when is a church not a church?

A recent post by Dan Kimball set me thinking. He talks about an increasing trend for multi-site churches, whether linked by video sermons, or connected in some other way.

I remarked upon this pattern at Mars Hill in Seattle, back in July, with further reflections on using video, later. I had no idea it was so widespread. It seems most curious. If you have a bunch of people who meet at separate locations, and interact with each other firstly on the basis of where they meet, and you put together a group of those, you don't have a church, you have a denomination. "Bishop Mark" sounds altogether more grand than "Pastor Mark", don't you think?

Why would you do this? Well, if you're planting churches, they will tend to retain ties to the mother church for a little while. But surely the whole point of the mother-daughter picture is that you aim for maturity and eventual independence in the latter.

I'm fearful that the biggest reason for such arrangements - especially where video is involved - is the cult of the lead preacher. On the one hand, it makes eminent sense that those who are particularly gifted in teaching should do more of it, and share their gift using whatever modern technology is available. On the other hand, the notion of a "teaching pastor" - somewhat cut off from day-to-day interactions with the flock, and devoted only to preaching - seems alarming and very much a mistake. All the more so when that teaching is promulgated largely through high definition video, or to a huge auditorium where the preacher cannot see the whites of the eyes of the flock.

Having quite so many people beholden to one man (it always seems to be a man) seems calculated to end in tears. Even if he is the most sainted, prophetic individual alive, what will happen when his ministry comes to an end? Will he be replaced by another, in an office-bearing kind of way? Or will the whole personality cult disintegrate? "It is not good for man to be alone" applies very much to those who would teach, as well as its original reference.

Perhaps I'm just sensitized to the dangers of one-man-ministry, the unnecessary weight of denominations, and the need for plurality in leadership because I've just finished Frank Viola's book. But then, I have to confess that I have come to doubt his methodology: the New Testament gives us a pattern for what church ought to be like, most probably - a church in the first century Mediterranean culture. Precisely how much that tells us about how church ought to be in our culture is, I think, debatable. But it seems most, most unwise to eschew denominations on the one hand, and almost accidentally to create new ones on the other.