Avoiding the Two-Sins of Multi-Site

Every Thursday afternoon we highlight the writing of J. D. Greear, Pastor of The Summit Church in Raleigh-Durham, NC. This week, we point you to the work of his pastoral associate, Chris Pappalardo, who responds to some recent critiques of the multi-site model. 

Here’s an excerpt:

As with many critiques of the multi-site model, this isn’t specific to multi-site. This is a tendency for any church, a tendency that increases as the size of the church increases. One might even argue—as we have elsewhere—that having a multitude of campuses can increase leadership beyond the primary pastor, making hierarchicalism less likely.

Read Chris’s full post here. What do you think of his thoughts on the multi-site approach?

John Hammett: What Makes a Multi-Site Church One Church?

[Mondays at Between the Times are devoted to posts from the faculty of Southeastern. Today’s post is by John Hammett, Senior Professor and John L. Dagg Chair of Systematic Theology. Dr. Hammett winsomely and gracefully engages the growing trend of multi-site churches. What do you think?] 

One of the most important movements in the contemporary church is the development of what are called multi-site churches, which describe themselves as “one church in many locations.”[1] Under this model, what makes a church one is not that the members gather at one location. What, then, do they offer as justification for seeing them as one church? Most often, they point to organizational or missional elements. As one book says, “A multi-site church shares a common vision, budget, leadership, and board.”[2] But such a definition of oneness could fit restaurant chains, hotel franchises, or banks with multiple branches, or an association or convention of churches. Surely the unity of a local church involves more.

One additional element of unity would be theological. Members of one church should be united in believing the “one faith” Paul describes in Ephesians 4:3–6.[3] Indeed, many of Paul’s letters to churches included theological instruction and correction so that the churches could be one in faith, both internally and in relationship to other churches.

But most often, the oneness of a local congregation in the New Testament seems to be relational, rooted in the relationships among the members. So, in Acts 2:44, we read that “All the believers were together and had everything in common.” Acts 4:32 continues, “All the believers were one in heart and mind.” The image of the one body with many members in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12 emphasizes equality in value and honor despite diversity in gifts, and is given as an incentive to mutual care. In fact, one of the major themes of 1 Corinthians is Paul’s appeal to all the members there “to agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought” (1 Cor. 1:10). Similarly, the Philippian church is exhorted to make Paul’s joy complete “by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose” (Phil. 2:2). Unity seems more much a matter of the quality of face-to-face, shared relationships among members than with organizational matters among budgets and boards.

The challenge facing multi-site churches is how to foster such relational unity among believers scattered over a geographical area meeting at different times in many locations. Even churches that meet in one location face a similar challenge, for as they grow larger they will soon have too many members for any one member to know all the others. This makes the development of genuine fellowship across all the membership a matter of concern, not just to multi-site churches, but to all churches that grow beyond a very small size. Somehow the New Testament churches, even the very large church in Jerusalem, managed to live out relational oneness. Their example calls us to deeper commitment to the brothers and sisters with whom we covenant in local church membership.

_________________________

This article is adapted from John S. Hammett, “What Makes a Multi-Site Church One Church?” Great Commission Research Journal 4, no. 1 (Summer 2012): 95-107. Bruce Ashford let readers know about this article in 2012. See the post here.

[1] Geoff Surratt, Greg Ligon, and Warren Bird, The Multi-Site Church Revolution (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006). The sub-title of this book is “Being One Church in Many Locations.”

[2] Ibid., 18.

[3] Theological unity is given both primacy and greatest prominence in the list of five areas of church unity advocated by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears in Vintage Church: Timeless Truths and Timely Methods (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 137-140. In addition to theological unity, they highlight relational, philosophical, missional, and organizational unity.

Briefly Noted: John Hammett on “What Makes a Multi-Site Church One Church?”

We at BtT want to make you aware of an article recently published by SEBTS theologian John Hammett: “What Makes a Multi-Site Church One Church?” The thing that makes this article interesting, IMO, is that Hammett does not give a sweeping approval of multi-site models, on the one hand, or a sweeping dismissal, on the other. Instead, heargues that some multi-site churches are biblically sound models, while others are not.

Hammett writes, “This article examines the phenomenon of the multi-site church movement in light of the historic belief in the oneness of the church. It discusses historic understandings of oneness, the definition of oneness used by multi-site advocates, and the single most commonly raised objection to multi-site churches, that they fail to assemble. It evaluates the validity of that objection and multi-site churches as a whole, and finds that the oneness of a local church in the New Testament requires relational and geographical closeness that most multi-site churches lack.”

The article can be accessed at the Great Commission Research Journal website.