As my family and I took our seats following the final congregational song, a large screen descended from above the pulpit. Within seconds, a pastor appeared on the screen and asked us-and the 1,200 other worshipers-to open our Bibles to Ephesians 4. He would be preaching a sermon titled, “Imitating God in Our Relationships with One Another.”

Knowing that the thriving midwestern church had embraced a multisite church structure, my wife and I had informed our children that they would not hear live preaching that Lord’s Day morning, but their response to a preacher on a screen surprised me. At first I attributed their dismay to the fact that we are from a small church in an even smaller community. But as I dug deeper into their dismay, I discovered that their problem wasn’t with the size of the church or even the use of video technology; their dismay stemmed from the fact that the announcements, prayers, Scripture reading, and congregational singing were live events, while the preaching was not. It seemed the church had unwittingly prescribed a greater importance to the parts of the service that were live. In my children’s young and impressionable minds, the preaching was of lesser value because it wasn’t an incarnational, in-the-flesh, event.

That Sunday morning in 2008 is my only firsthand experience with the multisite church movement, but because I love the church and am enamored with it, I had begun thinking through the theological implications of the multisite structure long before attending my first multisite church service. The purpose of this article is neither to defend nor attack the multisite church structure, but to ask some questions and offer some explanations regarding the important theological and ecclesiastical implications of the multisite church structure. Perhaps what is written here will stimulate some thoughtful discussion among the pastors and laypeople of our association.

Same name-different goals

As I set out to write this article, I was convinced that the multisite, multicampus craze was a new thing. Roger Ridley, a Baptist Church Planters missionary in Gretna, Neb., graciously corrected my faulty thinking. “While the terminology may be new,” he pointed out (“multicampus” and “multisite” are recently coined terms), “the practice is not. The multisite church structure has been a model traditionally used in Baptist church planting-as an intentional way to fulfill the Great Commission.”

Gretna Baptist Church has successfully employed the multisite church-planting approach on two occasions. In 2005, the Gretna church helped Peter and Mary Lou Jenks begin a Sunday evening Bible study by sending a group of its members 13 miles away to Bennington, Neb. By 2007, the group graduated from its multisite structure and became an autonomous Baptist church.

Then, in 2008, the Gretna church initiated Sunday morning services in the nearby suburb of Chalco Hills, assisted by Blane and Kelly Barfknecht, church planting missionaries who had previously mentored at the Gretna church with Pastor Ridley. The Chalco Hills church anticipates organizing as an autonomous local church by the spring of 2010. [See “Growing Churches in Nebraska” on page 14.]

That’s one side of the multisite church structure-the church-planting side. In this church-planting model (a hybrid of the mother-daughter church-planting model employed by many GARBC churches over the past 70 years), the mother church facilitates, oversees, funds, and staffs the secondary, or daughter, church campus with the intention of planting an indigenous, autonomous local church. The two campuses are continuously and intentionally working toward that goal of becoming two distinct local churches-a distinctly Biblical goal and practice.

On the other hand, the more popular use of the multichurch structure is not intended to produce autonomous or indigenous local churches. It’s not a method employed to plant new churches; it’s a technique used to expand existing churches. For example, a website called “The Multi-Site Church Revolution” recently highlighted the aspirations of Flamingo Road Church. Flamingo Road maintains official church offices in Cooper City, Fla., yet spreads its multisite structure to seven different locations-including Lima, Peru (about 2,600 miles away). The church website refers to itself as one local church in multiple locations. Their stated goal? To grow Flamingo Road Church to 100,000 people gathering in 50 campus locations.

The multisite expansion model is the only method by which Flamingo Road Church could ever reach such lofty numbers. No single building in America (apart from four major college football stadiums) is capable of housing a church of this size, and it is much more cost-effective to build a local church through the use of the Internet and technology than through adding buildings and acquiring land. This multisite expanding structure also allows a single church and its pastoral leadership to spread its influence over a larger geographic area-even across continents.

Different purposes-different practices

Writing in 2006, the authors of The Multi-Site Church Revolution documented the movement’s exponential growth, citing numerous local churches with multiplying campuses over wide geographical distances. The purpose of this “church-expanding model” (to grow a single local church) drives its practices.

If a single local church is to have more than a single location, it must be creative in its methods of addressing each of the sites as a whole and in its leadership structure. Although congregations may be separated by tens or even hundreds of miles, the church must be led by a single corporate structure-often a kind of Episcopalian or Presbyterian corporate leadership structure that makes decisions for the church as a whole and specific congregations individually. Addressing each congregation is often, though not always, accomplished through a pastor’s simultaneously preaching to individual church sites via video streaming or reproduction on a large screen-as was our family’s experience in the large midwestern multisite church.

On the other hand, the “church-planting multisite model” is driven by a different purpose-the birthing of an autonomous local church-which results in different practices. In church planting, the daughter church willingly places itself under the leadership and ecclesiastical structure of the mother church due to its infancy. Therefore, the teaching and preaching will most likely be live and incarnational rather than on a screen; deacons and church leaders will be developed; and both congregations will be working toward graduating the daughter church to self-supporting, autonomous status.

In most cases, it appears that both multisite structures are driven by commendable motives: to reach people with the gospel of Jesus Christ and to help a local congregation of believers in which they will learn, grow, and reproduce. With the apostle Paul we rejoice that “whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed” (Philippians 1:18, ESV). Although we rejoice in the fact that Christ is preached, we also understand that Paul cared deeply about how the church is structured. Church structure is not as important as the purity of the gospel; nevertheless, it is an important and significant discussion that demands our attention.

So let me ask this question: Is the multisite expansion model Biblical?

Theological questions-and answers

In preparing for this article, I got my hands on as much multisite literature as I could find. Friends loaned me books-including two multisite church manuals. I Googled . . . and Googled . . . and Googled some more! I informally discussed multisite churches with a couple of multisite pastors. Through my reading and research and interviews, my initial concerns with the multisite expansion model remained unresolved. Questions went unanswered. And answers often came attached with, “Well, God is blessing this thing. Our church is growing.” While one cannot argue with God’s apparent blessing, Christians-and especially church leaders-must be certain their philosophy of local church structure squares with Scripture. Before we talk about the multiple sites or campuses, we must understand what the Bible teaches about the church.

What constitutes a local church? This question lies at the heart of the issue. Certainly the local church is of vital importance to our Lord. Of the 27 books in the New Testament, nine were written to specific local churches, another 12 were written to or by pastors and leaders in specific local churches, one is an autobiographical sketch of the beginning of a number of local churches, and one includes Christ’s personal communication to seven local churches. Of the 27 New Testament books, 23 were written by or about or to people within local churches. It is apparent that God cares greatly about the local church.

So what is a local church? Exegetically, the local church is defined by the Greek word ekklesia. It refers to “an assembly of people” and is used to describe secular as well as sacred gatherings (Acts 19:32, 39, 40). Although the Scriptural definition of a church moves beyond that most simple definition (the church is a covenant community that proclaims the gospel, administers the ordinances, and practices church discipline), a church cannot be a church unless it is a visible assembly or group of believing people. In other words, a church is, in its most simple meaning, a visible gathering or assembly of baptized Christians in a specific, single locale.

In an article for the 9Marks eJournal (May/June 2009), Greg Gaines uses this to argue against the multisite church idea. If the church is not constituted of a single gathering of believers in a specific place, then our Lord’s instructions regarding church discipline make no sense. How can we report a member’s unrepentant sin to the ekklesia if it is not a gathering of believers in a specific place (Matthew 18:17)? And how could the apostle John rebuke Diotrephes for casting out believers from the ekklesia if it is anything less than a visible, tangible assembly of believers in one place (3 John 9, 10)? In fact, Paul implied that it is the act of gathering in the same place that enables a body of Christians to be labeled an ekklesia. When the believers at Corinth came together as an ekklesia, they did so by gathering in the same place (1 Corinthians 11:18, 20).

Historically, this has been the Baptist position. Benjamin Keach, a 17th-century Baptist pastor in London (who pastored the same congregation Charles Spurgeon would later lead), defined the church in his classic work, The Glory of a True Church (1697): “A Church of Christ, according to the Gospel-Institution, is a Congregation of Godly Christians, who as a Stated-Assembly (being first baptized upon the Profession of Faith) do by mutual agreement and consent give themselves up to the Lord, and one to another, according to the Will of God; and do ordinarily meet together in one Place, for the Public Service and Worship of God; among whom the Word of God and Sacraments are duly administered, according to Christ’s Institution” (emphasis added).

Scripturally and historically, the multisite expansion structure appears to be out of bounds. And if it is, the “one church, many locations” mantra is an exegetical contradiction in terms.

Does the multisite expansion model encourage an unbiblical ecclesiastical polity or structure? If a congregation is a church, and a church is a congregation, and if the local, visible ekklesia is a single gathering of believers in a single place, then multisite congregations are not a single church, but a network of multiple churches-churches subjugated to a centralized ecclesiastical authority (commonly referred to as connectionalism) or to the governmental authority of other local assemblies. Simply stated, multiple sites are multiple churches, and churches are to be autonomous. The multisite expansion structure lends itself to a kind of unbiblical polity in which the governing authority lies outside local congregations. The polity issue raises additional questions when it comes to the multisite’s ability to obey the commands that our Lord gave to the local church. How do multisite churches obey the command to “come together” and observe the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-34)? How do they come together for the purpose of church discipline-especially when the sin is confined to a member in a particular campus or site (Matthew 18:15-20; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13)? And if baptism is the key by which an individual enters the membership of a church, where will the multiple congregations gather together to examine the candidate’s profession and witness the baptism? Logistically it seems nearly impossible for a multisite church to faithfully obey the commands our Lord has given-commands intended to be carried out in a single, local gathering of believers.

Are multisite expansion models contributing to the market-driven, consumerist approach to contemporary Christianity? To varying degrees, it appears that this is true. Even the most theologically sound multisite churches seem to be contributing-perhaps unwittingly-to the rampant consumerism of our age. In many of these multicampus congregations, Biblically qualified “campus pastors” do not preach to their congregations; instead, screens display video-sermons from the well-known pastor and gifted communicator. This practice may very well lead to an elitist mind-set-that only a very few are gifted enough to communicate God’s Word effectively. This practice not only tends to downplay the necessity of discipling and training new church leaders and the next generation’s pastors, it may explain the tendency among multisite congregants to identify themselves with the name of a pastor rather than a local church.

Additional multisite practices seem to contribute to a market-driven consumerist approach to the church. North Coast Church in Vista, Calif., has four sites-with the main site offering several unique worship experiences simultaneously. Some offer Starbucks and live bands, while others feature a unique venue for artists that blends “a portion of the sermon, worship and art” throughout the service. One campus-various unique worship experiences-and as they themselves say, “You can choose the style of worship that you like and still enjoy the same great teaching in every venue.”

We must ask ourselves this question: Does the multichurch expansion model contribute to an unhealthy kind of market-driven consumerism by offering a smorgasbord of choices, venues, sites, and experiences created and catered just for you?2

These are just a few of the questions multisite churches must consider and answer. Others continue to circulate in my mind. Questions like: How can pastors effectively minister to people in other sites? How can they be responsible for the souls of people they do not know or worship with (Hebrews 13:17)? Should the preaching of an incarnational Christ be consistently “nonincarnational” (on screens rather than in person)? Why do we send real people to preach to real people in Zimbabwe? Why not spare the funds of sending missionaries and instead send video projectors and screens to disseminate the gospel? Will multisite churches eradicate the need for and our ability to plant new, indigenous, autonomous local churches?

These are important questions with equally significant implications. They are not peripheral but central to our understanding of the all-important doctrine and structure of the church. After all, the church isn’t our idea-it’s a treasure of Christ given to our trust. He instituted it, loved it, and gave His own blood for it (Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25). We must not only care for it; we must show extreme care in how we do it.

Ken Fields is pastor of Delhi Baptist Church, Jerseyville, Ill. He blogs at http://theworldfrommywindow.blogspot.com.