Multi-Site: Dever, MacDonald & Driscoll

I'm somewhere in the middle on the multi-site debate. I'm much more sympathetic to a local/regional multi-site like Tim Keller. I find video venues problematic. James MacDonald & Mark Driscoll both have multi-sites with some video venues. Mark Dever is the guy who says even multiple services is a problem resulting in multiple congregations. So though he could have many more people and services and locations, he still only has one service. I'm not exactly in any of their camps, though I like each of these guys and most of what they do.

But when these three come together for a conversation I expected it to be very interesting and full of thought-provoking argument. It's not. It's a lot of misunderstanding and misdirection and sometimes almost insulting comments, though no one acts offended and I'm sure they assume the best of each other. 

So many good questions and points need to be discussed and answered, and I'm not sure a single one was in this video. A few thoughts...

There is an assumption that multi-sites become their own congregations after the leader dies and that multi-sites with video are better because they aren't tied to the leader being there and everyone interacting with him. But why can't they be tied to the leader still?

If that leader's face and name wasn't a part of the venue and movement, people wouldn't come in the same numbers. Their "celebrity" brings in the people, which is a part of why it's used. That's why it works. To assume people will stay after that name and face are gone doesn't work to me. I don't know of any church that has been that far in their history to know if that will work or not. But shouldn't we be concerned for these venues since the name and face is so important?

Let me add, celebrities don't stop becoming celebrities when they aren't in the personal presence of someone. Driscoll seems to imply that. In video venues we make our preaching celebrities more like cultural ones...by putting them on TV. I know there's more to it than that, but I'm really surprised that the conversation doesn't go in that direction. I wish Dever would have pushed more there.

One last thing. Where was the theological basis of the discussion. There was a little on church meaning "assembly" at the beginning, but it turned to plans and numbers and stats and a bunch of stuff other than theology and Bible. In that I wonder if Dever is more open to these things than he has been in the past or if a 2 on 1 conversation is just a bad idea unless the 2 are going to be fair in how they argue with the 1. I'd rather not see your ribbing and "fist bumping" approach and see you really engage deeply on issues that are important. I need to hear these men generously argue with each other. I think we all do. I think that's why the conversation and video exist. But I think it failed to produce something worthwhile.

What say you?

Comments

[Chuck]

I think that whether it's called "Multi Site" or the "Minster Model" there's a historic precedent and sense in taks resources flexibly.

As a recent study shows, it may be the Church of England's only chance for survival:

http://worldviewchurch.org/suggested-books/98-parochial-vision-the-future-of-the-english-parish

It was how the "Irish Saved Civilization" to use Cahill's phrase.

[Aaron]

Steve,

I agree with much of what you said. There was very little biblical substance to the debate. I do think that most multi-site plants, particularly those engineered with video technology, are driven by the celebrity status of the primary preacher, who in effect function more as a prophet than a pastor.

I also believe that the use of video technology as the primary medium from communicating the word contributes to a disconnected response of the authority of the Word. There is something important (I believe) about the humanity of preaching, especially when the one preaching is serving as the shepherd of the souls in his care.

Those most of these multi-sites have elders, if these elders have the joy and privilege of caring for the day-to-day needs of the saints, why rob them of the joy of also serving the saints with the Word? Is it really sufficient and appropriate to defer only to the most gifted communicator of the Word?

[Jack]

I'm with Chuck. The Reconstructionist model of church life lived out in pre-modern era of the church demonstrates, I think, the need for a neo-ancient-revival of civl and religious organizations that leverage multi-site ecclesiology. For further reading, check out the recent study by Lifeway Research, or Cat in the Hat by Dr. Seuss.

[Clay COnry]

"Consumers come to see us. Missionaries go to multi-site venues." - Driscoll

That was a pretty important statement.

Just because he didn't quote Paul or Calvin. Doesn't mean there wasn't some theology laid down. The whole discussion was a theological one about the implications of ecclesiology and missiology.

[Steve McCoy]

Clay, how is that theology? That's based on his interpretation of a recent survey. And if that's true, let's have NO live preachers and only video venue. Why not?

[paul del signore]

yea, I think the foundational premise of the discussion by MacDonald that "we are called to plant churches" is false. We are called to make disciples who then gather together in worship, scripture teaching, etc... which is called a church.

In my opinion, if I go to a location to then watch a video, I'd rather watch it from home.

[Ben Cotten]

There are certainly some assumptions happening here that should have been challenged. I just don't think Mark Dever's gifting is in debate. I bet 2 hrs later he was saying to himself, "Man! I should have said xyz."

The celebrity pastor-centered church is a problem all over the place, regardless of the structure. But multi-site clearly makes this problem even harder to combat. How can it not? Having good church structure in place with "first among equal" eldership is awesome, but it will not change the fact that people are gathering to hear Driscoll preach. I would really really love to see some stats on meeting attendance and online views of services where Driscoll preaches vs when the site pastor preaches. That would solidify the debate either way, I think.

In my mind, this is the big issue with multi-site. Discipleship and the raising up of more leaders doesn't seem to be a problem for multi-site. However, I just don't see how these churches can avoid building the ministry around the celeb.

If those sites would do fine without Driscoll (like if he died), why not just do it now?

I wish that Dever had pushed harder on that point. It's frustrating that no one seems to be really talking about these issues in a way that really helps people like me get a grip on it.

[Jeff]

Agreed. This was silly and could have been some meaningful conversation and some silly discussion just trying to prove what you do is right...none of which I was convinced by. I love these guys and their ministries, but almost felt bad for Dever. He seemed ganged up on, spoken down to and there was zero spirit of humility. Lame.

[Brett]

Steve:
Interesting discussion...in that it wasn't as interesting as I wanted it to be.

Just speaking out of my own experience: we launched the South Campus at Riverside about 8 months before Dad died. (Keep in mind: this was in the dark ages of multi-site when the Pastor drove from one venue to another- back in the early 2000's) After Dad died the campus rallied together for a short time and then began to fall apart as the staff and leadership from the Downtown campus couldn't wrap our arms around how to lead 2 separate congregations through a difficult time. The congregations were at vastly different levels of corporate maturity, had different values and needs, and it was pretty much a constant battle. Godly people with good intentions just struggled to lead. The South Campus eventually called their own pastor to become their own church but it all fell apart fairly quickly.

Now, those were extreme circumstances- but to me that situation along with some other experiences have lead me to believe that multi-site is not sustainable for the long term- and might not be very healthy for even the medium term. And here is why:

1. No matter how you slice it you end up with different congregations that have different needs and those needs almost always seem to end up in direct conflict at some point. They don't become their own congregations when the leader dies- they become their own congregations the minute they start. It is almost impossible to lead two different churches.

2. They are built upon a celebrity pastor culture. I don't mean this to be an indictment on the pastors (except we all know in some cases that shoe fits). It is more about how American's pick their congregations. When that leader is gone the only glue holding things together in both places is gone too. (If it wasn't the Pastor that drew people then why wouldn't we just plant a church in the traditional sense?)

All that being said. I DO think there is a place for multi-site, especially in church planting as the church plant can borrow the credibility of the original church/leader. But that can only be borrowed and it required an intentional end vision that is communicated CONSTANTLY and shared leadership from DAY ONE to pay it back and build up your own.

[Zach Hoag]

I gotta say, Dever's question regarding "responding" in preaching was critical, and Driscoll's response (ha!) was flippant at best. Preaching becomes a strange animal when it is utterly divorced from any relational context within the community. A strange, cold, oratory animal indeed.

[Andy]

"I need to hear these men generously argue with each other. I think we all do. I think that's why the conversation and video exist. But I think it failed to produce something worthwhile"

Steve, I agree with you on this point. The joking around shows they are all friendly, but avoids getting to the point and making their points clear. The talking all over each other is just modern and not helpful.

I would have liked to hear more defense than opinions of how each does it. It seems to point more to 3 different Christian Celebrities than it does to truth.

[JJ]

These little 10 minute videos trying to tackle important issues seems futile because the biggest personalities dominate.

I agree with Steve, if the real disciples and missionaries go to video venues then let's do away with preaching all together and have video teachings from a studio recording room.

We don't have the history to tell but it seems unlikely that when these video teachers go away the congregations don't skip a beat. The reality is attendence goes way down because what brought the people to the venue was the next coolest thing. Well, there will always be the next coolest thing particularly when the previous coolest thing goes away.

I think the biggest problem with video "preaching" is a shift from preaching to teaching. Preaching is the heralding of a particular word, for a particular people, at a particular place and time in a particular context. Teaching is good content regardless of whether the speaker is in the context of his hearers or regardless of whether it is time sensitive. In this case, video "preaching" is in the same category as listening to our favorite preachings on our podcast. It's good and profitable but does not accomplish what preaching is meant to.

God has called every disciple, be it Dever, Driscoll or the accountant in the pew, to make disciples. Teach them to follow Jesus and obey what he says. Each disciple has his own gifting and we should be emparting those gifts to others. The best of these preachers should be training other men by replicating themselves in other men who are full of the Holy Spirit and sent.

On the other hand, I think Dever goes too far to try and only have one service. If he has one service of 800-900 people, he doesn't know them anyway. What's the difference if they are there to receive the word in the 9 o clock hour or the 10 o clock hour? So to stay consistant, maybe 800-900 person congregations is too big!?!?

Anyone know how many churches Mars Hill has actually planted? I think they are generous in sending a lot of money to Acts 29 churches but what about training up from within and sending out planters with teams of people (and money)? Just curious.

[Dan]

I'm not convinced that Dever's argument against multi-site, multi-service holds much water, but I actually cringed when they asked him to explain it and then jumped all over him after he said about 5 words. Dever was pretty humble throughout this "conversation."

[jay miklovic]

Is the burden of proof on those doing multi-site to prove that it is a biblical means of corporate worship. Or is it upon the single site churches to prove otherwise. This discussion needs to be framed better, and entered a little more seriously. The conversation would have been much better without MacDonald he seemed to interject lameness at every point in which real discussion was about to happen.

[Dusty Deevers]

I agree with you, Steve. I thought Dever was trying to get there. Driscoll and MacDonald were stonewalling with a numbers game, volume and teaming up. I walk away from the video thinking (1) I don't like the pride that I saw coming from Driscoll and MacDonald that I'm prone to myself, (2) the arguments are mostly superficial, (3) can we have another video where the issues are really dealt with?

Thanks for your humility in sharing your thoughts.

[Steve McCoy]

Brett, great comment coming from someone who has been there. Appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

[David]

Ben said

'I would really really love to see some stats on meeting attendance and online views of services where Driscoll preaches vs when the site pastor preaches. That would solidify the debate either way, I think.'

I agree, this would really be telling.

[Jeremy]

Driscoll and MacDonald pointed out when they died all the multi-sites would turn into their own plants and just keep on running. Okay fine. But the example that Driscoll gave for their model of multi-site was strange. Mars Hill Albuquerque ran about 200 before it became a "Mars Hill Campus" and now its at about 1000 or so. In the long run does it go back to 200 because Mark isn't the 75% preacher there? The same guy is leading it as was leading the plant, they just have more resources and the Mars Hill name.

I love the church, I love its growth, and I agree there are many ways to do it. I'm not necessarily a fan of the "franchise" system that seems to be developing with larger churches.

One other question - MacDonald mentioned that he doesn't have influence in a city like Minneapolis and therefore they should have a multi-site Harvest Bible Church there. What does that say to all the faithful pastors and preachers in Minneapolis? What does that say to a guy like John Piper? Sounds pretty arrogant to me.

[Marty Schoenleber]

I'm not sure any church of any size completely gets away from the celebrity problem. Dever is kidding himself if he doesn't see that some, perhaps many, in his own congregation are there because of God's gifting of him and how God blesses through his teaching. Every church, even house churches will have some element of this.

I do think the video was valuable however. These men love and respect one another and each has learned from the other. They sat down and rose from the table as friends and co-laborers in the gospel. That is a valuable model to see, even when the issues discussed are not explicated in a way that is completely satisfying to all.

They disagreed but they did not fight or ridicule one another. Tow on two might have been a better form to give real direction to the substantive issues that Dever wanted to address.

[Tim Dahl]

I was hoping for a good discussion, but as was mentioned it didn't turn out that way. McDonald and Driscoll were on attack mode. They asked Dever a question, and then didn't let him finish it. McD and Drisc made a poor showing of themselves, in my opinion.

Tim

[noah]

Not actually contributing to the important discussion here, but MacDonald comes across as a jerk in this video. I think he is trying to be funny, but he's not. I would like to listen to Driscoll and Dever discuss this issue. At least then a serious discussion might take place.

[Chris Blackstone]

I've heard both Dever and Thabiti Anyabwile wrestle with the size of their current congregations and even wonder if they're too big to provide the type of elder care and oversight that the Bible calls us to. I think Dever would say that CHBC is too large for him personally to shepherd every member, but there are enough elders so each member can be shepherded by an elder. I attended a weekender at CHBC and was blown away to hear them go through over 30 names in their member directory and an elder was able to share something specific about member.

I was a little disappointed to hear James McDonald seem to placed such a emphasis on himself and seeming "brand recognition". I know he didn't mean it to come off that way, but it was still a little off-putting

Steve, did you watch the "roundtable" at SBTS last year related to multi-site? That time it was 3-1 (Mohler, Ezell, and Gregg Allison "vs" Greg Gilbert).

Overall, I was pleased to hear both McDonald and Driscoll address what happens when they did. In all the discussions of multi-site, I had never heard that discussed.

[noah]

I wonder how many churches have been destroyed by having multiple services... let alone multiple sites. The church I currently pastor nearly died when the church split between the "contemporary" service and the "traditional" service. People may mock Dever, but he is right on when he says that multi-site, multi-service churches are actually multi-churches. Which ever way you go, go with wisdom, humility, and love for the church.

[Matt]

My pastor has brought me here before when we've discussed this topic:

"...You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake." (1 Thes 1:5b)

How can a video screen convey the proven life of pastors? When we look at Paul's letters (ESP. 1 Thes; though the context is set in persecution), you just can't get the life-on-life that you would with a pastor actually being present. The pastor is not omnipresent, like God.

Though I am up for being corrected by Scripture, because these are mega-churches, and I haven't personally had to face the dilemma.

[Steve]

Great comments, Brett.

I agree with your end point where you state that the multi-site model can function well as a church planting strategy. The hardest part about planting a church is building the initial credibility in a community. Once the flywheel is spinning, it is much easier to keep it going - even as you change the direction of the church. Many young church planters would have experienced greater success (and maybe avoided failure) if they had started out riding the wake of the support and reputation of a larger church instead of trying to generate their own wake right of the bat. It also creates a supportive venue for the building of gifts, the development of leadership, and honing of shepherding skills.

A couple thoughts about your two points:

1. When you go multi-site, you do end up with different congregations... but not completely separate congregations. There is a tension of "connection and disconnection" that has to be maintained for health and mission. If you go too far to connection, you don't contextualize to your immediate area and really do become a fast food church, serving a quick meal to consumeristic Christians who aren't on mission in their community. But if you go too far toward disconnection, you lose the value and benefit that are inherent in the multisite model (and, as a result, end up so far away from the boat you aren't really riding the wake at all).

I don't see this as a weakness - but as a tension that is inherent in the system. And, as we all know, tensions are seldom easy to manage (which is why so many simply opt for a simplistic answer - it must either be this or that), but when handled well, both the main campus and the multisite venue can be served well.

2. It depends on what you mean by "celebrity." We tend to use that term in a derogatory sense - if someone is a Christian celebrity, they are catering to the consumeristic appetites of our culture... and some are. But I think it is important to differentiate between "celebrity" and influence. We all know the value of influence. We all want it. It is a gift and must be handled wisely, but it is a powerful tool. If we don't have influence (personal, political, whatever) we are marginalized and our message makes no headway...

So what is wrong with capitalizing on the influence of a gifted and well-known pastor? We don't have to idolize that guy to build a multisite church around his gifts - it just means that we all recognize that the mission will be better served through a greater level of "connection" instead of "disconnection."

I do admit that if that central pastor were to be yanked off the scene suddenly, a greater level of chaos could result simply because the organization built around his gift was more complex - but is that a reason not to build the complex organization to begin with?

[Hhtuck]

My wife and I went to a video plant for 2 years. We couldn't stand it and, Lord willing, will never do it again. The celebrity culture was palpable. I fear that what felt easier for us (and a lot of folks) in the short term may, in the long term, undermine the mission.

However, Pastors James and Mark (Driscoll) have a "problem" that most pastors don't have - mobs and mobs of people want to hear them preach.

I'm not sure what the wisest approach is.

[scottw]

+1 on the observation that MacDonald does not seem to do much listening...beyond looking for springboards to interject his argument.

"I need to hear these men generously argue with each other." Those kinds of interjections belie a spirit of generous arguing. Loving discussion starts with really hearing what someone is saying. Dever was not being heard...whether you agree with him or not.

[Brandon Smith]

Steve,

I agree with one of your tweets that this video isn't helpful, at least not practically. It was more entertaining than anything.

I think both sides made some valid points, though the two on one lead to Dever getting to ask questions and hear rebuttals rather than get his own wisdom deeply into the conversation.

I think probably the best multi-site point that was made was Driscoll's assertion that he has 300+ services in a year to allow men to preach and MacDonald's addition that these men can start small and go bigger, which is a training most preachers wouldn't get. To me, that would be a beneficial model of learning.

I'm with you that theology wasn't used enough, yet it seemed like they all tried to do it but couldn't stay there. All sides assumed that Scripture was rather clear on it, and I don't think it's clear enough for a definite debate, but it did seem like each church in the NT has it's own "campus pastor" with Paul giving direction. Either Paul was something akin to an overall visionary elder or just an encouraging mentor, I'm not quite sure. Likely he was overseeing the overseers, to me.

[Scott Slayton]

I had really high hopes for this video as Dever's objections to multi-site need to be thoughtfully answered. That didn't happen. It was really interesting that once Dever got shouted down over ekklesia meaning "assembly," he basically switched to only asking questions. As much as I like Driscoll and MacDonald, they seemed completely intent on justifying their practice versus having a helpful discussion on the pros and cons of multi-site.

[Casey]

Although I do think the best option to address multitudes of people wanting to hear a preacher is being deployed by Driscol and others using the multi-site method; I do not think it is the only option.

The bible teaches that there are, "different administrations" 1 Cor 12:4-6; therefore, our methods deployed are assigned specific to our context.

We miss the mark when we begin to apply a method that works in one context to our context. If the Lord is not providing a strategic method and tactical expression of administrating the ministry into our context is simply means we are failing at seeking Him for a creative means to see the gospel established and communicated.

If we are more focused on deconstructing a method used by others, we in effect allow a pharasitical spirit to distract us from serving our ministry context.

God is looking for pioneers that think creatively and can prototype His works, not people stereotyping what works for others to gain a platform or prominence.

This video was good to watch as it just affirmed to me my need for seeking the Lord for his creative ideas, that I might apply that to my context of ministry.

Sadly these guys are on the edge of bring reproach to their ministry in my humble opinion. It will be interesting to watch and observe them over the next several years. I just pray that they will stay close to the Lord and hear His heart for the lost, oppressed and hurting.

[Joshua O]

I need to re-read CJ's book on Humility.

[clay]

I've gotta say that Dever won me over. His spirit of humility and fair questioning was thoughtful and winsome. The other guys seemed... defensive or self-rationalizing. I think Driscoll and MacDonald were not well prepared to listen & thoughtfully engage.

[Nathan]

Thank you Brett. You hit like 7 nails on the head.

[Nathan]

Was anyone else taken back by MacDonald vomiting out numbers to start the video? It was like picking up a girl on a blind date and her having more facial hair than yourself. It was a sign this video was not going to go well.

[Ali]

I agree Steve. The video was a wasted opportunity.

As for the whole multi-site concept, to my mind it's just a natural extension of mega-churches (including Mark Dever's), cultural preferences (as opposed to cultural diversity within the Church), and the elephantiasis of the gift of prophecy/preaching. It's inevitable.

That doesn't mean it's right, though.

Having said that, I am excited by the numbers of people being reached, the faithfulness to biblical teaching in the YRR movement, and the passion for influencing the culture with the gospel. God uses a good number of things that are in no way perfect.

My own perspective is that multi-site churches are one of many ecclesiological near misses which take one part of a Biblical ecclesiology and over-emphasise it. Most (if not all) ecclesiologies today centre around THE biblical ecclesiology without actually getting it completely right. The problem is, I'm still not sure we know what the Biblical ecclesiology really is.

Praise God he's using our near misses. I'm just not looking forward to the grief they will cause down the road.

[Mark]

Multi-site is a great way to get a bigger house: http://www.inplainsite.org/html/tele-evangelist_lifestyles.html#James

[Paul]

Steve,

I agree. I wish Dever wasn't cut off at the beginning. I really wanted to hear Driscoll and MacDonald's response to the Bible's definition of "church," and all the implications the Bible has on how and why they do multi-site, or even multi-service. One major implication for me is church discipline. Does everyone need to be present, or at least able to be present, in order to carry out local church discipline? How is the local body understood to be "one body" in Eph 2, Rom 12, 1 Cor 12 if we consider it multiple?

I go back and forth on these things.

[Steve McCoy]

Paul, good questions. I know they have answers, but it's hard to get to all of them (nay, any of them?) in a 12 minute video. :) Just kidding. Haha. Well, I guess I'm only kidding a little, but you know what I mean. New post going up on the topic soon.

[Frank Turk]

I think this discussion always gets really coy because the multi-site guys are usually very clever and witty fellows who are good on their feet. This is radically evident when Driscoll derails Dever in the first sentence of Dever's response to MacDonald: "according to who?" Dever is exactly right -- according to everyone who's seriously read the Bible in 2000 years -- but Driscoll just waves it off.

I think Dever's congregationalism is a rightly-radical solution to the problems of our American culture, and your post here Steve is a fabulous list of reasons why. Is "one service" really the only solution? I think not hardly -- but it is far better than the alleged alternative of making Pastors into TV stars.

There is also the question of real pastoral work in developing men from entry-level believers into disciples and then elders as they are gifted. I think that what is glaringly-evident in the multi-site model is that the guy in charge who preaches on Sunday (and Saturday, and whenever) isn't really discipling his church: he's lecturing it. He's leading a seminar like you'd take in one of those 50-thousand student state universities where 200-300 people are in an auditorium and receive a dump of infotainment.

In Dever's church, men are becoming elders and then are becoming useful and godly pastors in their own right. Look at the list of really serious and credible guys to come out of CHBC in the last 10 years. Multisite churches are not creating churches with that kind of impact.

That, I think, is a very valid measure of the issues at stake.

[Jeff Strong]

Did Driscoll use his "introversion" as an excuse for abandoning contextualized preaching? O_o

What I love about Dever's heart is his longing to have pastors connected to their congregations (and vice versa) in a very ground-level way that forms all of the community's life--including the preaching.

I think it's very important that preaching avoid being "disembodied" (i.e., anti-incarnation), and that's a trend that teaching-via-video systems actually encourage. When I preach via video, I stop crafting my message to an audience I know, and start crafting it to the broader, more nebulous "crowds." I don't think that makes great preachers.

Oh, and for the record, who produces these videos? Why set the stage for a discussion when two of the three participants already have all the right answers?

[Nathan]

I found this video unhelpful and borderline immature. I don't buy the argument that multi-site churches are not personality driven. I think that this hinders the development of younger elders and 'waters-down'elder ministry in general.

Though I'm not entirely sure where I land on multi-services in the same building, I certainly appreciate Mark's consistency and caution.

Thanks for posting this Ed.