9 Marks and Multi-Site Churches

Wednesday May 6, 2009 ~ 25 Comments

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?

Posted on May 6, 2009 at 9:43 AM ~ 25 Comments

Tagged with: 9 marks, Multi-site

Subscribe via RSS or Follow us on Twitter

Share This Post

25 Comments

By Jim on May 6, 2009 1:58 PM

Good article. I'll pass this along as I've had this discussion with a few others recently.

By David Cowan on May 6, 2009 2:02 PM

That is Elevation Church's (of Arizona) dream... to be multicampused. From lessons learned from a previous experience in planting a multicampus church, we are excited about how God is at work. Like any model, there are advantages and disadvantages. Maintaining doctrinal integrity and clearly defined leadership seem to be the main issues that face multicampused churches. But, if these can be maintained the potential for impact is enormous. Thanks for the article!

By Chris Blackstone on May 6, 2009 2:02 PM

I thought Matt Chandler's comment about the future having 15 preachers in the US quite prescient in light of Mars Hill's upcoming multi-state expansion (into New Mexico). I'm ambivalent about multi-site, as many people may be, but I think Highview Baptist is on the right road.

By Jim Stratton on May 6, 2009 2:03 PM

Ed, we are currently wrestling with whether or not to view a church going multi-site as a form of church planting. In our association we have a church planting team and a church strengthening team. Which do you think is most appropriate for assisting a congregation seeking to add another location?

By Bobby Capps on May 6, 2009 2:14 PM

Dear Ed,

I think the church at large is really wrestling with ecclesiology. Barna's Revolutionaries and the "Why I Don't go to Church Anymore" bunch prove that. In this generation we've mega'd and meta'd and house'd and cell'd and muti'd and some have given up all together.

I don't know. I'm trying to figure it out all over again. If ecclesia was the town hall, the 'assembly for a reason' and most of the letters were written to the local city "town halls" then what does it all mean for the 200 town halls per town paradigm we've adopted. I don't know but I believe I'll embrace anything faithful to the scripture, winning souls and healing communities.

Then we can relax and stop trying to correct each other and see where God let's all this settle.

PS I'm for City Church, big tent, town hall type... but having said that, I live annd worship and operate in a real world, trying to find its way.

By Eri on May 6, 2009 2:36 PM

I attend a multi-site in Canada and have found it to be extremely healthy and balanced. There are many nuances in multi-site churches, but, in my humble opinion, I feel it is dangerous to state that a 'multi-site church is not a church at all"...The church I attend shares only the teaching time in common. Each site has their own Pastor, Youth Pastor, Children's Pastor etc... It is through this model that they have "freed" up the Teaching Pastor to focus on his gifting, and other leaders to focus on theirs.

The church also operates on a home church model, where throughout the week, people meet in homes, and work through the Sunday Morning teaching in community. It is through that avenue that the church works its benevolence arm out. Each group adopts an already existing 'charity' and becomes the volunteer fuel for their work. It is encouraged that if your schedule forces you to choose only one "church" option (be it Home Church or a Sunday Service) that you choose Home Church. There is delusion that it is intentional community that builds growth, not filling a seat on a Sunday morning.

We have church in a movie theater, drastically reducing the cost of 'planting' another church. No need for a building, they plant in a building that already exists. We funnel those funds elsewhere, like overseas.

The church so far really just facilitates growth. When one of the sites grows, they split and form another smaller community. There is no promotion or hoopla. Where people show interest, there they plant.

I have never in all my years experienced community quite like I have here. We are big in number overall (almost 5000) but each individual site itself is smaller and more intentional. My Lead Pastor is so readily available. His time is spent solely on Pastoral Care, and thus, I have a wonderful and personal relationship with him.

I think it is quite a brilliant model and would encourage people to look at (if possible) all models that exist before throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Things may be quite different in Canada with Mega-churches or celebrity Pastors, that doesn't happen much this side of the boarder. But this church is growing quite fast, and I would hate to see someone overlook it because it is multi-site.

By Robert Angison on May 6, 2009 2:49 PM

Multi-site churches baffle me. Particularly multi-site Baptist churches.

How do we encourage the historic Baptist doctrine of autonomy of the local church if we have a mothership to which these churches/campuses report to?

I know there is a lot of momentum, especially since some of the Christian celebrity pastors have jumped on this. Also, I believe there are sincere hearts in most people. But do we really need a 1st Baptist Beulahland, Missouri in New York City? Or London? or anywhere else?

There is one scenario I do think is healthy. Using the existing resources and even personality of a larger church in a multi-campus plant. Letting the staff and church get established. Then within 3 to 5 years spin that church off into its own local, autonomous church.

Otherwise I think we border too close on becoming the Church at Rome.

You are the Church!
R.A.

By Geoff Surratt on May 6, 2009 3:34 PM

Thanks for the post. A friend recently told me that you can never have a movement of significance without opposition of significance.

While most of the IX Marks discussion is over my head, I did have a couple of comments. First, it seems if assembly in one place at one time is the qualifier to be considered a biblical church most of the churches I am familiar with are excluded. Most have separate gatherings for children, teens, multiple services, etc. Outside of house churches very few churches that I know gather everyone in the same room at the same time. Age divisions and distance of one room from another (100 ft is ok but 100 miles is not? Is it ok if all the rooms are under one roof even if the roof is the size of Pentagon?)would seem to be an arbitrary qualifier.

The second challenge I have is I find it almost impossible to define a multi-site church. The reality is that they come in all sizes and all configurations. There are some that are monuments to giant egos, there are others that are a great reflection of what I read of the church in Acts. I don't see how broad brush critiques are all that helpful.

By Jonathan Leeman on May 6, 2009 3:36 PM

Ed,
Thanks for covering the issue. It would be good to hear your thoughts on the (critial) arguments themselves. Worth another blog post?
Jonathan

By Jeff Hardy on May 6, 2009 3:46 PM

I can relate to the fears and concerns of being a multi-campus church. We have just started our second campus and it has been great we are looking at another campus soon. We meet together, both campuses on Sunday evenings and Wed. nights. All the fears are still there but the rewards are far greater than ever imagined

By Cynthia Cullen on May 6, 2009 4:00 PM

My husband and I planted a new church campus for LowCountry Community Church 2 years ago. The church was located on Hilton Head Island, SC but moved off the Island to Bluffton where there was new growth and the opportunity to build. God has blessed and the Bluffton Campus has grown to an average of 1300 in attendance on the weekends. Our Lead Pastor, Jeff Cranston (www.jeffcranston.com) didn't want to leave the Island without a modern, progressive church. When LCC moved, some people refused to "cross the bridge" and attend out in Bluffton. (Yes, I do feel like I live in an episode of LOST - except we call everyone who lives OFF the Island, "THE OTHERS"!)We started this new campus for that reason. I agree that all multi-sites are different and that they are MESSY! We are huge Seacoast fans and have attended their conferences(and we are neighbors!) They have created a fabulous framework on doing multi-site (which we have used), but as they will tell you, there is no how-to handbook. We just wrapped up 2 all day staff meetings together as 2 campuses and I can honestly say that we are JUST now finding our way on how to work together. It was an awesome time together and I am pumped, but it has taken 2 years! Our Lead Pastor has no desire to "clone" the Bluffton Campus. He wants us to have our own feel and flair. As the Worship Arts Director, I have all the freedom to plan my services. We work as a team as 2 campuses on the Message, but how we flesh it out is TOTALLY independent of each other. We use a mix of live and video teaching from our Lead Pastor and my husband Live (he's preaching this weekend live, in fact). I will say that the Lead Pastor's vision makes or breaks it...bottom line. Our Lead Pastor views my husband as THE PASTOR of the Hilton Head Island Campus. They are colleagues. They disagree, compromise, diagree-it is very healthy. We are still finding our way, but we are reaching people. People are trusting Christ and growing in their walk with God. Isn't that what this is all about? I have no idea what our campus will look like in a year. We are committed to no particular way (LIVE or VIDEO). We are committed to reaching people and everything else is just...well, everything else. Great post, Ed!

By John Inman on May 6, 2009 4:18 PM

I don't really care about the ecclesiological arguments and such. But I think the elevation of celebrity pastors is the biggest problem. We(me included) will only listen to uber-talented preachers who spend 20+ hours crafting perfect sermons. People who move to DC or Minneapolis or Seattle to "be under" so and so have the same mindset as those who will sit "under" a video screen.

By Paul Stohler on May 6, 2009 4:22 PM

Ed, interesting post and something that has been on my mind lately.

I have worked at a multi-site church and I currently serve as a pastor at a church that is not multi-site. I really believe now that I am against this movement, but with that said, there still needs to be more research done before we can say it is completely useless/ful.

1. Why are pastors trying to be omnipresent? Isn't that just God's attribute?

2. Why should we ask churches to gather together, but tell them that the pastor didn't even bother to show up today, we just pushed play. Isn't that somewhat hypocritical?

3. We need to look at how many people are actually STAYING at multi-site churches. We know that many have had success reaching people and attendance is up, but what about those who stay (for years?). Are multi-site's producing converts, disciples, or both?

4. How far will this go? As a pastor can I tape a wedding message to play at every wedding I do no matter where it is? Can I film a hospital visit and put it on YouTube and just ask my members to find it and push play when they are in the hospital? What about a funeral video sermon

5. Why not just start a "church" and turn the TV to DayStar or TBN each Sunday and let whoever is on the TV pastor the church?

There are more concerns I have about this as I think through this but I just think we need to really think things through before just jumping on the bandwagon because pastors are getting bored and their mega-churches have plateaued.

By Michael Schutz on May 6, 2009 4:52 PM

I have no first-hand experience with multi-site, but I serve in a denomination that is wrestling with many of these same questions with regards to "what is a church?". So just a couple comments...

(Zero, I understand that "multi-site" can mean almost anything functionally, so it's hard to speak in generalities. I'll attempt to do it, though with full knowledge of that difficulty.)

One, I can't help but relate the concept of multi-site to the ideal of the denomination. We in the LCMS define denomination (aka synod) as a voluntary association of autonomous local congregations. Many of the same arguments for multi-site are the same arguments for denominations (again, ideally). So I can't help but ask how some of the multi-site proponents would answer how they are not functionally acting as a denomination. Is it simply that the word "denomination" conjures up all kinds of reaction to the "institutional" mindset? I'd be interested to explore this angle more. I didn't see anything in the journal that addressed the relation to denominations, even when presenting historical thoughts. (Maybe I just missed it though - happy to be wrong on that.)

Second, I think my biggest concern is the one Matt Chandler expressed, and is primarily for video preaching: is the logical conclusion of video venues that we whittle down the number of preachers to a handful of superstars?

I agree with those who do multi-site with team teachers, and have much concern with the so-called "cult of celebrity preachers", especially considering two things: all pastors/elders are Biblically required to be "apt to teach", and it divorces preaching from the rest of the life of the church. If campus pastors are necessary for counseling/leading/shepherding/leadership development, why is preaching separate from those things?

(I understand that central administration is usually included with preaching, and that can be more efficient. But we must not confuse efficiency with effectiveness. I believe that's a dangerous conflation. (And it's there I agree with Jonathan Leeman in the journal that a shared corporate structure does not a church make.) Would it be more efficient to have a "grand poobah" caterpillar cut cuccoons open? Yes, but that would destroy the effectiveness of the struggle in the cuccoon which allows the butterfly to emerge.)

Maybe a video preacher can still preach effectively to a local context within one city. But once a church expands to multi-region and multi-state/province/country (and even multi-medium - live vs. "Internet campus"), how can you retain the essence of preaching to "your people"? I believe it leads to either generic preaching or simply Biblical exegesis with no local context. The former is, as someone smarter than me has said, "a plague". The latter is not in itself bad, but is better suited to Bible study than preaching (IMO). To me the point of preaching is to proclaim the Good News of the forgiveness of sins found in Jesus, and an exhortation to live in that grace.

Those are just 2 things that I've not seen addressed that much, and I'd love to explore each of them more - the connection between multi-site and denominations, and the theology of preaching specifically - not just methods (ie. Paul would've used DVD if he had it). But what is the actual point and purpose of preaching, and can that be effectively done through multi-site?

By John Inman on May 6, 2009 6:22 PM

I also think the 9 marks guys assume that they are replicating the "biblical" model and that replication of that model should be the goal of every church.

I think a lot of people read the NT and don't see a singular model that is outlined. For example, I think it takes some real effort to read congregationalism back into the NT.

So the 9 marks guys end up criticizing churches for not doing things the "biblical" way, when those churches never set out to do things the "biblical" way because the evidence just isn't there.

By Jonathan Leeman on May 6, 2009 8:23 PM

BTW: I thought J.D. wrote a GREAT piece. But on the point you quote, Ed, you got to say more than just "church is a covenant." I agree a covenant is involved in constituting a church, but a covenant between whom? If you and I make a covenant, Ed, are you and me now a church? ;-)

By Ed Stetzer

on May 6, 2009 8:30 PM

Sorry I have not had a chance to jump in.

Been working all day on how to help churches and have not had a chance to debate if they actually ARE churches. ;-)

Will respond after I put the kids to bed.

By Ed Stetzer

on May 6, 2009 9:25 PM

Jim,

I am first and foremost a church planting guy so that is my preference. However, the Assemblies of God and Evangelical Free Church both consider multi-site as a form of church planting. As a matter of fact, when I spoke at the AoG National Church Planting Meeting last year it was me and Dan Betzer. Dan's church is all about multisite.

So, some equate the two. I don't. I prefer indigenous autonomous churches if I have to choose.

---------

Robert,

You are correct-- those who hold to autonomous local churches (and that is not just a Baptist thing) do have some 'splaining to do. ;-)

Some of the articles at the 9Marks site address that.

---------

Geoff,

Good to have you back. Maybe this time we can get you on the cover of US News. Grin. (For those not aware, the last time that Geoff and I discussed multi-site on the blog it led to a story that got him on the cover of World Magazine.)

I am with you on the "need everyone together at one time" issue. I am more concerned that there is actual church covenant than that all those in that covenant gather at the same time and same place.

But, I do think covenant is lacking in many churches, including multi-site churches.

But, I am still waiting on my invitation to preach at Seacoast to see if it really is a church in the first place. ;-)

---------

Jonathan,

I am not persuaded on the firm requirement of a "common time and place" gathering. I think a church can have more than one congregation and still be one church-- and that those congregations can be separated by time (multiple services) or space (multiple locations).

In the spirit of full disclosure, I preach every week to three services at a multi-venue church where the people primarily see me on a video screen. So, needless to say, I am biased. I think you cannot really be against multiple congregations once you pass a certain size. The dynamics of a large church are not much different than that of a church with multiple smaller services.

However, I do believe that gathering is necessary and that takes feet and not electrons, so I am not a believer in "internet campuses," unless they are supplements (and not replacements) to the gatherings of believers.

And, in answer to your question: no, "covenant" is not enough. There are marks to a Biblical church (but 9 is too many, grin).

Good night,

By Orion Berridge on May 6, 2009 11:39 PM

Several years ago our church began to grow. The growth was at such a rate that we could not solve our space issues by building another building. We just built one and out grew it quickly. So we added services. Saturday night and three on Sunday. We also moved our Student Ministry a few hundred feet to a strip mall and did up a nice center there for them. So we had a smaller auditorium in the building that we used for overflow. We decided to plant a church to help with this problem and because we felt led to. We simulcast the service to the over flow room while we developed a team to send. We used that time to develop leadership, unity and the vision for this new church. God back doored me into going with the plant and I am thankful he did. But the point is this new plant is as strong and mature as you could imagine a plant to be. The team works like it has been together for a decade and the momentum is amazing. We were several different forms at different times, multiservice, multisite and now a strong autonomous church plant that will be planting another church soon. Looking back I'm confident that this process for us was led by God, the most healthy and has produced the best fruit of any of our choices at the time. I'm very careful to make sweeping judgements with little theological evidence and I don't know the process that has led to this, for example Matt Chandlers article.

By Tim Wright on May 7, 2009 12:58 AM

Hi,

Multi site seems to me the obvious reality that we have elevated the gift of teaching above Apostles & Prophets.

1 Corinthians 12:28
And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.

Ephesians 2:19-21
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.

The only multi site that I have ever been too, has had the message beamed into the building to their building from the previous evening message from the Mother church. I found this bizarre and this disembodied experience make me wonder about control from the main church and what the reason was for this type of communication instead of a person.

Tim

By Tony Merida on May 7, 2009 1:04 PM

Ed,

Thanks for the post. I would love to see more work done in this area. I am grateful that 9 Marks put together a series of articles on this hot matter. I found it refreshing to have arguments made on both sides of the issue. As a multi-site pastor, I'm obviously okay with the idea, but it was good to hear some of the criticisms. I passed the articles on to our staff. I really found J.D.'s article particularly helpful and encouraging, as we attempt to move "forward" as a mult-site church.

By JM LaRue on May 7, 2009 6:31 PM

Ed,
You already responded to Robert on this, but I'm wondering if I can get you to tease this out more.

I am baffled by the statement from the Highview Baptist pastors. The statement is pretty much completely at odds with the historic Baptist doctrine of the autonomy of the local church. (Even more confusing is how Dr. Mohler and Dr. Moore, men who express so much care about restoration of historic Baptist beliefs, are actively involved and in Dr. Moore's case a pastor.)

I obviously don't expect you to comment at all about there situations, but how about the general movement of multi-site Baptist churches in the direction of a hierarchial church government.

By Barry Murry on May 9, 2009 8:07 PM

Ed, I have read little on Multi-Site being used to begin a core group and eventually becoming an autonomous church plant. Is that a viable model? If so why is it not a part of the discussion?

By Phillip on May 12, 2009 12:26 PM

I am working through the articles right now. Can someone help me why is the term "campus" and not church?

Thanks

Phillip

By Ralph Green on May 21, 2009 3:56 PM

The issue of multi-site campuses is not something I've considered for our church except recently. I've been approached by a struggling church plant that I consider taking them under our wing possibly as a satellite campus. Praying about this in earnest but I'd welcome wisdom on the logistics of pursuing such a thing. I'm reading as fast as I can but direct comment would be helpful.

Comment Policy

Comments are welcome on discussion posts. Comments are not moderated but do require a keyword to avoid spam. If this is your first time commenting, please review the comment policy.