7 thoughts on “Multisite?

  • September 30, 2010 at 3:22 pm
    Permalink

    I live an hour from Capitol Hill Baptist Church, and have recently decided to start attending there. I *wish* it was multi-site!! Holy cow, it would make it easier to attend.

  • October 1, 2010 at 11:09 pm
    Permalink

    I was intrigued by this discussion. One problem. It was hard for me to get past the personalities of the men involved in the discussion, or perhaps that’s part of the issue? Do mulit-site churches foster pastoral pride? I felt like Dever was much more humble in his presentation, and perhaps that might be why he is in favor of single site, single service, and church plants as opposed to multi-site.

    Another item of interest by the same poster on vimeo…http://vimeo.com/14452343 the conversation with Francis Chan, who I think is another pastor grappling with similar issues in the church, and his response is such an encouragement to me.

  • October 3, 2010 at 4:24 am
    Permalink

    Very interesting. I have pondered this myself. I found myself growling or…. maybe arghing during their two-against-one talk. Driscoll said he didn’t interact with the church, he was an introvert yet he so preaches right to the people of Seattle. I would say he does a good job preaching right to where his people are. He & MacDonald then said it would be just wrong or weird to do reruns yet if they don’t interact with the church then why not do reruns like McGee? I am not convinced. I agree with the Dena about the attitudes. We never did get to hear Dever out. Thanks for posting it, David.

  • October 6, 2010 at 2:04 pm
    Permalink

    Well… I got to hear Dever out Sunday morning at church. He actually took a break from his expositional series on the Gospel of Mark and did a topical sermon defining the Church. And after the sermon, my opinion is that multisite churches are not the healthiest way of growing and ministering to the Body.

  • October 6, 2010 at 2:51 pm
    Permalink

    @Sarah I’m glad to hear back from you! It’s interesting to hear that he did a sermon on it. I wonder if that was planned or in response to this semi-viral video. For those interested, here is the sermon audio: http://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/audio/

    @Teri The re-runs thing was perhaps the most telling moment of the entire discussion. For the first time, it enabled me to articulate what I disagree with when it comes to the ministry at Mars Hill, namely no interest in timelessness. It was really a light bulb moment for me.

    @Dena If I had to guess, I’d say this was a sit-down three men who know each pretty well, who have a difference of opinion and who have been having this conversation for a very long time. Honestly, I think they failed to define their terms and let led to the confusion throughout the entire conversation.

    I posted the Chan video back in August.

    http://davidknopp.blogspot.com/2010/08/eavesdropping-on-church-leaders.html

    Comments are still open if you have further thoughts.

    Thanks everyone for taking the time to comment!

  • October 6, 2010 at 5:52 pm
    Permalink

    Ok, I finally watched this, and the thing that stood out to me was at 10’50”, where James MacDonald says a preaching student should be started out in a 200-member audience, then graduated to a bigger audience… “You can’t take the guy who’s a ninth-grade preacher and put him in your pulpit.” Why not? Does the smaller church deserve less than the larger church? Isn’t it a matter of expositing truth and continuing a relationship of support between the preacher and the audience, rather than a show? I understand the principle of Matthew 25:21, being faithful with few things and then being given more. But the focus should be different, as I said above. You shouldn’t think you’ve “arrived” at picture-perfection once you hit 3000.

  • October 7, 2010 at 1:15 am
    Permalink

    @Nathan: I appreciate the sentiment and it’s one that I’ve shared often. I will teach one person or 100,000 persons. I just want to teach. Theologically, The number makes no difference.

    But I think the defintional divergence comes from failing to distingish between a theologically competent preacher and a rhetorically competent(or homiletically competent, if you prefer) preacher.

    No theologically person should preach to any size congregation. Period. And I’m pretty sure Driscol, MacDonald and Dever would agree with that.

    But pedagogically (and on a purely human level), training someone in the craft of preaching requires a smaller venue. If a young preacher can’t effectively preach to 200 people, he won’t be able to preach to 3,000 people.

    So here’s my take: It’s not about the number of people, it’s about the comfort of the preacher. If you’re not comfortable teaching a Sunday school class of 25, you will die in front of 300+ folks if you try to preach the Sunday sermon.

    So, I would recommend giving the preacher smaller venues –not because a smaller church deserves a lousy preacher– but because a new, budding preacher might preach better in a smaller church.

Comments are closed.