Theological Critique of Multi-Campus (Multi-Location) Churches: What is «Church»?

What do you think are the necessary elements for a group of Christians to become a local church? Can three Christians playing Frisbee in a park be considered a local church? What really makes a group of Christians a church?

Now imagine: these three friends leave the park, go into a local coffee shop, and pray before eating. Do they become a church at that moment? What if they open the Bible, start discussing it with each other, encouraging each other, and agree to meet weekly? Would they be considered a church if they also shared communion? Perhaps they made some kind of covenant with each other? Would they become a church if they received official recognition from the city council in the form of a legal document? Or when they moved from the coffee shop to a building with a bell tower? Where is the line when three Christian friends stop being just a group for socializing and become a church?

In other words, what defines a local church as a church? This question arises in the context of the phenomenon of multi-campus churches.

Multi-campus (multi-location) churches are churches with one central location for services and several other locations or campuses where people watch the service or sermon via live broadcast.

The clearest and simplest argument against multi-campus churches, in my opinion, is a semantic one. The Greek word «ekklesia» means «assembly,» so one assembly is one church. But behind this semantic argument lies a more complex theological question: What defines a local church as a church?

While there may be exceptions, multi-campus churches generally do not call their locations or campuses «churches.» For example, at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minnesota, for which I am deeply grateful, its three «campuses» are collectively referred to as one «church.» Campus A is not a church, or at least it is not called that. Campus B is not a church either. Campus C is not a church. But Campuses A, B, and C together, they claim, form a church.

This again raises the question: What is the point of transition between a campus (or place) and a church? Why is it said that a group of Christians gathered on a campus is not a church, while the collection of campuses is a church? After all, all these people gathered together on one campus seem to be engaged in «church» activities, such as singing, communion, and hearing God’s Word. Why aren’t they called «church»?

In this article, we will first examine the answers to these questions offered by proponents of multicampus churches. Next, we will examine the biblical arguments they make in favor of this phenomenon. Then, I will offer an alternative answer to the question of what defines a local church and briefly address the issue of non-congregationalism. Finally, I will draw four conclusions about multicampus churches.

Throughout the text of this article, I hope that readers will believe me that while I may be challenging on the issue of church organization, I still praise God for the good works of the Gospel that many multi-campus churches are doing for the Kingdom of God. In fact, I am often humbly impressed by their zeal for His work and hope that they will use some of that zeal to correct me where necessary.

Defining the term «ekklesia» in the context of multi-campus churches

What do proponents of multi-campus and multi-location churches say about what makes them «one church»? The main argument seems to be that they have a common corporate structure. In the book Multi-site Church Revolution the authors write:

«A multi-campus church is one church that meets in multiple locations—in different rooms on a single campus, in different locations in a single region, or, in some cases, in different cities, states, or nations. A multi-campus church has a common vision, budget, leadership, and governance» (Zondervan, 2006, p. 18; emphasis added).

If I understand this argument correctly, it means that a group of Christians can only move from «unchurched» to «churched» once they have a shared vision, budget, and leadership. Of course, these authors point out that other elements are also essential to a church, such as preaching the Word and administering the sacraments. But, in addition to the Word and sacraments, leadership, budget, and overall church structure are clearly needed. This is an inevitable conclusion from the claim that people gathered in one place for preaching and administering the sacraments are not a church, but that all locations together constitute «one church.».

The website of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, confirms this position:

«We are a multi-campus church. As part of our Treasuring Christ Together strategy, we seek to multiply campuses. So, from our downtown Minneapolis campus, founded in 1871, we opened the North Campus in 2002 and the South Campus in 2006. Unlike new church communities, all campuses are part of Bethlehem Church with one vision, one strategy, one theological foundation, one pastorate, one constitution, one mission team, and one budget» (emphasis added).

Note that these are not «new church communities,» meaning new churches. These are new locations or campuses. Pastor John Piper argues in his blog for multi-campus churches, stating:

«"I believe that the essence of biblical church community and unity is unity of elders, unity of doctrine, and unity of ministry philosophy. And within the church, it depends on significant groups of relationships that biblically sustain life and anticipate all the reciprocal commands of the Bible.".

Piper uses the phrase «biblical church community and unity.» I hope I am not misinterpreting his words when I assume that he means that these elements are what make the various ministries and campuses of Bethlehem Church «one church,» namely, unity in leadership, teaching, and philosophy of ministry. He also mentions «different relationship groups,» but it is difficult to see how they apply, since, at least in principle, they are distinct relationship groups—one or more groups on one campus, different and different groups on other campuses, and so on. Ultimately, he is talking about life-giving relationships, which means that they are relationships of people who are together and well acquainted with one another.

What is a little unclear to me about the multi-campus understanding of church is the role of the gathering or assembly in shaping the church as a church.

On the one hand, it seems that a proponent of multi-campus churches might say, «Of course a Christian should meet with other Christians. Scripture commands it (Heb. 10:25). And we will say that a Christian should meet in some place with other believers. If absolutely no one met anywhere, we could not have a church.».

On the other hand, technically they seem to be removing the idea of gathering from the definition of church. Campus A and Campus B are not gathered together, that’s for sure. But they are still «church.» In practice, multi-campus churches do gather, at least separately. But from a definitional perspective, it seems to me that they have removed gathering from the term «ekklesia.» At best, there is a tension here, which is why I say I don’t understand it. They can say that Christians must gather together somewhere for church to exist, but they are calling something «church» that is not technically a gathering.

If my assumption is correct, then the definition of «ekklesia» for multi-campus churches is not so much «gathering» or «assembly» as «leadership,» «philosophy of ministry,» or «church structure»; or it is «Christians who are bound by a common leadership structure and philosophy of ministry, though not necessarily gathered together.».

Biblical Foundations for a Multi-Campus Church

Moving on to the biblical justification. In their biblical arguments in support of the concept of a multi-campus church, proponents usually point to the flexibility of the concept of «church» found in the New Testament.

For example, Mark Driscoll and Gary Brasheers, referring to the New Testament churches, write: «The diversity of locations indicates that the early church was quite flexible, meeting and worshiping in a variety of settings to meet the needs and opportunities of its time» (Vintage Church, Crossway, 2008, 244). Driscoll and Brashears note «networks of churches scattered around a particular city (e.g., Corinth, Galatia, Thessalonica, and Philippi).».

The problem with this argument is that Paul is not writing to a «network of churches.» He is writing to a «church» (singular) in the city of Corinth and to «churches» (plural) in the region of Galatia. I don’t quite understand why they are lumped together. Driscoll and Brashears also refer to «churches in the regions of «Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia»« (1 Peter 1:1), which they characterize as »connected network churches.« Of course, the text itself speaks of »saints,« not »churches.« In any case, I can’t see a multi-campus »church« made up of different »campuses,« »ministry,« or »locations” in this text.

A more compelling biblical argument that advocates of multi-campus churches give comes from the references to house churches in the Epistles to the Romans and Colossians. Thus, Paul writes to the Romans «to all who are in Rome, beloved of God» (Rom. 1:7), which could refer to either a single church or a network of churches. Then, in the closing part of the letter, he asks his readers to greet Priscilla and Aquila and «the church that is in their house» (16:5), which may indicate that if there is one «church» in Rome to which he is writing, that one «church» is made up of many house «churches.» The same is seen in his letter to «the saints and faithful brothers in Christ who are at Colossae» (Col. 1:2). Paul later mentions one specific house church (Col. 4:15), which seems to be distinct from the church that met in Philemon’s home, since we know that Philemon also lived in Colossae (Phil. 1:2).

The basic idea here is that a house church can be called a «church,» while all those church networks can also be called a «church,» just as an individual branch of Citibank can be called a «bank,» while the corporate aggregation of those banks can also be called a «bank.» And this argument might work if the term «church» is indeed flexible enough, or if the basic nature of «church» somehow allows it, or if Scripture clearly uses it in that sense.

I find it a little strange that the multi-campus church advocates use this argument from Romans 16:5 and Colossians 4:15, since they don’t actually call their various locations or campuses «churches,» since those two verses clearly refer to house churches as «churches.» The multi-campus church advocates are not «flexibly» interpreting the word as they say the Scriptures do. If the Roman meeting held in the home of Priscilla and Aquila is a «church,» as Paul claims, and if that house church is part of a larger «church» in Rome, why not call each campus or location a church? Moreover, what theological explanation can be given for how a house church is a church and a city church is a church made up of multiple churches? What is the difference between the two? If a house church is actually a church, why does it need to meet with the larger city church? In other words, there is a lot to explain to proponents of multicampus churches if they want to use these two passages as illustrations of their point of view.

However, the bigger problem with this argument is that Paul never mentions a church (singular) in Rome or Colossae, nor does he speak of house “churches” in Jerusalem. Even if there is reason to believe that he was writing to a single church in Rome or Colossae, as some commentators have argued, there is no reason to believe that these house churches belong to (or constitute) a single city church.

Perhaps there is one main church in Rome to which he is writing, and perhaps Priscilla and Aquila have their own small church on the outskirts of the city. Who knows! The important thing is that Scripture does not say this. It only mentions «all who are in Rome, beloved of God» in 1:7 and «their domestic church» in 16:5. Everything else, we can say, is left to invent.

Another place where multi-campus church proponents look for biblical support is the account of the church in Jerusalem in the book of Acts. At least two arguments are made here.

First, some argue that the church in Jerusalem must have met in various house churches because of its size. They couldn’t all meet together. The problem with this argument is that Acts states that the Jerusalem church did meet together—all thousands of Christians (Acts 2:44; 5:12; 6:1-2).

Second, proponents of the multi-campus church claim that the one church in Jerusalem is still considered «one church,» even though there are different congregations in different homes. Two verses commonly cited in this context are from the book of Acts:

«And every day, continuing with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart» (Acts 2:46).

«Saul was devastating the church, entering house after house, dragging out men and women and committing them to prison» (Acts 8:3).

I must admit that I am a little surprised by this argument. Before technology enabled the phenomenon of multi-campus churches, no one, as far as I know, read these verses in this way. The most natural way to read them, I think, is that the church in Jerusalem is still a «church» even when it is spread out across homes. In the same way, I would say that a basketball «team» is still a «team» even when its members spend the night in different hotel rooms or cities. And of course, they are a team because they constantly come together and do what defines them as a basketball team.

Similarly, in Acts 2, the church gathers in the temple to do what defines them as the church, and then disperses to break bread and share fellowship in smaller groups. They are the church not because of what they do when they are scattered, but because of what they do when they come together. Then in Acts 8, we read that Paul is persecuting the members of the Jerusalem church, going from house to house. That would be like saying, «The coach went around the rooms, telling the team that the basketball game was postponed.».

Here is a key idea. The word «church» in the New Testament, especially in the book of Acts, begins to be used to identify members of the church even when they are not gathered together and engaged in church business. So when Paul «came to Caesarea and greeted the church» (Acts 18:22), does this mean that he simply happened to be there on a Sunday morning and was able to enter their meeting and say hello? Or does it mean that he went and greeted a few members of the church? I would suggest the latter. The example in Acts 8 is even clearer.

Most of us today use the term «church» in the same sense when we talk about praying for our «church» during the week. We may not meet with our church on Tuesday, but we will still call church an existing thing on Tuesday because at this point we identify the church with its members. But can you be a member of a church on Tuesday and thus be part of «the church» even if you never meet with church on Sunday?

Well, in the United States over the last few decades, yes, and in my own denomination, certainly. But in the Bible? That brings us back to the question of what defines a local church as a church. When do you go from a group of Christians to a church?

What defines a local church as a church?

What can be said about what defines a local church on earth? The answer the Bible gives is simple and clear: a local church consists of a group of Christians who come together under the authority of Christ to exercise the power of the keys of binding and loosing. Thus, for a church to be a church, three things are necessary: Christians, a gathering under the authority of Christ, and the exercise of that authority through the keys.

Membership in a local church does not make you a Christian. Faith and repentance are what define our relationship with God. However, although Christ has made us Christians, it should not be assumed that he gives individual Christians the same authority as he does us as a church.

In Matthew 16 and 18, we see that he gives the apostolic local church (to the apostles in chapter 16, «I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven»; to the local church in chapter 18, «I assure you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven») the authority of the keys of the kingdom. This authority is not given to individual Christians or even to church elders. It is given to the church as a whole.

I am not going to go into detail now and defend my interpretation of the phrase «keys of the kingdom» to mean «binding and loosing.» But Michael Horton offers a clear definition of the power of the keys when he writes:

«Through preaching, baptism, and admission (or denial of admission) to Communion, the keys of the Kingdom are exercised» (People and Places, WJK, 2008, p. 243).

Similarly, I would say that the church on earth has the authority of the keys to preach the Gospel and to bind and loose people in connection with that Gospel according to their true profession of faith (false profession will result in either denial of acceptance or church discipline).

So Jesus empowers every Christian on earth to represent him and his kingly authority. But he empowers the local or institutional church to publicly affirm or deny who is to be considered a citizen of Christ’s kingdom. The local church has the authority to make these public affirmations or denials visible when it administers or withholds baptism and Communion. In this sense, the local church is like the White House press secretary, who is formally authorized to declare what the president has said or not said.

Interestingly, Scripture also mentions keys and their use through sacraments in the context of gatherings specifically related to Jesus. Consider the following examples.

Jesus:

«If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; but if he refuses to listen to the church, let him be to you as a pagan and a tax collector. Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them!» (Matthew 18:17-20).

Paul:

«When you are gathered together in the name of our Lord Jesus [Christ], and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of [our] Lord [Jesus Christ]» (1 Cor. 5:4-5).

«First, I hear that when you come together in the church, there are divisions among you, and I partly believe it. For it is necessary that there be differences among you, so that those who are approved may be made manifest among you» (1 Cor. 11:18-19).

First, notice that these believers gather in the name (with His authority) of Christ. In Matthew 18, they use this authority to expel a person (a church member) from the church. We see the same thing in 1 Corinthians 5. Then, in 1 Corinthians 11, they celebrate the Lord’s Supper, for they have the same authority. In fact, to partake of it unworthily is to be «guilty of the body and blood of the Lord!» (1 Cor. 11:27), because they do so by representing Christ and acting by his authority.

Second, Christians constitute a «church» and have that identity whether they are together or not, just as a team is a team regardless of the meeting. However, Paul also uses the term «church» more specifically, as seen in 1 Corinthians 11. He speaks of the gathering «as a church» in the sense that we are not «church» when we are not gathered together. This formal gathering has its own essence and authority that none of us have individually.

This is comparable to how Paul might say, «When you come together as a team, play well.» He is no longer just talking about identity; he is moving into a technical definition of what constitutes a team or a church. The whole community together constitutes the church. It is impossible to be a church unless we come together and act under His (Jesus’) authority to exercise the power of the keys.

Missional and communitarian writers rightly criticize the excessive institutionalism of churches. However, their criticism sometimes fails to take into account the differences between a local church and a group of Christians who just met in a park. They miss the fact that Christ established an earthly organization with the authority to determine who belongs to Him, and the members of that organization do not have the right to use the «company credit card» whenever and however they want. When can it be used? This is possible only when they are gathered in His name and the Spirit of Christ is present through the Word and sacraments (see Acts 4:31, 6:2, 14:27; 15:30; 20:7). Both Jesus and Paul speak of this.

Not just Congregationalists

It is not only Congregationalists throughout history who have recognized the need for gathering in order for a church to be a church.

The nineteenth article of the Anglican 39 Articles states:

«"The visible Church of Christ is the assembly of the faithful in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments are duly administered according to the institution of Christ in all those things which are necessary for this.".

A similar article 7 of the Lutheran Augsburg Confession states:

«"The Church is a gathering of saints in which the Gospel is correctly preached and the sacraments are properly administered.".

So part of the argument I’m making is indeed congregational in nature. But the general thrust of what I’m trying to say is larger. That’s why the concept of the multi-campus church offers us something relatively unique in church history. Yes, there may be strange circumstances where a group of people choose to call multiple congregations one church. But when it comes to early and medieval Episcopalian structures, Reformed Lutheran, Anglican, and Presbyterian structures, and nondenominational structures, almost all traditions have referred to different congregations as different churches, not as different campuses (locations) or ministries.

What this means for a multi-campus and multi-shift church

So what can we say about the multi-campus church? I see four lessons.

1. Not one church, but several churches

First, a multi-campus church that never meets together is simply not a church, since meeting is one of the elements that make up a church. Instead, it is an association of several churches—as many churches as there are campuses and changes. And so that there is no misunderstanding, I thank God for the work of each of these individual churches, as well as for my partnership in the Gospel with all of them!

Now, some multi-campus churches do get all their churches together three or four times a year. What do we get out of that? If in their separate weekly meetings each separate meeting exercises the authority of the keys of the Kingdom through preaching and sacraments, binding and loosing people to themselves, then those separate meetings are churches. If that is the case, then the quarterly meeting of all those churches is… I don’t know… something else—probably an assembly of churches, which then can be seen as usurping the authority of those keys because they exercise it in this larger assembly.

On the other hand, if these separate weekly meetings preach the Word but never partake of the sacraments, because they leave baptism, the Lord’s Supper, confirmation, and discipline for the quarterly corporate meeting, then perhaps technically that quarterly meeting is the church. But then the whole system seems pretty weak, not to mention disobedient, at least from their own perspective, since the New Testament seems to indicate that the church should meet weekly, not quarterly. Furthermore, if the exercise of the power of keys means confirming authentic testimonies of faith and preventing and excluding false testimonies of faith, how meaningfully can a church that meets four times a year do this? And can it do so with dignity if members of the different campuses are, by design, unable to know each other?

Finally, note that exercising the power of the keys in large quarterly meetings means that the exercise of the keys will, in a sense, be separated from the ministry of the Word. In other words, if my campus is formed by one preacher of the Word and another campus is formed by another preacher of the Word, then the quarterly meetings of all our campuses as a «church» will handle some of the more sensitive matters of the church, such as church discipline or the ordination of ministers; we will not have the «one mind» that a church with one common meeting and one location (campus) has, being together under the leadership of one preacher week after week.

2. Usurpation of the keys of the Kingdom

Secondly, to the extent that different locations or changes (i.e. different churches) exercise the authority of the keys over one another, they are guilty of usurpation. If it is two or three gathered in His name who know the presence and authority of Christ, what should we think of another assembly or body that then imposes itself upon the first assembly?

It seems to me that they are intruding where they do not belong. Since the apostolic authority of the church itself is based on the priesthood of all believers, any group (be it another church, a group of elders, a bishop, or a corporate body) that imposes itself on the assembly of believers is guilty of wrongly establishing a relationship between the believer and God. It must be admitted that this criticism is a criticism of the Congregationalists.

3. Giving leaders apostolic authority

The church authority of the keys of the Kingdom is apostolic authority. It is the power to bind and loose, and it is effective. For example, a church that disciplines an individual member effectively achieves the intended result. Its action does not depend on the consent of the church member.

On the other hand, the biblical authority of a leader, in my opinion, is not apostolic and is not effective. Neither a leader nor a group of leaders has been given unilateral authority in Scripture to include a person in the church or to discipline him. To use the old terms, the church has the authority to command, while leaders only have the authority to advise. One reason for this difference is that the assembly is the essence of the church (to be), while leaders are only part of its good (well being).

Another way to phrase the above criticism (usurpation) is that a multi-campus church effectively places the apostolic authority of the keys not in the hands of the church, but in the hands of the leadership. Listen to Piper again:

«"I think the essence of biblical church community and unity depends on unity of leadership, unity of teaching, and unity of ministry philosophy. And within the church, it depends on very significant clusters of relationships that are biblically life-giving and include all of the Bible's 'one another' commands.".

Piper's argument works if he wants to endow his church leaders with apostolic authority. "Significant clusters of relationships" play no role here, since these relationships are divided among different campuses or shifts. No, the unifying force here is the leaders and the overall corporate structure. The leaders and their corporate structure are the common factor that all congregations uniquely share. (But don't they also share the Gospel? Yes, but so does every other true church in the world. It is the corporate structure that makes them the "church" of Bethlehem.) And because the leaders and their program constitute that "church," the leaders now have apostolic status. They have inserted themselves into the essence of the church (to be). This, in my opinion, is what every multi-campus church has effectively done.

4. Many shifts (one church – but meetings in two or more shifts)?

The thoughtful reader will notice that what I am arguing about multiple campuses applies equally to multiple shifts. In fact, there is no fundamental difference between a multicampus and a multishift church. One spreads congregations geographically, the other chronologically. So it is not surprising that, after several decades of using multiple shifts in church ministry, church leaders have moved to the next stage and are promoting multicampus.

Am I saying that a church with many shifts is not a church? Yes. I would argue that if you pastor a church with two shifts, you are actually pastoring two churches. These churches may be twins because you have served both, but they are different «ecclesiastes.» Interestingly, several pastors who lead churches with many shifts unanimously admit that it often feels that way.

Conclusions

Proponents of multicampus and multishift churches often respond to criticism by noting that church members may not know each other once the church reaches a certain size, so dividing the church into shifts or campuses (locations) does not hinder church community, which has already been destroyed by its large size. Furthermore, the church in Jerusalem was very large.

But I argue that the particular church on earth is not defined by relationships or community alone. It is defined by the authority of Christ exercised and given to the church. So this particular argument ignores the essence of what constitutes a church. A regular gathering of 20,000 people who gather for preaching and sacraments is a church in principle, as opposed to two shifts of 10 people who all know each other.

I readily admit that a church of 20,000 members will have difficulty exercising the power of the keys responsibly and honestly, just as a “church” that meets four times a year would have difficulty. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that there may come a time when one congregation will not fulfill what Jesus has in mind for the church in Matthew 16 and 18, because twenty thousand people meeting once a week in a stadium probably cannot exercise that authority with due integrity. Just so, we see major controversies arising in the Jerusalem church, reaching chapter six, that required new solutions. A large church can be as careless in practice as a multi-campus church is in principle.

But here’s the thing. A multi-campus church cannot fulfill Jesus’ purpose in Matthew 16 because the members of each campus (location) are not actually gathered together. The irony is that proponents of multi-campus churches use what we can see in the New Testament (very large churches) to argue for something we don’t see there—the multi-campus church. In doing so, they ignore what the New Testament says about what constitutes a church—both on earth and in heaven.