One of the greatest needs is for systematic organized, effective disciplining that produces mature Christians able to do the work of ministering to fellow believers. 1. In too many churches, the “laity” have never been systematically trained in how to minister to one another (go through the N Testament and see all the times “one another” is stated). People have been led to believe that ministry is a job for the trained professional. (“After all, that’s what we pay them for!”)

Even our young preacher boys come out of seminary with little training or hands on experience in actual ministry. They may know some Greek or be able to discuss the hypostatic union but have no idea what to do if confronted by someone about to attempt suicide. They’re not really ready to assume the leadership of a church until they’ve been out in the field for a number of years (if they last that long).

So, on the one side, you have neither laity nor clergy who are spiritually mature enough to operate a new church. On the other sides you have senior pastors that, often correctly, believe that there is no one else in their flock capable and ready to shepherd a new congregation. Either through fear or pride (fear that some wrong idea might be presented, fear that people will see that there is another in the church that can actually preach an effective sermon, and pride,”No one else could possibly preach as well as I do- and, of course, the people come to hear the best- me! “), they have been unwilling to allow others to share in many of the facets of ministry leadership, such as preaching. I have been in many churches where, year after year, the only time anyone other them the senior pastor is permitted to preach is when that senior pastor is on vacation.

One further point: every church is called to be a training center. Every church, as soon after its founding as possible, ought to have a Bible Institute. I am absolutely, unequivocally convinced that every Christian school, from kindergarten through the Ph.D. granting university must be under the local church. There are a great many reasons why this should always be the ease. Let me mention just three: first, it enables men and women to continue to minister to and participate in the body life of the church. The church needs them and they need the church, a place where they can practice practical applications of what they are learning.

Secondly, their own local church knows them, their strengths and weaknesses, especially those areas where they may need more disciplining. At some far-off Bible college they tend to become just another face in the crowd.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the local church can exercise watch-care over the content of the teaching. With very few exceptions, Christian colleges that operate autonomously or with loose denominational oversight will drift away from sound doctrine. Just last night one of my pastors was describing the first day of classes in a certain supposedly evangelical Christian college. In one professor’s opening remarks to his new students he stated that he was an atheist and that Christianity was a ridiculous superstition. In it any wonder that 80% of the students leave these colleges with their faith in shambles? Is it any wonder that there are few men spiritually qualified to shepherd the flock of a new church?

One final point: what am I doing, what are you doing to help to prepare the members of the body to minister to one another? Every one of us ought to be discipline, one on one, someone less mature in the faith than we are, and in turn we each ought to have a mentor to whom we are accountable who is discipling us.

I wish they would have made each of the panelists read that journal and respond specifically to the points made in those articles. I think it would have been a much more effective use of their time.

So, if you haven’t read it yet, get the 9marks e-journal, and go from there.

Another side-point, I will throw in here, is the more I read about this stuff, and the more I listen to those who have gone to multi-site, the more I tend to find a pattern appearing…

1) The need to do something different arises (due to “growth”)
2) The decision to go to multi-site is made
3) Then many of these places check to see if it’s biblical, and find amazingly… that it is!
4) Sometimes these MS pastors will even admit they still have major questions and concerns that are unresolved

Shouldn’t you resolve those things before you pull the trigger? Or is that just me?

I’m of the persuasion that the churches found the term “church” appropriate for both the house church unit and the whole unit determined by geography (the church of Rome).

The value of the early church plan is that the congregations were small enough to provide adequate pastoral care. Each smaller church pastored by an elder does not necessarily lead to a “bishopric” if the pastors see themselves as a true plurality. As house church’s grow, others are started and elders are added to the pastoral team.

The argument about 1 Corinthians 11 and the whole church coming together (“when you come together as a church”) is also answered by Romans 16 where Gaius is said to be host to Paul and to the entire church. Paul was writing from Corinth. There was only one rather large house church at the time in Corinth, probably with 50-60 people, if you consider the names involved and add some family members, etc. If this is so, nothing is gained by saying that the Lord’s supper could not possibly be done except in the whole church gathering. And it would not prove that all the house churches came together on Sundays (at least in any regular way).

My opinion is that God may allow several methods, but that the bigger question to ask is whether the objectives of church life and church meetings found in the NT are being accomplished best. We have found a great deal of joy in the house church network kind of church (www.ChristFellowshipKC.org) not because we think we have the only way, but because we pastors can go to bed at night knowing the spiritual state of everyone in the church, and that church members are participatory in the meetings in a way that strengthens them and others like we have never seen in other forms.

The NT knows only of a church that has its own elders (which includes teachers). Bringing Paul’s letters into the mix doesn’t help the multi-site idea because he would be comparable to a visiting preacher, not a weekly preacher.

Using video only promotes the celebrity culture and discourages the ministry of other gifted men (campus pastors). Is it ok for a celebrity pastor to diminish the use of other gifted preachers? I don’t think so.

Using video is a means to ear-tickling (in a slightly different sense than Paul originally meant it). They assume that people will only come if they hear X pastor. If we plant a new church with Y pastor then it won’t work, so let’s put X pastor on video for the to hear.

It’s completely different than the use of CDs, mp3′s, etc. because those aren’t used to replace the Sunday morning shepherd.

Use of video a BIG issue for many people because it presents a large cultural shift that God is using in many areas, and it can be a symptom of megalomania.

One person who struggled openly with the possibility of using video venues in humility was Matt Chandler. The end of the argument seemed to rest on Romans 12:6 “Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them”.

The issue of using technology to further the outreach of a preacher’s gift shouldn’t be suddenly called into question after all the use of tapes, then CD’s, now mp3′s and mp4′s.

Then again, maybe the precedent goes all the way back to Colossians 4:16 and 1Thess 5:27. Of course there were other people in those churches who “substitute” & preach the gospel less well.

In the end, it seems like all the chatter is concerned with abuses and shortcomings of video campuses. Potential abuse is not a reason for prohibition.

Incidentally, I can’t think of any Presbyterian multisite churches (though there probably are some). I can name a half dozen Baptist or baptistic ones off the top of my head. That doesn’t prove anything; just illustrates my point that multisite doesn’t make you more Presbyterian than you otherwise would be.

I think Thomas White is convincing in the section Arguing Against the Multi-Site Church, Nine Reasons I Don’t Like Multi-site Churches.

Church planting doesn’t always have to start from scratch. I know a church who took a portion of its congregation and one of its pastors and started another church because they couldn’t fit in their one building.

I haven’t heard any compelling arguments that make multi-site better than church planting.

I am not necessarily opposed to multi-site since I am not educated enough to make a decision. Just wanting to hear more on the polity issue as I think through it.

I also would have like to seen a more balanced panel. It seemed like 1 against 4. Grant Gaines, Dever (either instead of or alongside of Gilbert) would have been two good ones to add.

If you want me to write a quick WordPress plugin for you, let me know.

I like Piper, I have learned a lot from his teachings and I believe him to be a humble man. However, I disagree with him or anyone else using video as a substitute for biblical preaching done in a local church by a real living, breathing, pastor.

do bapists really want to go there? I’m honestly asking…