Archive for category church
Multisite Church
Posted by Todd Engstrom in church, theology on May 7, 2009

I just finished reading through the new 9 Marks Journal on Multisite church. I thought it was a fantastic and balanced presentation of arguments both for and against the concept. Ed Stetzer dialogued through the basic objection most have to multisite here, and I’m also asking a similar question.
The article by Jonathan Leeman titled “Theological Critique of MultiSite: Leadership Is the Church” (it starts on page 50 in the PDF or here) was one of the most clear-headed and incisive arguments against multisite, but there is something that is unsettling to me about his critique that I can’t quite put my finger on.
Perhaps it is because I have been reading things like The Forgotten Ways by Alan Hirsch and Organic Church by Neil Cole, but it seems that Leeman’s answer dissociates the organic nature of the church from the biblical prescriptions about it. I know this is a very poorly supported answer both biblically and logically (Leeman would shred me in debate…), but like I said, I can’t quite put my finger on why his argument isn’t resonating.
The excerpt below highlights the basic theological argument that is the foundation of Leeman’s conclusions:
These three passages in Matthew tell us that he gave this authority to the apostles, who were uniquely commissioned with the apostolic message to establish the foundation of the church. Once that foundation was established and the apostles died, did that authority then pass along to every individual on the planet to determine whether or not he or she should be baptized into the body of Christ? Hardly. That authority is then passed on to the church. Only the apostolic church has the authority to baptize and distribute the Lord’s Supper. Now, the church does not have the authority to deny baptizing one who offers a credible profession of faith (Acts 10:47). After all, the church’s authority is mediated, not ultimate. Still, the church alone has the power of the keys, and the church on earth is, quite simply, particular churches.
He then continues to dialog about the institutional nature of church from Scripture, but I think this view ultimately dissociates the institution from the collection of individuals that encompass it. It is in effect establishing the concept of church as the authoritative body apart from what it is comprised of–believers. Basically, the church is defined as an external set of biblical prescriptions according to Leeman, while it would say it is both external biblical prescriptions AND the composition of the individual believers who compose the body living and applying those biblical prescriptions.
Logically, all of Leeman’s arguments are sound (they are a model of excellent thinking and clear argumentation), but I’m not yet ready to write off multi-site as he does based on the issue above.
Give the article a read, and then let me know what you think!
The Ordinary: The Rabbit and The Elephant.
Posted by Todd Engstrom in church, college ministry, missional on April 2, 2009
We have some great students who think deeply about the church universal and the church local, and are living expressions of mission on their campus. Aaron is one of them, and I’ve been blessed to watch him wrestle with the concepts of missional community. He’s writing about it at The Ordinary, and here is an excerpt from his latest post:
Basically what Im getting at is not hard. Its not the rabbit OR the elephant… its the rabbit AND the elephant. Its a “variety of ministries, and the same Lord. There are verieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons” 1 Cor 12:5-6. One is not better than the other but I do think in the future the American church majority will consist of rabbits and I think most can agree on this.
Parachurch and Church | Moore to the Point
Posted by Todd Engstrom in church, college ministry on March 25, 2009
This is an interesting insight from Russell Moore about campus ministries and the necessity of connecting with a local church. I would probably take a less hard line approach than he does and value a less “formal” expression of church, as well as argue that a church needs to adapt to its cultural context to effectively minister. In spite of my subtle disgreements, I do believe the article does a good job of capturing the importance of the local church within the climate of many campus ministries.
The reason many college students identify primarily with a campus ministry rather than with a church is not because of any flaw in most campus ministry organizations. It is because, too often, we evangelical Christians have a deficient view of the church. We assume that it is any gathering of people who believe in Jesus and who do churchly things. Many Christians assume the church exists simply to help us learn more about Christ and pool our resources for missions. If that’s the case, a campus ministry can do all those things, and more. But the Scriptures tell us the church is much more than that.
via Jesus Didn’t Die for a Campus Ministry: The Spiritual Danger of Unchurched Spirituality.
When Planning Fails Churches
Posted by Todd Engstrom in austin stone, church on February 27, 2009
This quote from an article in Church Solutions Magazine adds some fuel to the fire from our conversations as a staff and implementing our strategy as a church.
The statistics tell the unfortunate truth. Eighty-seven percent of American churches have either plauteaued or are declining in attendance. We can and should innovate until we are blue in the face. We can Twitter and blog and connect through social networks. We can have conferences and cheer each other on. We can do multisite and plant churches. But the fact remains that of the 13 percent of churches actually growing, less than 3 percent are growing by conversion growth. That means 10 percent are just doing a better weekend that attracts more Christians. Jesus didn’t come to reorganize, he came to simply seek and save lost people. He came to reconcile us with the undeserved and unthinkable love of God.
I pray that God would use The Austin Stone to not only impact the lives of those in the church, but to change the face of the city of Austin for the glory of God.
Attractional and Missional | TheResurgence
Posted by Todd Engstrom in assimilation, austin stone, church, missional on February 21, 2009
Below is quote from a post a The Resurgence on the Attractional vs. Missional “debate”.
People often set up attractional church and missional church as polar opposites. Attractional has a come-to-us mentality. It’s about drawing people to the church. Missional is a go-to-them mentality. We take the gospel to people, meeting them on their terms and their turf.
But biblical missiology contains both elements.
At The Austin Stone, we are very much involved in both sides of the equation, and believe that biblically based and effectively leveraged, the Attractional and Missional concepts of church can be effectively married.
The post concludes with this point:
The problem with a lot of attractional churches is not their missiology, but their ecclesiology. Church is seen as a meeting. Attracting means attracting people to an event or even a performance. But biblical mission is about a community life, ordinary life, lived under God’s Word that attracts people to God.
I would tend to disagree…the problem with many attractional (more specifically seeker-driven) churches is their missiology, and basing their core strategy on addressing felt needs. This leads to the improper ecclesiology based on consumerism, which develops into an event driven church.
Thoughts?


Comments