Fascinating comments Darin,
I really appreciate your word on this. There is a reason our ecclesiastical structure is not episcopalian, Thanks again.

I’ve come to enjoy this podcast and happens to be one of main fixes for Reformed theology, as well as White Horse Inn and others. The Internet and radio ministries here in Southern California made it possible for me to embrace the Reformation. I went so far as having to leave friends and relatives from my local church, which has deep familial roots for me, and become a communicant member of an OP church that is a 20-minute commute. And due to severe economic turbulence, as well as being a full-time college student and not having a lot of family or friends to support me with this radical change, I don’t have the luxury of reading Reformed theology books during my spare time and online media is really the only convenient medium that is on-the-go for me. What do you think would be the best course of action for people like me, who do want to establish a theological library but not have time?

Thanks for sharing that Pastor Stone. That’s one of the most helpful critiques I’ve seen of that multi-site model. Semper reformanda.

I formerly served on the pastoral staff at Harbor PCA in San Diego, which is arguably the poster child for PCA multi-site churches. Harbor does not send a video feed to the various sites. Instead, a church planter (classified as an associate pastor) establishes a congregation and is the pastor of that congregation just as if he were any other church planter. And then as that site grows, the church planter may establish a second “site” out of the original congregation. Thus, Harbor is “multi-congregational” and “multi-site.” They contend to be one, single church with six congregations meeting in nine sites. Clear as mud?

With regard to church polity, pastoral care, and fidelity to ordination vows in view, the multi-site/franchise model is awash in in problems.

As a multi-site church grows in to 5, 10, 20 sites, it begs the question as to how one session can oversee so many sites. in such a context it will be most RE’s and TE’s will rarely if ever visit all the sites. And even if they do, a mere “visit” hardly constitutes legitimate oversight. In the PCA, elders vow “to walk with exemplary piety before the flock.” How can an elder fulfill that vow if he never attends the site(s) before whom he has vowed to walk? How is a member to trust that the session is providing solid oversight and shepherding if only one or two session members attend his or her site? Structurally, elders are both unable to provide pastoral care to the members of the various sites and to provide accountability to the church planters of sites other than the one they regularly attend.

This model also creates a problem for church members in upholding their vows. PCA members vow to submit “to the government and discipline of the church.” But practically, how does that happen if the members have occasion to cross paths with only one or two members of the session? One or two elders hardly represent “the session,” which is why there is a certain amount of session members required to constitute a quorum.

Perhaps the fundamental problem of the multi-site/franchise model is that they insist that all of the sites constitute one church. They will flatly deny that site A is a particular church, distinct from site B. But if you start asking members of site A if they have ever had the occasion to cross paths with any other member or elder from site B or any of the other sites, you will almost universally hear them say “no.” The unity of all the sites is only meaningful to elders, not to the congregation as a whole. There is not much that is done where members and elders would have occasion to intermingle that is not commonly done by different, particularized churches.

Their assertion that all the sites should be considered as one local church also calls into question the New Testament definition of the word “church.” I’m not convinced that the NT word “ecclesia” ever refers to multiple sites of one local church with one overseeing body.

At best, the multi-site/franchise model creates a presbytery within a presbytery; 5, 10, 20 sites acting according to the will of the session rather than the presbytery. But I think it’s actually more overtly insubordinate to presbyterian polity than that. Because in my experience, the multi-site/franchise model is essentially an Episcopalian polity disguised as Presbyterianism. The senior minister functions as the bishop who executes his power through the church planters (classified as associate pastors) that function like parish priests or rectors. Assistant pastors function as they would in any PCA church, but are often asked not to come to session meetings. And of course, as you mentioned in the broadcast, assistant pastors are hired and fired by the session and have no direct accountability to the congregation. They have no formal voice on the session level, but they do have a formal voice at presbytery (which is akin to a member of congress being allowed to vote on the house floor, but not for himself in his own congressional district).

The multi-site/franchise model gives all the appearances of an “ends-justifies-the-means” approach to church planting. From the outside, what’s not to like? You can plant a whole bunch of PCA churches/sites in a major west coast city. And certainly, we should praise God for that! But once you begin read between the lines, you’ll discover a whole host of serious practical and theological problems that result from violating our vows and subverting our polity.

Thanks Tim. I didn’t know if anyone got it!

By the way Camden, I liked your “Assistant to the regional pastor” joke.

Semper Reformanda.

It’s also not clear to me that you can implicitly rule out the validity of all churches that self-identify as ’emerging’. To the extent that they preach the gospel and faithfully administer the sacraments, they are still the true church.

I’m sure these are real anecdotal encounters that the participants have experienced in the course of their ministries, but do they rise to the level of Contemporary ecclesiological issues? I wonder.

Then there is the whole thing of impact of technology on the way churches are formed, specifically multi-site churches and delivery of messages to different locations. How can this happen and be faithful to the biblical model was the generalized question? Meanwhile, I’m wondering what is the difference between a preacher sending his message to multiple congregational sites via television, and the Apostle Paul, sending letters to the churches of Asia Minor, many of which he was involved in starting? Technology is different, but I think the same effort is going on for both: the delivery of the word of God to his people. Paul writing was obviously more foundational, than contemporary multi-site pastors. He was writing and distributing part of the Bible. He was doing it using the means, methods and technology of his day.

Does anyone seriously think that either the churches of Asia minor or contemporary multi-site congregations did not, or do not have local pastors, and elders that care for the local needs of the people? Of course not.

From this point we “wandered” into discussions on the number of offices in the church. One take away I got from the conversation is how threaten and overwhelmed the ministerial officers seems to be by democratized knowledge conveyed by the Internet. Oh where, oh where has the old “Upstairs, Downstairs” world of the Old Princeton aristocracy gone? A world where the domine ruled, and the sheep quietly followed.

Guys, if you want to discuss social media, and the influence a democratized internet in our world, and the impact the knowledge it presents on critical thinking and the interpretation of the scriptures, get some participants in an episode who really know something about what social media and the internet is, and how to use it in the name of God?

Maybe some pastors are threatened and overwhelmed by new technology because they have a view of themselves in their congregations which assumes that they themselves are the sole protectors of truth in the congregation; that they alone must protect or lead the sheep through this “new” technology.

Be thankful that people at all levels are having discussions that have not been heard in the chuch for a long time. Be thankful for the enormous range of information that is available on the internet. Gather the best of it from around the world, organize it and display it on your own church web sites. Make it available teaching your people how to constructively use this information.

Investigate threaded discussions and blogs, and videos and podcasts as ways to engage the general public with the Gospel and to train you own people as they jog alone the walking paths or drive in rush hour traffic.

The task is not just yours. Use gifted people in your congregation to help collect and organize. Democratization of this kind is good, I think. Every congregation with a web site can instantly multiply its impact on its own people and on its outreach to none believers. Help your people to think about how THEY could use social media they use every day to display their Christian life before fiends, neighbors and acquaintainces. I bet it is easier for your people to share what they believe via social media, than it is to do it face to face encounters. If they do engage those God brings across their paths in this way, the message won’t stop there. It will grow into personal relationships and God will use it to gather people into His Kingdom.

It’s time to mobilize and train the people in our congregations to use what God has provide in our day to spread the Good News. Some will do it in very plain and uneducated ways. Others, with great critical skill and intellectual accumen . . . and God be glorified and save, show His love, and heal some.

While it gives me great delight to know that you agree with me, I do apologize for cutting the brethren off when they were trying to speak. Perhaps I drank too much coffee before this episode! Jeff and I speak on the telephone weekly and are used to super charged discussion. Sometimes we don’t realize how a show will come across. If you have benefited from our programs, I do hope that you will continue listening. And, this is a safe place for people to reveal their identity. Or you can email me at nbatzig@gmail.com. I would love to get other helpful feedback from a faithful listener. Thanks again.

I apologize if we sounded rude. That was neither our intent nor did any of us think we ourselves had been that way to each other. Have you ever been around the family dinner table and listened to conversations?

Few thoughts seems to me that the there was more of a focus on epistemology. I think you guys should check out Neil Postman’s treatment of technology in his book “Technopoly” Here are some mp3 on the topic:

http://www.fireandknowledge.org/archives/2009/12/28/postman-on-technology-education/
http://www.scottlondon.com/insight/clips/postman.mp3
Great article: http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo3/3coleman.php

I was curious to know why there was not mention of baptism and it’s relation to Priest, Prophet, and King? Is that a Catholic only distinction. I presumed all denominations would adhere to that.
From the Roman Catholic Catechism:
1268 “The baptized have become “living stones” to be “built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood.” By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.” (i.e 1 Peter 2:5,9)

Last major clarification needed regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass. The Catholic Church does not teach Christ is re-sacrificed. It is re-presented but remains a memorial but applies real,present, unbloodied since the offering is different (paraphrasing)
Please read
“The sacrificial memorial of Christ and of his Body, the Church paragraphs. 1363-1366”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm#V

I enjoyed hearing the dialogue regarding the elevation of modern theologians and their role of church teaching. It reminded me of 1 Corinthians 1:10-17. This was one of the big things that disgusted me in modern Protestant thought. Catholic’s have saints and Protestants have current publishing authors. That’s not meant to sound harsh but a mere indication of equivalency. In an extreme case you walk into a youth min room and there are posters of Third Day or you walk in Catholic church have statues. Same difference.

Keep up the good work!

I was trying to gently suggest that you guys sounded rude toward each other (excepting Camden). Jeff, you sounded condescending toward Nick (and I agreed with Nick on your point of disagreement at the beginning of the broadcast). And Nick, you keep cutting people off.

I would contact the bookstore at Westminster Seminary California to see if they can help.

Why I Came to a Three-Office View, by Mark R. Brown. Ordained Servant vol. 4, no. 1 (January 1995)

See this dicussion on the Warfield list, in which you will find some resources as well.

I did see that someone lse mentioned that Thomas Smyth’s Ecclesiastical Catechism would be helpful, which can be accessed here

Unfortunately it’s a dissertation, so it’s not that easy to procure. http://www.worldcat.org/title/divine-right-presbyterianism-and-church-power/oclc/40541671&referer=brief_results