More Multi Thoughts (that keep multiplying!)

It’s been quiet on this blog for a while, but I thought I’d post some more thoughts about multi, as it seems to be a hot topic at the moment. The other day Mark Driscoll linked to a video in which he, Mark Dever and James MacDonald debate multi, and it is getting a lot of views.

I guess everyone knows who Driscoll is, but may not know the other two. Dever is pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, and leads the 9Marks organisation, which is well worth checking out. It may just have been the editing, but Dever gets rather squeezed out by the more voluble Driscoll & MacDonald in this video, which is a shame, as he has at least as many interesting things to say. I wasn’t familiar with MacDonald until I heard him speak at the Gospel Coalition conference a couple of weeks back, but he is pastor of a Chicago megachurch.

[A digression: A few people have asked why I reacted to a tweet that Driscoll had put out linking to a post by MacDonald on the Royal Wedding, so let me explain myself… 

Basically, I thought it was ignorant and graceless. Now, I’m not above posting ignorant and graceless things myself, but I think both my readers can cope with this (hello mum!) whereas MacDonald clearly has a massive audience/influence. (And anyhow, it’s always much easier to see the ignorance and gracelessness in others than in oneself.) I am not exactly a defender of Anglicanism, but MacDonald was just way out of line (historically, as well as in tone) in some of his comments and I didn’t think the post did him or Driscoll any credit. The bio on MacDonald’s blog says, “James is down on cranky, cheerless Christians,” and in this case that definitely felt like pots & kettles. But perhaps I’m just being ignorant and graceless again…]

If you haven’t seen the video yet, here it is:

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

A few observations:

1. Contrary to what Driscoll/Macdonald say, most churches won’t be multi-site and shouldn’t be multi-site. Why? Because most church leaders do not have the leadership skills to run such an organisation. Most churches will level out at ±150 people because that is the size that human organizations tend to level out at, and the size that most pastors can handle.

I am personally a fan of multi, have been thinking about how to do it for five years or so, and believe it is the right way for us to go at Gateway – so I am in no way down on the concept, but do think we need some healthy doses of reality. Even building a church of 500 people is very difficult (certainly in the UK). I have now been leading churches for 10 years and haven’t managed it yet, and there are plenty of men with longer ministries and more impressive resumes than me who haven’t managed it either.

2. As Tim Keller observed at the Gospel Coalition conference, “Video preaching isn’t a sin, but it’s not a great trend.” Why? Because generally preaching should involve face to face interaction with the congregation and a response to what the Spirit is doing right there, right then.

Now I know and understand the arguments that in larger churches where a live preacher is augmented by a video image people end up watching the screen rather than the man anyway. But that is hardly a great apologetic for video preaching! It’s like saying, “In supermarkets, there’s chocolate by the till, and people buy it – therefore we should give people more chocolate.” Maybe, instead, we need to ask some socio-theological questions about our addiction to screens.

Of course a well produced video of a good preacher is going to ‘work’ in a service. But there are still some questions we should ask about this working.

Also, video preaching is only really going to work where the preacher is especially good. The likes of Driscoll and MacDonald (and Dever) are exceptional in their gifts. Most of us are far more run of the mill. Making models of the exceptions is usually a bad idea. Some, uniquely gifted guys (who are more ‘apostolic’ than ‘pastoral’ anyway) will make video work well. Most of us couldn’t.

3. There are other possible ways of doing multi than using video, or having one speaker who tears from venue to venue. (Which is another model that causes me theological/philosophical problems as it seems to often mean that the preacher is never part of the worshipping congregation, responding to what God is doing there, but rather a kind of actor who pops up to do a turn.)

One of the connections I most enjoyed making while in Chicago was with a pastor from Newlife Community Church, who are doing multi in a way which is much closer to what I would like to do at Gateway. They’ve got a really inspiring video here.

In Poole/Bournemouth I think multi can work, with fairly small congregations (around the ±150 mark), led and shepherded by local elders, who also preach regularly to their own congregations, but where this eldership is joined together in one elder team. This team would prepare sermons together, and preach the same passage/topic each week, but it would be a team of preachers doing it, who know and love their people, rather than one guy on a video, or chauffeured in.

Of course, this is still at the dream stage for us, but I’m convinced it’s where we should be heading.

So, in conclusion, my urging would be that if you are thinking about multi, then great! But do really think about it! It might not be right for you, period. And how Driscoll or MacDonald do it almost certainly isn’t right for you – and I hope I’m not being ignorant and graceless in saying so.