Multi-site Churches - Self-aggrandisement or Strategic? Driscoll, McDonald, Dever and Facebook weigh in!

Multiple Sites: Yea or Nay? Dever, Driscoll, and MacDonald Vote from Ben Peays on Vimeo.


A discussion ensued from this on facebook with some friends and when it continued to grow, I thought I'd add the discussion.



Tim 'T-bone' Yoder:     So piping Pastoral talking heads into a bunch of satellites decreases the personality cult of mega-churches rather than increasing it? I'm skeptical of that logic


Nathan Smith:     yeah - it sounded like it made sense at first but it still doesn't make sense. Someone who is effective at getting us to believe that their way of doing something makes sense when it ultimately doesn't is a dangerous type of person. That kind of person is dangerous to learn from b/c they say lots that's good but lead you to believe things that aren't at the same time without you realizing it - yuck and poo - don't like that kind of person. If you're self-deceived then you have to work much harder to convince others of what your deceived about - I guess that's true of all of us - but yuck


Phil Nellis:     I guess my hang up is that I am committed to local theology- not exegesis or even teaching piped in as abstraction. And I believe the local church pulpit is the perfect place to practice "theology from below"- which is the opposite of empire. If I want another perspective I can read a book or listen to a lecture or online sermon- nothing can replace the pastor who is present to her/his congregation and engaged in the interpretive act of the text through and on behalf of the local context.


Nathan Smith:       I like this Phil - theology from Below - there is something sacred about bodily presence, not necessarily of the pastor, but of the community and those that lead. If it truly is a family, then a distant mentor/older brother/father who instructs 75% of the time from afar because he is "more qualified" and "effective" than those who do the inhouse work seems like somebody is sticking their you know what into someone else's home. In their efforts to re-masculate Christianity, they are at the same time emasculating their own inferiors. Funny juxtaposition.

I really do think the danger in this move toward re-masculation can dip into its ugly side, when the efforts to masculate become a transaction. The leader effectually garners the mascularity (glory) of their inferior and amasses to their own, thereby absorbing the inferior other into their identity. The relationship is the same as a feudal lord, i.e., "you give me the ownership of your land and a portion of its harvest, while you live on it, work it and take your portion" - all the while though - the sharecropper does the work, but the landlord gets the title of landowner. It seems like they are practicing a type of spiritual/mascularity feudalism. They aren't leading the "other" into their masculine identity by displaying and modeling stewardship, but instead are taking it from them and only to give it back incrementally until they are deemed ready to lead.  The propriety of the owner to entrust stewardship to others remains negligent in their model.  True discipleship of leaders requires a deconstruction and giving away of power that would undermine the whole process they have set up.  Shepherds are just sheep helping other sheep to become shepherds.  Why would one truly give away power when one's whole trajectory is built off of accruing power from others - taking their influence and stealing their glory and only giving it back to them when you as the leader deem it necessary - sounds like a bad loan shark.  What leaders do to the least of these they have done it unto Him. Stealing the glory of another, is ultimately stealing God's glory, the image of God in the "other."

Paul sent letters to be circulated, but never to undermine the local leadership's direct influence and pastoral care. And obviously Jesus waited for the disciples to be qualified and to get it before he let them lead, preach and take up his role in teaching. (tongue in cheek) This rant may be misguided, but it seems this way to me.



Tim 'T-bone' Yoder:      In the interest of full disclosure I have to admit I have always held this deep unease toward the mega-church culture that I don't presume to be able entirely to account for rationally, but Phil's point is a huge part of the axe I have to grind.

The thing is this conversation did a lot to give pragmatic and theological justification to the methods, but it did not satisfy me by examining what is communicated by the methodology itself. Much of it comes down to its tacit reinforcement that the Christian life comes down to receiving a set of propositions each Sunday that are so un-incarnate that we might as well just watch a piped in video of the preacher.

It goes further in that I feel like there is a sort of commodification of faith going on here, making preaching into a product, and then branding and distributing it. Harvest is particularly awful about this. Even what they call "church plants" are quality controlled and exhaustively branded.

Last, the effect of all of this that if the pulpit itself does not reintroduce a privileged priesthood separating the common folk from the real theologians, how much more does a video screen do that? It's bad enough when preachers use their knowledge of Greek to make common folk feel they are separated from the scriptures, but now we have celebrity status added to the mix.

And, of course, as mentioned, there is the personality cult. It's bad enough when some follow Paul and others Apollos, but neither of them intentionally built a video, print and radio empire.


Randy Buist:       Great thoughts here by each of you. The idea of localized theology & theology from below reminds me of Leslie Newbigin and his idea that the people/local church is the hermeneutic of the gospel.

The idea of masculating the gospel is the person of Mark Driscoll (& others) rather than coming from the biblical text. Mark simply prefers to flex his muscles through his pulpit rather than going to the gym five days a week. He's found a home among the neoconservatives rather than thinking theologically for his location...

Thanks for good insights here!


Phil Nellis:       I would also add, given the letter's and epistles of Paul and others, that even when teaching came from outside of the local community, it addressed issues that were indigenous to that community. Paul, from far away, had his ear to the ground and his finger on the pulse of that community to which he was offering particular and contextual teaching. I don't know if all the churches get the same Driscoll video, but I would be surprised if he records a video for each satellite church. I know, as a pastor, that my interpretive lens is impacted by conversations I had with people in my community that week. Sometimes my sermon shifts in the moment to something I had not anticipated because I make it a practice and priority to be as attuned as I know how to be to the Holy Spirit who speaks in the moment, and to the community, who has the power and authority to hold me accountable for what I say in the pulpit.
That is another point that I didn't consider till just now- that the purpose of preaching is also to transform the preacher, and I don't know if that can happen if the preacher is not in authentic relationship with real people in the congregation who can engage her/him in conversation- not only during the sermon, but certainly in the days that follow.

I guess that is where I ultimately land on this issue- that I see YHWH of the OT, Jesus of the Gospels and the Apostles engaged in conversation with the people of God. Video preaching is simply a monologue- and is really the safest way to proclaim the gospel, which is dangerous and disruptive and Living. It is a low view of preaching to remove one's self from the nexus of the relationship between the preacher / proclaimed Word / community. Those 3 must collide in a community of love.

That was more than I thought I had to say... this is a great conversation guys, thanks.




"The Kingdom of God was never meant to fit under one man's roof.  Theological ceilings accord with personality, passion, principles and preferences but not with the person of Jesus Christ."