John Owen on Multi-Campus Ministries
Posted on 10. Sep, 2009 by Danny Hyde in John Owen
Was John Owen a prophet? Not quite, but read below.
While preparing my final ThM paper on John Owen’s, A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God and Discipline of the Churches of the New Testament (Works 15, 447–530), I came across the following gem (Works 15, 496–499). In this section Owen spoke of what is called today the “multi-campus ministry.” You know what I mean, right? When one pastor “serves” several gatherings/congregations/sites/campuses, most often than nought, by shepherding his flock via a video screen? Isn’t that in the original Greek of John 10:14? “I am the good shepherd. I know my own campuses and my own sites know me by my image on the big screen in front of them.” Alright, back to the point.
The background to Owen’s words here in this section may very well be the medieval phenomenon of jus patronatus, in which among others, bishops and priests were enabled to have “beneficences” in more than one parish, making their living off of several congregations while not really serving any of them. After all, that was what the “site pastor” was for, right? Anyways, what is interesting is how some Reformed churches dealt with this situation. The great Synod of Dort (1618–19) dealt with jus patronatus. While not abolishing it, the Synod sought to curb its abuse (Session 156, 157).
Owen’s lesson for all Reformed and Presbyterian pastors and seminary students is clear: before you listen to some advocates (since some have complained that I am “picking” on one advocate, here is another) of “modern ministry” and start planning your multi-campus, multi-media, church network, listen to Owen—better yet, listen to Jesus who knew his sheep by name and listen to Paul, who spent time in every single home of his parishioners in Ephesus (cf. Acts 20)! You are called to shepherd souls, not be a rock star, pop idol, or media mogul. Get over yourself and get to pastoring like the Puritans: preach, pray, and visit your people.
__________
Question 26—May a person be called to, or be employed in, a part only of the office or work of the ministry; or may he hold the relation and exercise the duty of an elder or minister unto more churches than one at the same time?
Answer
Neither of these has either warrant or precedent in the Scripture; nor is the first of them consistent with the authority of the ministry, nor the latter with the duty thereof, nor either of them with the nature of that relation which is between the elders and the church. Acts xiv.23; 1 Pet. v.2; Acts xx.28.
Explication
The second part of the question is concerning the relation of the same person to more churches than one at the same time, and his undertaking to discharge the duty of his relation unto them, as elder or minister. And this also is irregular and unwarrantable. Now, a man may hold the relation of an elder, pastor, or minister unto more churches than one, two ways:
1. Formally and directly, by an equal formal interest in them, undertaking the pastoral charge equally and alike of them, being called alike to them, and accepting of such a relation.
2. Virtually, when, by virtue of his relation unto one church, he puts forth his power or authority in ministerial acts in or towards another.
The first way is unlawful, and destructive both of the office and duty of a pastor; for as elders are ordained in and unto the churches respectively that they are to take care of, Acts xiv.23, Titus i.5, and their office-power consists in a relation unto the church that they are set over, so they are commanded to attend unto the service of the churches wherein and whereunto they are so ordained, Acts xx.28, 1 Pet. v.2, and that with all diligence, care, and watchfulness, as those that must give an account, Heb. xiii.17, which no man is able to do towards more churches than one, the same duty being at all times to be performed towards all. And because the whole authority of the elders, pastors, or bishops of churches, is ministerial, 1 Cor. iv.1, consisting in a power of acting upon the command of Christ, they are bound in their own persons to the discharge of their duty and office, without the least pretence of authority to delegate another, or others, to act their part or to do their duty; which would be an effect of autocratical authority, and not of obedience or ministry.
The latter way, also, of relation unto many churches is unwarrantable: for,
1. It hath no warrant in the Scripture; no law or constitution of Christ or his apostles can be produced to give it countenance; but elders were ordained to their own churches, and commanded to attend unto them.
2. No rule is given unto any elders how they should behave themselves in reference unto more churches than one, in the exercise of their ministerial power, as there are rules given unto every one for the discharge of that duty in the church whereunto he is related.
3. There is no example to give it countenance recorded in the Scripture.
4. The authority to be put forth hath no foundation.
(1.) Not in the gifts they have received; for the ministerial power is not an absolute ability or faculty of doing what a man is able, but a right, whereby a man hath power to do that rightly and lawfully which before he could not do. This, gifts will not give to any; for if they did, they would do it to all that have received them.
(2.) Not in their election; for they are chosen in and by that church whereunto they stand in especial relation, whose choice cannot give ministerial power over any but themselves.
(3.) Not in their setting apart by fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands; for this is only unto that office-work and power whereunto they are chosen. They are not chosen for one end, and set apart for another.
(4.) Not from the communion of churches; for that gives no new power, but only a due exercise of that which was before received.
14 Responses to “John Owen on Multi-Campus Ministries”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Grace in the CoW?
- Congrats to Dr. Jones
- John Owen on Multi-Campus Ministries
- The Best Puritan Work
- But who were the "Puritans"?
-
Danny Hyde: He's a Nazarene, according to his CV.
Oh, and her...
-
Danny Hyde: According to this (http://www.biblical.edu/index.p...
-
Mark Jones: Oh, cool. But what are the Lutherans doing touchin...
-
Danny Hyde: There is one lonely thesis:
Derek Cooper, "The Ecu...
-
Mark Jones: And yet not a single PhD thesis on him. Very sad. ...
Greg Breazeale
10. Sep, 2009
Great post! It is liable to stir up some emotions among the multi-site crew. I am not so much in opposition to the multi-site expression of church, but the question that I have raised is in regards to who do the preaching. If one church wants to have several campuses and send pastors to each one, why do they not allow the person to preach on a regular basis? Why the need for video? Why is one worthy to be a campus pastor, but not a campus preacher? This is the one question I have.
GB
Danny Hyde
10. Sep, 2009
Hello Greg,
That’s precisely one of the questions Owen sought to answer in Q&A 26 of “A Brief Instruction.” I didn’t quote the entire answer to his question. In part, here is what Owen said regarding the question of whether a person may “be called to, or be employed in, a part only of the office or work of the ministry”:
“If this be done by consent and agreement, for any time or season, it is unwarrantable and disorderly (what may be done occasionally upon an emergency, or in case of weakness or disability befalling any elder as to the discharge of any part of his duty, is not here inquired after) . . . If the person so called or employed have received gifts fitting him for the whole work of the ministry, the exercise of them is not to be restrained . . . If he have not received such gifts as completely to enable him unto the discharge of the whole work of the ministry in the church wherein he is to administer , it is not lawful for the church to call him unto that work wherein the Lord Christ hath not gone before them in qualifying him for it” (Works 15, 496–497).
In a word, what Owen said was you either are called to exercise the ministry of a pastor if you called to be a pastor or you are not called to that ministry at all if you do not exercise the ministry of a pastor.
David Smith
10. Sep, 2009
That’s a low blow singling out Driscoll there. And it’s pretty safe to say he’s never called it ‘modern ministry’.
Danny Hyde
10. Sep, 2009
Hello David,
I fail to understand how what I linked was “low” when it was prominently displayed on the web when I searched. I fail to see how I singled out anyone, when I was just giving a link to someone who sought to defend this practice. I fail to see where I attributed what you said I said about Driscoll to Driscoll.
Find me another web link that defends “multi-site ministry” and I’d be happy to link it. I am not trying to discriminate on this. The purpose of the post is to juxtapose Owen with modern ministerial phenomena such as “multi-sites.”
If you care to read Owen, reflect upon all the biblical and practical arguments he made, and seek to apply them to today, I’d be happy to interact.
Chris Roberts
10. Sep, 2009
First, this post could have been much less snarky, the derision was laid on pretty thick.
Second, the issue for people like Driscoll is different from those in the past who served multiple parishes for financial gain. Driscoll’s folks feel this is the most effective way to reach out with the gospel, not the most effective way to line their pockets.
Third, I’m not a huge fan of multi-site churches but I have a lot of respect for some multi-site pastors. Driscoll is one of them, Piper is another. Some people perhaps forget John Piper and Bethlehem Baptist have multiple sites where Piper is the preaching pastor and other branches have site pastors. Driscoll’s group has certainly gone far beyond Piper but it’s the same idea on a bigger scale.
As much as I respect their preaching ministries, I do wish they would turn the preaching ministry of branch churches over to other men who have been called to preach. It is hard for me to get to know my people and I pastor 100. Much harder for the pastor of a large church to pastor 1000 or more. Much much more difficult for someone who is preaching to multiple locations. A pastor cannot know all of his people equally well and the large the church the harder the problem. I am not against large churches but at some point we have to stop and say you know, it’s time for a new church with a new pastor. We may stay closely connected and even keep them within a network of sorts but each Sunday they will have before them a flesh and blood pastor who is with them regularly.
That said, I once again mention my respect for Driscoll and Piper, especially Piper. Even when I disagree with him I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt since I know the kind of care and concern and consideration and prayer and study he would have given this issue.
Alvin Mullins
10. Sep, 2009
I think there is a fairly new phenomena in our society that makes it impolite for someone to quote someone else in a disapproving manner. (i.e. Van Jones saying he was disparaged by showing video of his speeches).
Seems to me this complaint of a low blow by linking to Driscoll is much the same new manners. If Driscoll was insulted by what he said he shouldn’t put it out to the internet.
Rowland Ward
10. Sep, 2009
A couple of points, Danny.
1. What relevance do Owen’s remarks have to situations where there is one parish with several congregations?
2. What scope would Owen allow for a tent-maker style of ministry?
Scott
10. Sep, 2009
I think that it was at the following point where the blows may have looked to go a little below the belt;
‘You are called to shepherd souls, not be a rock star, pop idol, or media mogul. Get over yourself and get to pastoring like the Puritans: preach, pray, and visit your people.’
Although I am sure the author didn’t have Driscoll in mind, one could be forgiven in the context (and given other critiques of this brothers ministry), for reading it as if he had.
Back to the point of the post, it would be great to see the questions answered regarding the similarities between Owen situation and the modern phenonemenon of multi-campuses answered. The assumption for Owen in his context (and it was a valid one) was that people were using their office for immoral gain. Is this assumption a fair one to lump onto multi-campus ministers generally (not that you have done this to anyone specifically, but the comparison you have painted leads us there generally)? It seems for Owen this fair assumption justified his critique of their actions. What if the multi-parish model had been adopted by a Puritan to care for those Churches who were without a minister?
Do the priniciples seen here in Owen mean a minister can not fulfil his ordination to a Church if the Church exceeds the size that he is able to pastorally involve himself in each one of their lives? Surely people like Driscoll and co. would say their pastoral care is primarily done through the preaching of the Word, with other structures in place to deliver more personal care when neccessary.
This seems to me to be an open hand issue. A minister MUST draw a line in the sand at some point. But at the same time acknowledging that where they draw their line is a somewhat personal and arbitrary decision (100, 200 500, 1000 people? OR 1, 2 ,4 10 sites?) based on how they conceive they can best pastorally care for the flock they have been entrusted with.
PS. So Iam not sitting on the fence, I think multi-campus churches in general may in the long term be shown to be unhelpful and unhealthy – thats my gut feel – happy to be proven wrong though!
Rich Barcellos
11. Sep, 2009
I have read a few articles on this issue and side with the view that it is at best suspect and most likely not a good idea in the long run, especially in light of the Bible’s teaching on the relationship between pastor and people. I know the Bible does not give us numbers in terms of the ratio between pastor and people, but it does describe the dynamics involved between them. I am sure some argue from Jerusalem and 3,000 added to the church to multi-campus ministries, but I do not think that was the intention of Luke or God in narrating the events of Pentecost and the early church.
A line I really liked: “You are called to shepherd souls, not be a rock star, pop idol, or media mogul. Get over yourself and get to pastoring like the Puritans: preach, pray, and visit your people.”
The three Ps of the pastoral ministry. :-) I might of said “people” in general so no one could accuse me of not having a heart for the lost.
Rich B.
Danny Hyde
11. Sep, 2009
Hi Rowland,
Owen made a strong point that each congregation needed its own pastor and ruling elders and deacons.
As for the tent-making issue, I’m not sure. It is true that many ministers barely made enough to survive and Owen complains about the low pay of the ministry in his day, but I’m not sure if any of them had second jobs. We have a tent-maker in our congregation. He is fully dignified as a minister and does everything I do, he just does less since he has other responsibilities.
Danny Hyde
11. Sep, 2009
By the way, the comments about jus patronatus were suggestive of the context into which Owen wrote. They are not his point nor mine. The point is that a congregation needs a pastor and those called pastors need to be engaged in all that Scripture describes of a pastor: preaching, administering sacraments, praying, visiting the sick, catechizing, etc.
Let me, then, apply Owen’s words to a totally different issue to get it away from the multi-site issue.
What Owen said also applies to today’s situation in which churches have an “Executive Pastor” who administers the “staff,” the “Senior or Preaching Pastor” who is the face of the congregation and who teaches, and various others, such as “Assistants” and even “Minister of Music.”
Owen would have called this for what it is: prelacy or heirarchy. It’s an Episcopal structure of higher and lower degrees of ministry.
When I was in the Foursquare Church at least we were honest and said our polity was a modified episcopacy. In Reformed/Presbyterian circles, though, this is novelty.
Neil
14. Sep, 2009
Just taking multi-site the next few logical steps…
Why not find the BEST teaching pastor in a particular theological stream, make him the teaching pastor for all the churches in the country, supporting “site pastors” in each assembly via weekly video teaching?
Even better, since some of the best teaching on some topic has already been done, let’s make R.C. Sproul the teaching pastor nationwide and we can play video from his different series, like “Chosen by God,” each Sunday morning. The site pastor can then do follow-up as necessary.
If no to the above, what’s the necessary logic to it?
I mean, as Driscoll is successful, where will it stop? Why WOUDLN’T he become the nationwide “teaching pastor” of the “Resurgent” movement? Where is the internal logic that limits the number and scope of the number of “sites.”
We could even call that teaching pastor “pope.”
Polprav
22. Oct, 2009
Hello from Russia!
Can I quote a post in your blog with the link to you?
Danny Hyde
22. Oct, 2009
Yes you may.