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.”

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.

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.

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.

‘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!

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?

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.

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.