What Makes A Church A Church?
As a basic introduction to the topic of Multisite churches, the simplest definition is–one church that meets in several different locations. In the Harbor model, which they call Multisite and Multi-congregational, they have 6 pastors preaching at 10 different locations scattered around San Diego.
Many people might read that summation and say: “well thats not one church, thats 10 churches” But Harbor has one board of elders, and one role of membership.
The challenge of Harbors model is that it is so different from what churches have done in the last 100 years that it doesn’t seem to make sense.
The question is what makes a church a church?
During a breakout session, Dick Kaufmann recalled that when they were organizing Harbor that they were wrestling with this city-wide model of church. Dick said that he called Ed Clowney, and asked for some advice, and Clowney’s response was that he wrote a section of his book The Church for situations like Harbor’s.
When I got home I grab my copy of the book and tried to figure out what section Dick was referring to, after flipping around for about an hour I came to the section:“Perspectives on the church: local and universal” In that section, found on page 111-112, Clowney concludes with the following remarks:
“How can one term[“church”] be used with such flexibility? Simply because it is no the geographical size or location that defines it. Even those committed to local-church definition much ask which is the local church in the New Testament. Is it the house church, or is it the city church? We do better to conclude that the church can be expressed at more than one level: in smaller or larger fellowships, even in gatherings like that in Jerusalem (Acts 15), representing the whole church, in order to deal with issues that concern all.”
Clowney’s conclusion comes from looking at several texts in the new testament including Romans 16:3-5; Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15, Philemon 1:2, and Acts 8:1.
- That “Paul mentions the house church in the same breath with the churches of the gentiles, or of Asia.”
- That “House churches are found in places where city churches are addressed (Rome Laodicea, Colosee)”
- That “the term ‘church’ may be applied not only to house and city fellowships, where the members could meet together, but also to the church in a province (Acts 9:31; 15:3)”
Do you agree with Clowney’s conclusions?
How does this effect your perception of what makes a church a church?
Does anyone know of any examples of this wider perspective on the church being used in the PCA outside of Harbor?
Good insights. Thanks for the footwork on the Clowney quote.
In our Presbytery, we have the privelege of having Clair Davis, PCA TE, former church history professor at WTS-Philly. He was in the OPC and was part of forming and editing their Book of Order. In the OPC there is a designation for presbytery as “regional church.” This enables the church to use its presbyter and diaconal resources across the region. I tend to be a minimalist in structure but desire to be a maximalist for missional impact. Something like this approach would help us look further afield for “resources.”
I liked the point Doug Swagerty made in his breakout session on Central Services. Some people feared Harbor becoming a presbytery. He said that is not true, and Harbor’s structure actually reduces it’s “impact” at presbytery. It only gets to send delegates as one church, not 10. They are underrepresented in terms of numbers.
As a minimalist I see 2 churches in Scripture: catholic/universal and local. City church is the extension of unity of local churches perhaps working like synods. This becomes practical and would be helpful to prevent divisive and scandalous people from church hopping churches across town with impunity.
I agree with Clowney’s remarks, but I also note that the NT writers speak at times about “the church of Province X” and at others, about “the churches of Province X.” It must have two related but different things in view when it does that.
What makes a church a church is Jesus Christ. It seems to me that the size details are more of a pastoral question, left to specific circumstances.
My recollection is that the city of San Diego covers an area of a few hundred square miles. If a board of elders can shepherd people in ten different locations in an area potentially that wide, more power to them. Our pastor, Christian Adjemian, has this rule of thumb: if the elders can’t know a church well enough to pray for all the children by name, it’s time to plant a new church. To my mind, that makes a lot of sense.
I agree in principle. How this would work out practically is up for debate. But it is the principle that matters. How this impacts my view of the church is simple- we need to work together better. I believe this was the original intent of what a presbytery was. Knox developed it as an accountability time for pastors and elders to gather and share each other’s burdens. But with this perception of the church a congregation is only a small portion of the body within the community/city/region.
I believe the PCA churches in the Eastern Suburbs, New Covenant, Murrysville, First, Grace, Calvin, New Life, and Pitcairn, understand this. We are working to develop mercy ministries for the Eastern Suburbs depending on each congregations’ gifts and skills. Also New Cov and Pitcairn being close are working to establish a cooperative… similar to City’s endeavors. Understanding the church this way only fuels movements, coalitions, and catholicity. It gives the church a bigger vision, not just your district or municipality, but region.
I remember talking to Iain about multi-site, specifically the Harbor model, and he alluded to a fear that the Harbor guys would become a presbytery within a presbytery… similar to the New Life churches in Philadelphia. I appreciate Shawn’s comment.
I am sure there are instances within the PCA where two congregations in rural America share a pastor. We saw this in the RPCNA years ago with Oakdale in Illinois. It would be a similar idea. What is the problem of having a presbytery within a presbytery though? Is that not how presbyterianism is set up to be? Session, then Presbytery, then GA or Synod? But I cannot think of a specific instance where PCA churches adopt the Harbor model. There are churches that share Clowney’s understanding of the church (i am guessing New Life in Philly). Outside the PCA I think of someone like Piper
I think you are right Tom when you say that “It seems to me that the size details are more of a pastoral question, left to specific circumstances.” The thing that I found fascinating about Harbor PCA was that they decided that their circumstances required a different approach. I find this kind of flexibility in a presbyterian context very refreshing.