Like the Chan-Driscoll-Harris video, I found this a rather odd and awkward conversation. As an outsider to this group, I sense a lot of defensiveness and machismo/alpha male behavior. Not sure that this issue is well served by this kind of public conversation.

Very awkward and even embarrassing. Right from the beginning Driscoll and MacDonald don't give Dever a chance to finish a sentence, let alone explain his position. Lots of pride here...

Agreeing with Dave and Mike DeLong above.. Feels more like Fortune 500 than "kingdom multiplication". And I remember the verses on "making disciples".. But where was that verse for "plant churches" again?

It is interesting that when we have honest conversations like this between people that disagree, and the fur doesn't fly, it is awkward and embarrassing. But when we have videos with the really juicy stuff, everyone gets riled up and defends their side. I am glad that these leaders can sit down, honestly disagree and still be friends - unless this is all a facade and they really hate each other...

These conversations are totally refreshing to me. 3 guys having an honest conversation, can make jokes about one another, and disagree without being jerks. These are the types of conversations most people have everyday. Many of you take yourself and others way to seriously.

what a yawner. I wouldn't even waste my time watching this video.

seriously who really cares? and why should any of us care what any of these men think about 'how to do church'?

they don't live/work/minister where I do. There's no "rules" about how to go about church multiplication.

the only time their opinions would matter to me is if I've left the ministry and am attending their church or if I was on their church staff...

on the other hand, thank you for posting these videos. they help me understand how increasingly irrelevant the whole evangelical media consumer sub-culture has become for anything meaningful for where I'm called.

I'm honestly grateful to have my inklings given clarity.

Interesting discussion. It gave insights from both perspectives which I had not thought of before. I don't think anyone remained defensive although there may have been some inklings of it in the beginning. I think they demonstrated grace toward each other. An aspect that I would like to see covered that is never mentioned is that these satellites are financially funded and tend to draw people away from churches already in the area that are preaching the Gospel. Is there any way that these churches could be helped or benefited? I know pastors of small churches with small funding cannot pull off what these are doing and it may even put them out of "business"? Is that worth considering or do we say "We all started small and that didn't stop us because we are great teachers!" There are pastors out there that out of financial necessity do it all, they prepare their own sermon, they preach it, they visit the sick, they interact with the members. Will this model completely disappear and all churches become staff oriented where these jobs are divided? Is there anything positive to be said for that pastor who is like Timothy?

I love Mark Dever.

I love that he was the one asking questions to gain understanding, not promoting himself or his ideas.

I wish the other guys had taken a few minutes to hear what he was trying to say.

Interesting video. I appreciate what all these men are doing. But I don't see a place in Scripture where "bigger = better." That's modern American ethos.

What if it's not about how many people you minister to? What if it's not about how big or how many or how much? What if the path really is narrow?

And, on the other side, what if multi-site isn't necessarily wrong, but just one part of the story of the Church that is working in some areas in this small point in time? If we are going to hold one hand open and one hand closed we actually have to put some things in the open hand.

I don't know that multi-site is wrong - and it's not my place to judge it. Personally, the style comes across kinda cheesy ("Church is not a passive event - come watch our big screen!"), egotistical ("No one can preach like me!") and relationally hollow ("Now that I've dazzled you, talk to someone else about it."). But that's just my personal view - and that's not the point.

The point is that we join in the reconciliation of this world. And it's going to take more than one approach.

I actually think we won't know the efficacy of multi-site until guys like Mark and James and others begin retiring or backing out. At that point in time, we will really see if the movement can outlast the personality.

I do think Driscoll and MacDonald and others would be well served to examine the struggles at the Crystal Cathedral, Calvary Chapel, and the many other ministries started by very godly, charismatic people who cannot seem to pass off their ministry without it struggling. The whole point of multi-site is that you can gather a larger crowd with Driscoll preaching than you can with the campus pastor. Driscoll himself says this in the video when he references his multi-site church in Albuquerque. So if you are starting there...how can you honestly believe that when Driscoll goes off air there won't be a negative impact?

That is the way i like to see brothers discuss differences. Both sides gave me things to think about.

Thanks for posting this video.

They talked about what happens when Driscoll dies--they become autonomous churches with their own preachers, no video. Here's the question I wish Dever had asked: why wait until you die? At the end of the day, you cannot escape the fact that the only reason the video preaching occurs is that a local expository preacher would draw less people than the celebrity expository preacher. Perhaps all sides already agree on that point, and it's a question of pragmatism versus idealism. But let's not try to couch it in any other terms.

This video has been a great reminder why I'm done with "church building" focused Christianity. Driscoll's misdirection about not being a pastor-centered model of Church is sickening. Does MacDonald and Driscoll want all of their books disposed of once they're dead, too? The whole numbers game is disheartening. Driscoll and MacDonald were talking about someone with a growing preaching gift not being allowed to preach to a group of 900? This is classic spiritual elitism.

I love this. It is a great discussion to have and it is being had by people who are doing the work themselves.

I think the conversation is canned, and being had by men who deeply respect each other, feel the same way about the Chan video too. These are being done for our benefit.

@kipp--Excellent point.

@Mike DeLong--I felt the same as you, especially at the beginning. Mark Dever showed a lot of poise and maturity as he was consistently interrupted.

Here's what I take from this: What if all three are right? What if Christ calls some to multisite, others to single site, and all to church planting? Is this not the manifestation of His global Church--each uniquely called to proclaim His gospel in a way, shape, and form of His choosing, in a specific time and place of His choosing? Why should Dever question Driscoll and MacDonald's call to multisite? Conversely, why should Driscoll and MacDonald question Dever's call to single site?

Dever asks a terrific question about whether the preacher's sermon content should have anything to do with the local congregation's immediate context. Driscoll's response was that introverted pastors can't be expected to relate their preaching to church members questions/concerns because the one-size-fits-all video sermon will draw the most people.

But what's so wrong about wanting to be in the same building with your shepherd every Sunday instead of watching him/her piped him on a video screen? This is essentially the classic fallacy of assuming form and content can exist in isolation from each other.

Once numbers become king, church members need no longer expect a two-way relationship with their celebrity figurehead. The broadcast center mass-distributes a product for satellites to consume. You cannot alter the medium without impacting the message.

Church planting and video-screen planting are not the same, are they?

Good conversation...two against one though..not hardly fair. Dever didn't get to talk much. However, a good spirit prevailed.

A pastor-centered model and a mission-centered model are not opposed. To create this opposition/dichotomy is not helpful.

It never ceases to amaze me that the common person is rarely interviewed about things like this. The talking heads are trotted out as if they are the only ones going to these churches and that they are the only ones with any "relevant" ideas. Smacks of arrogance.

I am with Dever for the most part. The multi-site churches showcase their "preachers" with the web content. These churches have no other preachers? They have no other people with that gift in their congregation? You must be kidding me. I think I get it though. They aren't young or old enough or polished enough or relevant enough or hip enough, haven't written any books or articles, don't have an iPod; too risky.

Here's another item. No one has really examined the motivations behind the "breeding" of multi-site churches or their leadership. Who would? There's all kinds of high-sounding, Bible-based language used to defend or promote the multi-site concept. But I gather some people find the muti-site churches highly beneficial and there are other in between and others who find them predatory.

I _love_ this style of discussion, especially out in public (in contrast to a few of the comments from some people who don't like it as much.) I think this style of conversation is much more raw and in the moment than a pre-produced talk or lecture or even panel discussion. And with the way the conversation was recorded, this video wasn't a crossfire debate where everyone has equal airtime; Dever is more of an interviewer a la Barbara Walters, and James and Mark are the two being interviewed. On the Chan-Driscoll-Harris video, that was Chan being interviewed by the other two.

I think before we point the finger at the world, we better turn to the church and say: look we'd better all get sackcloth and ashes and humble ourselves and say Almighty God:

When I see the church in the New Testament,

They didn't have stately buildings.
They didn't have paid evangelists.
They didn't have a lot of money.
They didn't have organization.
They couldn't get on TV and beg.

But I'll tell you what they did--they turned the world upside down!!

-Leonard Ravenhill

Know this, that the Holy Spirit shall move in these last days, and it won't be through men of renown--they have their reward. But Jesus Christ shall be the Head, and God shall receive all the glory.

"What happens when you die?" Hilarious question by Dever.
I wish some people here would get over their conversational style and listen more for the content. Of course they're aggressive: they're speakers with individual convictions. I'm glad they didn't exactly play nice about it.
Before watching I was biased against multi-site, but I think Pastor James and Pastor M. Driscoll bring up great points. If they have influence it would be wise to use it, and there are resources that allow for that. I see pros and cons to both sides; I think as another commenter said, we'll see the long term impact once these pastors have moved on.

Just a thought to muse over, because I keep coming back to this thread, and to Mr. Dever, Driscoll, whom I think is a media-...um, hmm, don't want Url censoring me again, so I'll leave that hyphen hanging...anyway, the thought occured to me as I was grousing to G-d about this whole multi-site mess when he brought up Paul and his travels.
Yeah, "oh" is exactly what I said too.
Now...I'm thinking G-d does what he does for his own purposes and my job is to do what I do for G-d...and as Y'shua responded to his disciples when they asked him about the one, "what is that to you. You follow me."

So, I'm thinking if G-d is using multi-site for his purposes...then it's G-d's business, and my opinion is just that...an opinion with very little, if any merit in the grand scheme of G-d's methology.

Couldn't watch the video because of connection issues, but IMO we can use video/satellite technology to syndicate the ministries of gifted individuals when it's combined with pastoral oversight and knowledge of the individual congregations/campuses.

People have turned to Christian television in droves because they want (and benefit from) gifted teachers, expositors, etc., but these ministries have little or no connection with their viewers, nor can they.

Didn't Paul and Apollos "syndicate" their ministries by physically going to various venues in Corinth? Paul addressed the 'I follow Paul' and 'I follow Apollos' problem by going to the root of it [i.e., pride, 1 Cor. 4:6-7], not by suspending anyone's ministry because he was becoming a superstar.

One of the ironies here, I suppose, is that because I didn't see the video (I read another summary before clicking this link), I'm not influenced by the posture or personality of these messengers. We don't throw out God-given ministry gifts (Eph. 4) because someone's ego or tendency toward self-aggrandizement got in the way, or because immature believers sometimes turn gifted individuals into superstars who can do no wrong. We have to keep these issues separate.

it seems to me that multi-site can be valuable, but it's not really all that innovative in the grand scope of church history.

all multi-site really ends up being is the evangelical twist on their rediscovery of the diocese-parish model.

a little church history would do us some good.

just say'n.

"a little church history would do us some good."

Were you listening in on my discussion with G-d, nathan? ;)

But you're right, and thats just it...this is not new, well, except for the techie bit, but yeah, same thing, different century.

So instead of itinerant preachers walking/riding/driving to different venues/churches these guys are live/pre-recorded feed to the next church.

Anyway, I still don't like it, but...that is just my opinion, and if G-d wants it done this way...okay, me keeps me mouth shuts about it.

I think where Mark was going with the question, "What are you going to do with your preaching when you die?" is the crux of his argument. Those churches that are so indebted to the preacher's personality will feel a giant empty hole and will be perhaps unequipped to deal without that leadership. Rather than disbanding all of your media (including sermons and online videos, radio messages, etc.), why not train those who would proclaim the Word AND HAVE THEM PROCLAIM IT NOW? Why wait?

Sheer....I admire your willingness to not judge the work of others based on your likes and dislkies. But I disagree with your equating multisite churches to Paul's ministries. Paul traveled and founded churches in new cities, but he could only teach in one church at a time. So he appointed others to handle the word of God when he moved on. Also, his description of how services should be run involved several people speaking. There is nothing in the writings of Paul that support one person doing all the teaching every service in a church, much less in several churches at the same time.

"Paul traveled and founded churches in new cities, but he could only teach in one church at a time."

And yet his letters circulated for two thousand years, the Churches taught from the same letters you and I are taught from on Sunday today.
Certainly, you can see that it is just the medium used that Paul worked within the limits of technology of his time.
Imagine what Paul would be like if he had the Internet, Skype, live chat conferencing, et al...you'd think he be writing to the various churches, or reaching all of them by email?

I know this is hard to grasp, because it conflicts with how you, me, and others view relational ministry...but it really isn't our place to question G-d's methodology...we're to do as he says with what we has, not with what we wants.
If G-d is using live video feeds.../sigh...so be it.
I may not like it, you may not like it, and we might even get stupid, and go all out, develop a bucket load of gall to question G-d's wisdom about it's effectiveness...but if G-d is using it for his purposes...and the last I checked, he really doesn't consult with us about how he achieves his objectives...look...do you really want to put yourself up against G-d?

I agree that God can use just about anything for His purposes, including video feeds. This should not keep us, however, from trying to discern the most biblical way to minister in our culture.

As for the video, I had to turn it off after 5 minutes; Dever seemed to be the only one actually listening to the others, and it annoyed me.

While I don't believe we should limit the Lord in any way He might work, a few things really bothered me with this round table "discussion". First, the number of times McDonald says "I, me, my, mine..." as he interrupts. Reminds me of a story Jesus told about a man with "my grain and my barns I will build for myself". Second, the sheer preoccupation with numbers (number of campuses, number of people,...). We must have a heart for sharing the Good News with all people, but I get concerned when our greatest concern seemed to be Jesus' least concern. As he watched the masses leave He asked Peter, "Do you want to go, too?" The final thing bothersome, is the ego and overconfidence of Driscoll and McDonald against the humility exhibited by Devers. That seems to go with the territory of most multi-site pastors.

i will like to attend the confrence sinec there is a great intrest on the confrence i am a sierra leonean and a student and also i will like to open the sierra leone chapter if its not available.

Sheer, Writing a letter is very different than showing up and doing all the talking. Paul was a given the incomparable honor of writing most of what would become the New Testament. He performed miracles to establish the authority of his revelations. He could very easily have made himself the center of a church that he founded and lived a comfortable life preaching for monetary gain. Instead he told people not to follow him, created services where many people spoke, worked alongside the peolpe he preached to and continually risked his life to spread the gospel.

I have nothing against technology. But in this case I believe that it is being used to expand the unBiblical practice of centering our churches around one person. Can God still prevail? Of course, "I rejoice that the gospel is preached". But I think these pastors have more in common with the "super apostles" that Paul spoke against than with Paul himself.

"But I think these pastors have more in common with the "super apostles" that Paul spoke against than with Paul himself."

Me thinks you are being a wee bit generous with the comparison to the "super apostles," but my own thoughts aside about Mr. McDonald and Mr. Driscoll, I see something else at work here.
Something that is at work in spite of Mr. McDonald and Mr. Discoll.../sigh...designs, so this something comes out not because of them rather because of process they put in place.

A church unity through shared connectedness.

We are a fractured church just as much as the U.S. is a fractured nation...I see G-d overcoming the flaws in our Church through another process...connectedness.
And I most certainly agree with you, Mr. McDonald and Mr. Driscoll are two people I wouldn't put in charge of a janitorial crew cleaning public toliets, much less pastoring a multitude of churches...but I see an end result that is beneficial to the church as a whole...in spite of their egocentric wishes...a result we desperately need as a church in these here almost united States.

Multi-site has been tried before, though less technologically sophisticated. There was a guy name J Frank Norris, a fundamentalist leader in the first half of last century. He pastored two churches, one in Fort Worth and one in Michigan. He would travel, by train, between the two and when he wasn't at one he would have a staff member read his manuscript in his style with his gestures noted.

Anyhoo, when he finally passed away both churches were crushed for three generations. Finally the one in Michigan, it was named Temple Baptist Church outside of Detroit, found some new leadership, a guy named Brad Powell who turned it into Northridge Church in Plymouth, Michigan.

The point is: multi-site is a VERY historically limited perspective and VERY pragmatic approach to ministry. It can lead to good things now, but where is the sustainability?

Finally, I like listening to Mark Driscoll but sometimes he comes off very arrogant. This video particularly, how is big = better?

"A church unity through shared connectedness"

Technology can ceratinly make our world more connected. But what are we using technology to connect around? In this case it is celebrity preachers. Multi-site churches are just an extension of multiple service churches built around one speaker. This is not the way Paul operated and it is not the way of the Biblical church. There were 12 apostles. They went out in pairs to spread the gospel. Paul's description of service involved many speakers ( as well as other gifts). Can God use it? yes, just as he used the financily motivated "super apostles" to spread the gospel. But he also spoke out against them through Paul.

Interesting conversation,I don't think they realized that the tone was like, this is mine and this is the way we choose to do it.I truly believe that they didn't mean it that way but it really seems that they were saying that they have ownership over something. I thank God that the ministers have blessed so many with their leadership, but that's as far as it goes. Stop me if I'm wrong, but the Spirit of God is given to all that believe.There must be a lot of praying and fasting and healing going on in those churches with all that teaching and videoing. Jesus said for those that believe, they shall lay hands on he sick and they shall recover. We also know that signs and wonders are to follow as the word goes forth. Paul reminded the church that they really didn't need anyone to instruct them. The Spirit of God is put in place to lead and guide us in all things. Well i'm sure they know all that, just let your next video be about your awesome spiritual victories, I think that will be enough to help you expand your reach.

I would argue that multi site focuses too much on personalities. Plus how does having a "talking head" help the moving of the Spirit in a local body. The needs of a local body can differ from church to church, to say that we must all stop worship at let's say at 9:30Am to now listen to the "talking head" I think is a hindrance to the Spirits working.

Much of the salient issue of this conversation should center around the understanding of "preaching". Is it only informational or is it also incarnational?
You can not be "responsive to the Spirit in the moment" when you are not present to blend the Word and Spirit and NEEDS of the people in "REAL TIME".
Multiplying spirit-filled preachers, not enlarging the reach of one Apollos, is the New Testament model and the model needed now.

I don't understand the thought pattern of "what happens when Driscoll steps down" then his ministry will be in trouble. For that I ask, "What will happen when Dever steps down; will his ministry struggle?" Both ministries might stuggle, but what are we supposed to do - never allow great preachers to take to the pulpits, because when they leave their churches might be negatively affected? I don't think so. We need to pray that God will raise up new people to carry the torch, and teach current leaders that part of their job is planning successful succession.

I believe any church no matter the size that is celebrity preacher driven will be in trouble when the preacher dies or moves on to another ministry.
When McDonald said every church should go multi site I kind of chuckled because I wondered if that would work in my situation, which is a small church/rural context. Perhaps in the old days when they had circuit preachers that was what they were doing. He would preach once a month at one church, then at another.
When they talked about less experienced preachers and Driscoll said they couldn't get up in the pulpit of a larger church, my question is why? Does anyone think Spurgeon's first sermon was as good as his last? Yet they stuck with him and allowed him to grow. Why won't believers living now do the same thing? Could it be a consumer mentality that is causing Driscoll to say such a thing? I guess we have to entertain and give them what they want. We can't allow a young preacher to grow because if we let him preach the precious sheep are gonna leave. Well, perhaps they aren't so precious then if they would be so snooty as to leave a church because a young guy is getting his experience. Perhaps this is what is wrong with Christianity today in many circles. Consumerism mentality will ruin us all unless we get a hold of the reigns. We are creating a bunch of whiny irritable babies in the pew because we cow tow to their wants and desires. It's time for the church to grow up and be what Jesus calls it to be. Ok, enough rant. I'm done. Bless y'all.

Enjoyed the video. Need to have more of this type of honest and open discussion. However, we spend too much time trying to formulize Christianity. Predictable methodologies is a western concept that was not much a part of the Biblical writing which was predominately eastern and experiencial. It would be so refreshing to hear leaders admit that for "right now", this seems to be working. In prayer and consantly dialoguing with the Lord they should be open for slowing, stopping, changing, modifying what they are doing tactically as and when God directs. Intead, when success happens smart guys develop a whole dialogue defending what they do as right and santified. Ken Taylor gave an interpretation to Proverbs 13:19 that should be heeded in this day, "It is pleasant to see plans develop. That is why fools refuse to give them up even when they ae wrong." Living Bible. I applaud the big church, media church, small church (over half the churches in America are less than 150 people) - but let's watch for unintended consequences resulting from our strategies and be willing to listen and change when God so directs.

I appreciate that Driscoll & MacDonald want to move towards a missions minded church vs. a pastor centric church. While their model does remove the pastor-centric model because the pastor is not there, it definitely elevates the pastor in a different way. I believe that a model that is mission focused and building people up to lead the church campuses with multiple teachers, etc. would be the best model to follow.

One of the first tings I noticed as well, was just how many times MacDonald uses "I, me, my, mine, etc" That's got to reflect an unhealthy attachment to what the Lord has graciously been doing through his ministry. The machismo of big numbers, best approach, great influence, and the like does make me think of Paul and the Corinthian church. What these "screen churches" do to healthy, but small churches in the area where they "pop up" is really ignored. Most of their growth comes from transfers, not conversions (statistically) but that does not seem to bother them in the least... how healthy is that? Why not come along side some of those smaller churches and resource them, resource their pastors, invest in them so that local voices might be heard by the people? Why try so hard to make a name for yourself, or cultivate this unhealthy "star-pastor" mentality in a culture that is already reaping the consequences of turning men into idols.
Dever keeps trying to ask what would happen if the fiber link connection fails right before / or during a message. What then? Are the local facilitators ready on a moment's notice to stand up and preach? Or is church just out early that service? This dependence on one's own ability and on technology instead of God (to raise up other leaders) strikes me as ... well, idolatrous. "slow church planting"? - perhaps not. Toward the end of his ministry, Billy Graham said: "I just wish I had studied the Bible more, and preached less."
May the Lord protect these men from any moral failures for the sake of His Name, and the spread of His Gospel. Amen!
A follow-up to this video in which these men would answer some of the questions raised by many of these posts would serve us well!!!

I appreciate this discussion--both in the video and through the ongoing posts. So much of what has been said, on both sides of the issue, has resonated with me.

I'm an associate professor of Christian ministry at a college that enrolls ca. 800 students. I teach homiletics, pastoral ministry, and evangelism and church growth on a regular basis. Our school was recently bought by a for-profit group that wants to expand our online programs and take us national/international. This group has had success in this sort of enterprise. The anguish that I feel now isn't altogether different from that which this discussion of multi-site churches causes many of us.

On the one hand, I entered the classroom after six years of pastoral ministry because I wanted to make the best use of my gifts and multiply my influence beyond a single locale. You would think, therefore, that I would be thrilled at the prospect of going online--just as Driscoll and MacDonald enjoy exercising their gifts and influence beyond their local churches.

On the other hand, the homiletician in me knows the importance of ethos. Aristotle recognized the important role that ethos plays in persuasion 400 hundred years before Christ. I, therefore, remain unconvinced that online teaching will be as effective as in-person teaching. This much I know: for better or worse, there is a real difference between the two.

Preaching and teaching are by no means equals. I don't mean to imply that my situation and the issue under discussion are synonymous, but they are similar in certain ways.

Personally, I understand the desire to make the most of one's ministry for the Kingdom's sake but also sympathize with the non-celebrity pastors whose churches could be hurt by a satellite church in their neighborhood. I don't know how much research is done before such a church is opened. I would hope that there is much--not just to forecast potential growth but also its impact upon other local churches.

I understood Dever to be open to the prospect of using a satellite feed evangelistically but not for ongoing pastoral preaching. Could this be the solution? The sponsoring church feeds its preaching to a satellite location where a missionary team is busy laying the foundation of a church by establishing relationships, securing a meeting place, etc. The recordings of the sponsoring church's preacher are used liberally for the plant's primary weekly meeting for a predetermined number of weeks/months with members of the team preaching in its other meetings. When the target date arrives, the feed is disconnected. The sponsoring church's pastor has used his gifts, a new church was planted, but a personality cult was avoided.

So J Vernon McGee should not be on the radio despite the fact that the Holy Spirit is using his sermons to draw people to Himself and help them grow. God can only use contemporary clothing and lingo. Success is determined by the number of people responding to a ministry. Jokes are made about exploring whether the ministry model is Biblical. "I believe" and "I think" has replaced "the Bible says."

It seems that one of the great dangers of these multi-site proponents is EGO. I would have more respect for them if they could support their ministry model with Scripture. Their remarks by inference also invalidate the majority of churches in the US, and even around the world, that average less than a hundred people. Reminder: God used a donkey to accomplish His will but before starting a donkey ministry model I would suggest looking at it more closely.

I just think Australia tends to make very good movies, so if someone hands me an Australian or an American film script I would guess the Australian film would be more intriguing.