Only 10 minutes???? C'mon I'll pay for the production costs to get more footage!

I'm sorry...I am totally with Dever on this one. I think multi-sites feed the pride of men and the superstar pastor culture of our day. I can't imagine the Apostle Paul would have approved of mutli-sites, instead he would have appointed elders in each location and went on.

Paul preached multi-site through his letters. Just because it's video means it's not viable?

Driscoll's statements that 'mulit-site draws attention away from him' seems counter-intuitive, but I'll take his word for it. However, to me, the multi-site concept seems to cater to the our insatiable hunger for media intake while making the dynamic of preacher and audience less personal and intimate (but not unbibilical!) Having said that, the benefits seem very compelling.

Also, Driscoll and MacDonald seem to imply that multi-site is temporary while the church plant becomes established. Is this the case?? Does multi-site become phased out over time at each church plant?

I'm with Dever.

I think you go in the direction the Holy Spirit leads. There are Biblical arguments for both multisite and single site, so it isn't really an and/or in my opinion. Having visited a multisite church several times (Buckhead Church in Atlanta, GA), I can say that when executed well, you really don't notice a difference concerning the dynamic of having a preacher live vs. having one on screen, and the campus pastor and staff/volunteers are very engaged with the congregation, so the guy on the screen almost becomes just that - the guy on the screen.

I loved this video - hilarious and at times a little awkward! I hope Gospel Coalition puts more out. I thought Dever could have been given some more time for explanation before MacDonald and Driscoll interrupted, especially on ekklesia. I thought Driscoll's comment on pastor-centred versus mission-centred was compelling, and the number of opportunities for training up young guys was surprising.

Arguments about single vs. multi-side aside...Driscoll and MacDonald's lack of respect for Dever by interrupting and not allowing him to elaborate on his points or counter theirs made me lose respect for them. Their arrogance was really prominent both in their behavior and their words.

Meanwhile, Dever's patience with them made my respect for him increase.

I was really taken back by Driscoll and MacDonalds arrogance and talking down to Dever. Never heard of MacDonald nor Dever before until this video. Dever was very cool-headed and wasn't even allowed the opportunity to share his points let alone ask the questions he was hoping to.

I think the healthiest form of church govt is a multi-site church with different teaching/preaching pastors. Both forms they are speaking to allow for a preacher to attain "Superstar" status and that is a very dangerous road for pride and idolatry. Both are still biblical however.

I come from a church where we have numerous elders who preach and it really garners that element of community and plurality of eldership. While there are elders who are the primary teacher/preachers, there is a real sense of visibility beyond one man.

It really is a freedom issue, but I was really taken back at how Dever was treated by Driscoll and especially MacDonald. It furthers my belief that multi-site can lead to issues with pride IMO.

I think we are forgetting a few things here. First of all, how does one preach effectively to a congregation one doesn't know? As a pastor, I cannot imagine trying to preach to people, on a regular basis, with whom I have very little contact. At best I become a talking head; preaching very general truths about our faith, but never really speaking to the members according to their particular experiences. Over the long haul, real transformation occurs when the shepherd knows intimately the lives of the sheep. I can understand a pastor doing a talk at a large conference once in a while (I do that myself), but to disciple well over the long haul, the pastor cannot remain some video feed from some other location. Not only that, but if the one teaching the word of God is not known by the listeners in the community, then what kind of real communion is there between teacher and disciple?
Second, this discussion attributes far too much power to the sermon. Everyone can learn a great deal from a talk via video, simulcast, etc., but few people grow deep in the faith through sermons alone. I don't mean to dismiss Driscoll's and MacDonald's efforts here, but i think that multi-site churches cater to our cultural passion for 'celebrity.' IMHO, there needs to be ongoing and thorough discipleship for people to grow in healthy ways. I think we just need to be a little honest and say that the multi-site video services are a tool to 'draw people' to the message of the gospel via a charismatic speaker. And as a professor once told me in seminary, 'what you win people with, you win people to.'
As I say, real growth comes from the on-site pastors. If this be true, then let's get rid of the video and teach people about a faith that is not about getting buzzed via a cool speaker, but about the 'long obedience in the same direction' with a very ordinary community and, most likely, a very ordinary preacher/pastor. Not to dis the other two men, but I think Dever has got this one right.

Hilarious. I love how Mark & James take a vote. Love all those guys...they're in it for the Gospel.

So cool! I love these conversations/debates.

Another thing to consider - When I say Mars Hill Church - what do you think of? Instantly you think of Mark Driscoll. I think when you mention any church and the lead pastor is immediately thought of then that is usually a good sign that the Church is built upon a primary aspect rather than a plurality of the cornerstones of a church (Discipleship, Preaching, Teaching, Healing, Mission etc).

I think the first thing that should come to peoples minds when you say " Insert_blank Church" should be - Spirit-led Disciples of Jesus.

To me it's kind of a moot point. Why does there have to be a right or wrong (of any degree)? There are many gifts given to the Body, distributed as the Lord chooses & not all are the same (Ro 12, 1 Co 12, 14, Eph 4). I like diversity & I think that's what God has intended.
However, I'm more inclined to an intentional, relational discipleship model which is pretty difficult to do in both a multi-site model, let alone in a mega-church model. That to me, would be the challenge.

Dever unpacks his rationale from the Bible at capitolhillbaptist.org/audio/2010/10/the-sufficiency-of-the-bible-for-the-church/
Solid teaching without interruption.

First, I felt like I was listening to my Keswickian, numbers-based, decision-oriented brothers in Christ who promote things such as huge bus fleets, Youth-pastors shaving their head (or dying their hair blue, or swallowing a goldfish in front of everyone in the morning service) if one bus captain gets more kids to make "decisions" and more "baptisms" than the other bus captains.

I know, I know, their claim is that their ministries are Christ-centered, grace-motivated, Spirit enabled--I get that--and I'll take them at their word for now. And I know they would seek to distance themselves from those I have described above. But, if you didn't know their background, the perception is that they sound like easy-believism fundy Baptists (and I come from that group) whose focus is pragmatic. I admire their desire to raise up more churches and more pastors--those are biblical desires.

But, last, did you see how quickly ANY thought of exegetical discussion was dismissed? MacDonald pays Dever a compliment about his book on Church polity, and then they both dismiss any attempts at even a little crowbar exegesis. Nine of the minutes should have been examining Scripture, and the rest with their pragmatics.

We can do all sorts of "stuff" because it works--and even accomplishes some biblical goals--but that doesn't mean the ends justify the means. Someone should argue the case for M/S churches from an exegetical basis--it didn't happen here.

Sam Hendrickson
Church Planter

Ultimately, I side with Dever. I've always felt that multi-sites create a cult of personality, and I know that Driscoll said that the opposite is true, with amens from MacDonald, but their counter-argument, in my opinion, was not persuasive.

Even if we dismiss the cult of personality argument, I still have other problems with the multi-site model that MacDonald and Driscoll failed to alleviate. I know that in an ultimate sense, the head of the church is Christ, but in all ecclesiologies besides presbyterian and reformed, the "head", if you will of the local congregation is the pastor, and even in, we'll just call it presbyterian polity, with the "head" of the local congregation being the session of elders (which includes the teaching elder aka pastor), the "figurehead" is still the pastor (I am presbyterian, by the way...OPC.)

Okay, so now, if we accept that as true that Christ is the head of the church macro, and the pastor is the head, or at least, the figurehead of the church micro, then a serious problem with the multi-site model is that we have a disembodied figurehead, with what essentially amount to underlings handling the discipling, and shepherding, and counseling. I believe that pastors, as the shepherd of men's souls, should be present, and accessible, and well, tangible. This method prevents it, creating a barrier of technology. It's like a decapitated body with a hologram where the head should be. I don't think it's healthy.

Also, as Sam Hendrickson in the post before me said, it's ultimately pragmatic, and even in my relatively short time laboring for the kingdom (about 6 1/2yrs of my 31yrs on this earth), I have learned that pragmatism is -never- the right answer, and in the rare instances where I have resorted to pragmatism, it has -never- been the right move, and I have -always- regretted it. Again, I'd essentially echo Sam and say that Driscoll and MacDonald essentially avoided and almost eschewed exegetical discussion, and were almost entirely pragmatic in their arguments. Now, as a concession, I suppose that if there's a solid biblical prescription for something and we're not choosing an action for pragmatic reasons, but for something deeper, then I suppose it's not wrong to discuss pragmatic consideration as secondary or tertiary, so long as we have a better foundation underlying it first. Fine. But where MacDonald, and Driscoll failed, in my opinion, is to show any better foundation, and so, I'm left with nothing but empty, pragmatic offerings, and therefore, left devoid of anything to shift me from my original position.

Now, I do respect both MacDonald and Driscoll, and esteem them as brothers in Christ and gospel preachers, though I don't follow either of them particularly close (I follow MacDonald closer than I follow Driscoll.) I don't think anybody's going to hell over this, but the purity of the church and perhaps even the gospel on the non-essential, or beneessential level is still at stake, and I just simply think that on this point, Driscoll and MacDonald are wrong. Love em as brothers, totally give them the benefit of the doubt as far as pure motives, and genuine desire to serve and magnify their Lord, and reach the lost, plus, I appreciate the positive contributions that they have made...but this is not one of them, in my estimation.

Soli Deo Gloria!

-J

Not anyone quoting scripture, no Bibles on the table...no filmed prayer before the discussion...Lame! Men boasting and arguing about Biblical things, but only justifying it with numbers....

^^ Absolutely correct. Notice the first thing they mention to justify their churches is that "people are coming to Christ" -- so in other words, as long as people accept Christ, we can negate the Bible? Driscoll's first response to Dever is "According to WHO?" Again, the focus is outside Scripture -- his response should have been "According to who in the Bible" or "According to what use of the Greek word and how do you cross reference that word all throughout Scripture?"

Failure to adhere and submit to Scriptures.