B21 is grateful to post a guest blog from Pastor David Prince. Prince is the Pastor for Preaching and Vision at Ashland Avenue Baptist Church and is also an Assistant Professor for Christian Preaching at Southern Seminary. This piece was originally posted at his website Prince on Preaching and has been reposted with his permission.
“General William Tecumseh Sherman got it wrong. Peace is hell. In war people think about the country. In peace all they think about is themselves,” said war veteran and wartime president of the United States, Harry S. Truman. From 1979-2000 the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) fought a battle for the heart and soul of the world’s largest protestant denomination, which is commonly referred to as the conservative resurgence (or fundamentalist takeover from the liberal side of the conflict).
The battle for the Bible extended well beyond the borders of the SBC, but the fiercest battles raged within the denomination. I fear Truman’s observation is proving correct in the SBC. The denominational struggle in the SBC produced unity among a broad and diverse group of SBC theological conservatives. The conservative resurgence SBC leaders put biblical gospel fidelity and the future of the SBC ahead of personal preferences and differences. But over a decade after the symbolic final victory of the resurgence at the 2000 SBC annual meeting, the harmony among SBC conservatives seems to have lessened. At least from my vantage point, we conservatives seem far more willing to fight and nitpick each other.
Piper, John. Brothers, We Are Not Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry, Updated and Expanded Edition. Revised ed. Nashville: B&H Books, 2013, xii+308p. $14.99, paper.
Review by Shane Shaddix
This is a guest blog from Jamus Edwards, Pastor of Pleasant Valley Community Church. Posted on behalf of the International Mission Board. You can read Part 1 of this post here.
. . . . . It then struck us that the goal in reaching our city should actually be, in turn, to reach all cities so that someday the final city will be one filled with skin colors that we have never seen and languages that we have never heard.
A primary text that has served to ignite our hearts has been Isaiah 49 which is one of the “Servant Songs,” whom we believe to be Jesus Himself. In Isaiah 49:5, Isaiah says, “And now the Lord says, He who formed me from the womb to be His servant, to bring Jacob back to Him; and that Israel might be gathered to Him—for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God has become my strength.” We take this to mean that in verse five, God is calling Jesus to save Israel, “to bring back Jacob to Him, that Israel might be gathered to Him.” So in verse five God is sending Christ to save Israel, but the mission of the Messiah doesn’t end with Israel. In the very next verse, Isaiah 49:6, God says, “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel…”
Other versions render this phrase “it is too small a thing” (NASB) or “it is not enough” (HCS) that Jesus should only go to Israel. Returning to verse six, while God says “it is too light a thing” for Jesus to only go to Israel, He then continues by saying, “I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”
In essence, God is saying, “It’s not enough to take my name just to Israel (that’s too light, that’s too small). I want more glory and more praise; take my name to the NATIONS!” Just a few verses prior in Isaiah 49:3 God said to Jesus, “You are my Servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.” The phrase “I will be glorified” literally means, “I will display my beauty.”
Thus, it was as though God was saying to our church, “It’s too light of a thing for Me just to be made beautiful in your city. It’s too small of a thing for me to just be glorified in Owensboro. It’s not enough just for the people in the United States to think that I’m beautiful. Go to the nations, that the entire globe might know that I am beautiful!”
Does this realization in any way negate or diminish our love for our city here in Owensboro? Absolutely not. All we are saying is that we believe that it is not enough to simply see Jesus made famous in Owensboro; we want to see Him made famous in every city – in every tongue, every tribe, and every nation. It was upon this realization that God led us (along with two other churches) to formally partner with the IMB in adopting a UUPG (unengaged/unreached people group) in Thailand – the Thai Nyaw people. There are tens of thousands of people among the Thai Nyaw that are currently not worshipping Jesus Christ, and yet Jesus is worthy of their worship – this is why we are going.
However, in going along with our understanding of Isaiah 49, it’s “not enough” for us to simply reach the Thai Nyaw people. That’s too light; that’s too small. Jesus is worthy of more glory. Thus, our long term goal among these people is not to simply see converts, but to make disciples, to raise up leaders, and to see churches planted in Northeastern Thailand. Then, with the same missiology, these churches will understand that it’s not enough to simply reach all of the Thai Nyaw people. That is way too small. Instead, because some of the Thai Nyaw people live in Laos (which is unreached and cannot be entered by American missionaries), we want to see the Thai Nyaw get the Gospel to their own people in this otherwise unreachable country. Then, we want to see the people of Laos get a vision for reaching other unreached groups, and so on.
Ultimately, we seek to make disciples here in Owensboro, some of which will go make disciples in Thailand, who will then make disciples in other people groups in Thailand and bordering nations like Laos and Burma. The vision isn’t to simply see a convert or two in Thailand, but a church planting movement that spreads not simply across Thailand (that would be too small), but a church planting movement that will spread across all of Southeast Asia.
We love our city because Jesus loves our city, and yet we know that Jesus doesn’t only love our city, but that He loves all cities. We also know that ultimately that city which will bring Him the most glory is that city which is representative of every tongue, tribe, and nation. It is for this reason that the mission of Pleasant Valley Community Church is to reach our city, which will as a result reach all cities, so that someday the final city will be one filled with skin colors that we have never seen and languages that we have never heard. Jesus is worthy of such; anything less would be too small, and not nearly enough.
When we replanted Pleasant Valley Community Church (PVCC) in 2006, we hardly knew anything. However, the one thing that we knew with certainty was that we wanted to see people come to know Jesus. From personal gospel conversations over the water-cooler at work, to homeless shelter ministries, to VBS, to simply seeing people converted in our worship services, we’ve been able to see many people in our city come to place their trust in Christ. We celebrate this and thank God often for the impact we’ve seen the Gospel make in Owensboro, but it was really a few years ago when our pastoral team just became incredibly burdened that there was a real sense in which we were restraining the power and scope of the Gospel.
It was as though we had limited our Gospel proclamation to our city, and to our city alone. To put the Gospel in a geographical box is as absurd as trying to put Jesus Himself in a box. Yes, we wanted to reach “our city” and yes the mission of Christ starts with our neighbor, but we were overwhelmingly convicted by the Spirit that He was calling us to do more with this powerful Gospel. It became increasingly clear to us as we began to fast and pray that the Kingdom of Christ is so much bigger than Owensboro, and that we could in fact be instrumental in getting the Gospel to those nations and people around the globe for which the Savior shed His blood.
We were not necessarily shifting our focus away from “the city” but that we were coming to redefine “the city.” To merely focus on our city had the potential to distract us from the glorious picture in Scripture of the final heavenly city – the eschatological city that the Apostle John tells us about – the city that is comprised not simply of white-middle class Americans, but a city comprised of people from every tongue, every tribe, and every nation. It then struck us that the goal in reaching our city should actually be, in turn, to reach all cities so that someday the final city will be one filled with skin colors that we have never seen and languages that we have never heard.
In other words, the mission of Christ, while it may begin in “our” cities, doesn’t end in “our” cities. The biblical goal of getting people the Gospel is not to simply save them from hell, but to see them set aside as missionaries – missionaries who understand, like Paul in Romans 15, that the mission is not complete until the Gospel has been preached everywhere, including those places where Christ has not yet been named.
There seems to be a fear in the hearts of many pastors that an ambition to get the Gospel to the nations could compromise or negate a church’s passion and calling to reach their own city. Since we began to share with our church that we are adopting an unengaged, unreached people group in Northeastern Thailand (that would otherwise have no access to the Gospel), our experience has been precisely the opposite. The level of excitement for the Gospel and the mission of Christ has exponentially and furiously grown at PVCC as we have cast this vision. Since our people began to grasp the scope of the Great Commission to include the ends of the earth, more people are sharing the Gospel with their neighbors and co-workers, not less. More people are talking about the power of the Gospel, not less. More people have a burden for Jesus to be made famous everywhere, not less. Owensboro is being better served, not less served, as a result of our passion for the nations.
B21 is taking a look at the Multi-site debate. Part one, written by guest blogger Micah Fries, raises concerns about the Multi-site movement. Part two will be written from a pro multi-site perspective by multi-site pastor Jimmy Scroggins. We hope this dialogue will be helpful. We are grateful to Micah and Jimmy for taking part in this dialogue and we are especially grateful for both of their ministries.
The current trend among fast growing, effective churches, is to multiply their efforts through the establishment of multiple campuses. The expansion of multi-site churches has moved from the realm of curious oddity to accepted practice among Evangelical churches wishing to move the gospel forward and advance the Kingdom of God. One of the surprising characteristics which makes this movement unique, at least in my eyes, is the broad range of theological and methodological streams that have embraced it. From John Piper to Perry Noble; Tim Keller to Andy Stanley and maybe most famously, Mark Driscoll, this movement of multi-site churches has become common practice in many circles, particularly among large churches that fit in the mega-church category.
In my own circle of friends, the predominant majority seem to be encouraged by this model and enthusiastically endorse it as a viable method of Kingdom advance. You can count me, however, as among those who are not necessarily a fan. I realize that taking this position puts me at odds with men who I have long considered heroes, not to mention a number of those whom I consider to be close friends. I do not take this position lightly. In fact, when I first came into contact with the multi-site model I enthusiastically endorsed it. At one point I even presented it to our elders at Frederick Boulevard and we began to consider its implementation into our church’s strategy. However, the more I critically examined the model, the more I found myself growing concerned.
As I begin to offer some critique, please note that I do so with some level of hesitation. This hesitation exists for a number of reasons. First, I am grateful for the passion for gospel and mission that fuels those within the multi-site movement. The driving motivation behind this model seems to be a passion for mission and I cannot help but be impressed by that commitment. Second, while I may disagree with their approach, I have little problem personally or even theologically with those who lead in the multi-site model. This is not a test of orthodoxy or fellowship, in my mind. I would gladly worship and even preach in a church which practiced a multi-site model, without reservation. While I am uncomfortable with aspects of it, I will be the first to admit that there are good and strong arguments in favor of the model. Scripture does not speak conclusively in this regard and I want to approach the topic with appropriate sensitivity and, hopefully, humility. Finally I critique knowing that many of my influences, heroes in the faith and good friends stand apart from me on this issue. That, in and of itself, is sufficient reason for me to tread lightly as I attempt to walk through this topic.
Having said all of that, I would like to offer a few of the most significant critiques that I think those within the multi-site movement need to wrestle with.
1. Is the multi-site movement founded on a thin theological base?
Having had a fair amount of discussions with multi-site proponents and practitioners I am consistently amazed at those in the movement who lead theologically driven ministries and yet who support their multi-site model almost entirely on a foundation of pragmatic practicality. Please hear me, I have no problem at all with a pragmatic argument. Unless Scripture clearly speaks to an issue, contemplating pragmatic implications is necessary as good stewards of the gospel. At our church we make many decisions for pragmatic reasons. We choose businesses to service our facility, hotels when our staff travels, carpet color, toilet paper brands and so on, all for pragmatic reasons. Pragmatism, in and of itself, is not bad. In fact it is a good and helpful thing. However, in the case of a multi-site model, when there are many missiological and ecclesiological issues to be considered, it seems odd to me to so strongly promote a ministry model on almost exclusively pragmatic grounds.
It is with that thought in mind that I find it curious, at best, to note the lack of critical theological thinking employed by many who are engaged in multi-site ministry. It seems as though we may be enamored with the apparent success stories of the more visible multi-site models (i.e. Mars Hill Church, LifeChurch, etc.) and as a result have chosen not to address the lack of theological underpinning for multi-site in the face of some questions, many of which are substantial, that strike at a biblical approach to church growth. As I have queried multi-site proponents for validation of their preferred model I have heard everything from “it’s cheaper” to “it’s easier” to “we can build it around a particularly gifted preacher”. While each of these may, at times, be helpful it seems interesting to me that theologically driven men and churches would use these as foundational purposes when so many other questions yet remain. The Resurgence.com attempted to provide an argument in favor of multi-site, authored by Mark Driscoll, but to be honest, the piece seemed to rest on theologically tenuous, if not outright odd (i.e. the argument concerning “Multi-sites in the Early Church), arguments. It certainly did not have the typical theologically robust arguments we have come to expect from Driscoll.
So, for those within the multi-site movement, is there a theological foundation upon which you can stand?
2. For those who are both multi-site and Baptist, is the multi-site movement an attempt to redefine our ecclesiology?
For a convictional Baptist who genuinely believes in the theological underpinnings of our denominational identity I am curious to tease out the implications of the multi-site model on ecclesiology. When one considers the multi-site model, in all fairness we have to recognize that there are multiple forms of church polity in play. Elder rule, elder led and, within some circles, a form of congregationalism are being utilized. However, each of these various streams of multi-site life look significantly more like an Episcopalian model of church government than they do a baptistic model which is governed by a local congregation of believers.
No doubt, many will probably dismiss this blurred distinction as insignificant, but I do not think it is. In a time of ever increasing cooperation between denominations (a move which I generally applaud, I should add) it can be popular to take the further step by ridiculing denominational identities, or even dismissing them as insignificant altogether. I would encourage us not to take that step. Our identity as Baptists, and our belief in the autonomy of the local church is no small thing. Remember, our commitment to this model of church governance is not arrived at merely because we think “it works best”, but is instead grounded in what we believe is a strong biblical foundation. When I look across the landscape of the multi-site model I see churches gathered together under a “mother church” like congregation which is led, much like a bishopry, by a man or a group of men, and, at times, women, who preside, to some degree, over this family of churches. Even in those multi-site models which display some level of local, site specific leadership, are they still not aligning themselves under the leadership of a primary source? For those of us in Baptist life who vehemently resist the idea of a “top down” model of leadership, this sure seems like a potentially dangerous step to take.
3. For a movement that is committed to missional living, does the multi-site movement actually assume a counterintuitive position in respect to missional living?
When my church engages in mission across the globe, a major issue which dictates our strategy is that of reproducibility. In other words, whatever strategy we employ in our pursuit of advancing the mission must be one which can be easily, and readily reproduced by local believers. While this issue can often be missed by well-meaning pastors and church leaders its impact on the advance of the gospel is difficult to overstate. You can quickly impede the advance of the gospel by modeling behavior which cannot be reproduced by local believers. Multi-site models, therefore, look to me to be difficult to reproduce models in the context of most local churches. Moving from the flexible model of a local church, to the cumbersome model of multiple campuses across a spectrum of locations, it seems that we have worked hard at producing a “franchise” model of church that looks oddly more corporate than it does missional. An additional concern flowing from this issue is the idea that one church has “worked well” and as a result, we will start additional campuses that bear our “DNA”. While I think this is understandable, I wonder if we’re not walking on the dangerous ground of replicating DNA rather than practicing faithful missiology which would dictate that each local body be grounded in a contextually faithful DNA? This is particularly curious when you realize that some of the most effective “missional” leaders in the USA are strong proponents of this model.
Which leads me to my other missiological concern. The local church is an incarnational representation of Jesus Christ in our community. We are, literally and figuratively, the body of Christ in the world. These local, incarnational churches, are to be led by incarnational leaders who model for their congregation what it looks like to be a living, breathing picture of Jesus. In respect to multi-site models which use a video venue strategy, how is this possible when our “leader” is on a video screen and is preaching, in some instances, thousands of miles away from my community? Are we forfeiting an incarnational ministry for a “professional” model where we exalt the “really good leaders” to the exclusion of men whom God may be calling and equipping on a local level? This commitment to enhancing the “professionalism” of the pulpit is a further concern that dove tails off of my concern in respect to incarnational ministry.
Finally, as we think through the missiological implications, I wonder how much concern we should pay to the advance of a “cult-of-personality” culture that continues to pervade our churches. While I am grateful for godly men who are particularly gifted and seem to be have some sense of God’s unique blessing on their lives, I think it is fair to ask whether or not these are the only men qualified to lead a local congregation? Those in the multi-site movement, particularly those utilizing video-venue technology, may not realize it but this seems to be the message that they are promoting. What is more, a number of multi-site practitioners have shared this with me as one of the values of multi-site. Taking “advantage” of the “super gifted” or the “uniquely blessed” is a significant motivation for the multiplication of video venue, multi-site ministries. How well does this compare with the local church’s biblical commitment to equipping the saints for the work of ministry and Jesus’ own model of training men and then rapidly deploying them for ministry? At the very least I hope we will engage this question more substantially in the coming days.
In conclusion, I ultimately pray that the multi-site model is used to bring many to saving faith in Jesus. I fervently hope that it helps to advance the glory of God among the nations. However, I also hope that in our zeal to advance the gospel among the nations, we do not attempt to do so while sacrificing a biblical identity on the altar of pragmatism. May it not be so.