid staff appropriate for a church its size such as a campus administrator and children's leader, along with some unpaid elders and deacons to administer such things as premarital counseling, small groups, membership. For this to happen each campus must have its own budget that the campus pastor and other elders spend as they see fit, within certain established guidelines for all campuses...." (Vintage Church, 253).

 

Another common question and/or criticism is, "Why not just plant churches?" This is a concern I have, for I believe some churches have opted to go multi-site instead in place of planting. But this is not always the case. In fact J.D. argues that going multi-site is helping his church to develop church plants and planters.

The multi-site strategy does not preclude church planting. Rather, it fosters it! Not every church planter is equipped to be a senior teaching pastor. Campus pastors need to be men who are gifted leaders and good communicators, but not necessarily preachers. Many guys who are great leaders and pastors do not enjoy doing what I do each week, spending 20+ hours preparing messages and deciphering vision. As campus pastors they exercise leadership within their gifts in a way that they could not as church planters. Many of those not gifted to be the senior leader or primary teaching pastor would still make ideal campus pastors.

As you plant new campuses, you will notice some who begin to demonstrate the gift set to lead independent churches. This seems to be how the Jerusalem church operated. They noticed leaders emerging in the ministry who had the capacity to plant churches and they sent them out.

Finally, it has been our experience that multiple campuses provide a leadership pipeline for developing church planters. It provides a place to hone the skills necessary for teaching and leadership. The multi-site strategy is integral to our church planting strategy.

 

Thus, we have found that the multi-site strategy does not in any way eclipse church planting. In fact, it provides an opportunity to determine who has the right gift set to plant and pastor. As it stands now, new churches fail more than half the time. Wouldn't it be helpful to have an in-between stage in which leadership abilities can be tested?

 

And some ask whether or not this can be done while maintaining a congregational church polity. Greg Gilbert points out in his article, What Is this Thing, Anyway? A Multi-Site Taxonomy, there are different models of multi-site churches. Of course, some are less biblical and healthy than others, and Gilbert's piece is helpful in thinking through some difficulties for those who maintain a congregational polity.

Can a multi-site church remain congregational? In Have We Ever Seen This Before? Multi-Site Precedents, John Hammit shares the following account.

This past November I heard of a multi-site church that seemed to avoid most of the aspects of multi-site churches that have been troubling to me. This church, Highview Baptist in Louisville, Kentucky, is one church that meets in six locations. Each of the six campuses has a pastor that teaches his flock, but there is one senior pastor, a single deacon body, and a single budget. However, the whole church also assembles in one location quarterly for services that include baptisms, the Lord's Supper, and the conducting of the congregation's business (accepting new members, discipline of members, voting on matters of official business).

 

I asked the person describing this church why the six congregations do not simply avoid the inconvenience of the quarterly meeting and become independent churches. His reply was that the six pastors do not want independence and the accompanying isolation. They enjoyed being part of a larger body and sharing each others' joys and sorrows as one body.

Like most church models, multi-site churches can be healthy or unhealthy. On the one hand we need to carefully think through the biblical and practical issues related to this approach and not just jump on what, for many, is a new trend. As Matt Chandler confesses in his short piece,

...after studying the issue, we decided to go multi-site. Yet we still have some serious concerns and questions about the multi-site idea even as we participate in it. The problem that haunts us is a simple one. Where does this idea lead? Where does this end? Twenty years from now are there fifteen preachers in the United States?

On the other hand critics need to do a better job at interacting with multi-site models and not assume that all function in the same way. The multi-site phenomenon often grows out of a good problem - a rapidly growing church! I appreciate J.D.'s words,

The multi-site model is messy. As with all large churches, it is easier for important things (like people!) to fall through the cracks in multi-site churches than it is in a single-campus, smaller church. Growth from evangelism always invites chaos and disorder into the church. But it is a wonderful and welcome problem.

If you are interested in more information, I have addressed this issue before at the blog and you might want to read part 1 and part 2 of my dialogue with Geoff Surratt. 

And, one more thought just for fun. I had to chuckle at the book review of Multisite Churches: Guidance for the Movements Next Generation by Scott McConnell (a LifeWay Research book).  I love a review that begins with, "Me reviewing this book is like a PETA employee reviewing a hunting manual... I don't think churches should be multi-site... Strictly speaking, I don't think that multi-site churches even exist."  Only at 9Marks.  ;-)  (Though you gotta' appreciate the disclosure.) But, in that spirit, I will write my review of Finney's Systematic Theology tomorrow.

What are your thoughts on multi-site?

The 9 Marks Journal recently asked me to respond to the issue of race. You can download their full journal here.

I had a small part in the pastor/theologians forum.