One Assembly: Advancing the Gospel by Investing in Other Churches (9Marks Journal)
This article was a draft prepared for the 9Marks Journal on One Assembly that was released in August 2023. The final published piece can be found at https://www.9marks.org/article/single-assembly-advancing-the-gospel-by-investing-in-other-churches/.
“There are many ways to skin a cat.” It’s a strange saying, and yet summarises a problem that often exists in ministry, including in the debate between single assembly and multi-site/service models. It reminds us that even if we all agree on a goal, we can still disagree on the best way to achieve it. If for some reason we did all decide to skin a cat, there is no guarantee we would all want to do it in the same way.
From the beginning, we should acknowledge some of the best proponents of multi-site/service models are driven by a passion for the Gospel. However, while we can all agree that advancing the Gospel should be our goal, we can still disagree about which model best accomplishes this. When engaging in this debate, it is important to not only show that single assembly is the biblical way, but that it is also the best way to achieve our shared aim.
The biblical and the best
Of course, we should ultimately adopt single assembly convictions for the biblical reasons explored in this journal, not simply because we think it may be the best way to advance the Gospel. In the end, if single assembly is the only option that is biblically and theologically available, then that is the only route we can take. Principle must beat pragmatism every time.
We can always trust God’s wisdom is far superior to our own (Proverbs 3:5–6). Nevertheless, we should not be surprised if the path of obedience also seems to be the path of prudence. Afterall, Christ has been building his church for a lot longer than we have!
A foundation for Gospel advancement
Evangelicals have given a lot of attention to advancing the Gospel through church planting and revitalisation in recent decades. However, one part of the conversation that has perhaps been neglected is how multi-site/service models can actually hamper, rather than help, these efforts.
It is undeniable that multi-site/service has a number of benefits. For example, it provides great flexibility, with a wide range of options at your command. Are you running out of space in your morning service? Just add another service in the afternoon! Does part of your town not have a Gospel witness? All you need is a projector! This flexibility can seem extremely beneficial for advancing the Gospel. Afterall, multi-site/service helps you reach more people with the Gospel message more quickly and more easily than before.
Multi-site/service models can also be attractive because they follow the same methods as many successful corporate franchises today. The model encourages us to develop a brand and grow consumer confidence, before then replicating this same offering elsewhere. By extending our reach and leveraging our brand to advance the Gospel, we build God’s Kingdom by following the same strategy that has been so successful for so many companies in our world today.
Nevertheless, single assembly also has significant advantages that are sometimes overlooked. At least two of these means that it is actually a single assembly model that provides us with a far better foundation for Gospel advancement.
(1) Single Assembly forces churches to overflow outwards
Undoubtedly, single assembly reduces your options for advancing the Gospel. When your building is at maximum capacity, all you can do is send members elsewhere. If there is an area without a Gospel witness, you are forced to plant another congregation. Single assembly convictions leave a church in such situations with only one option: investing in other churches.
Rather than this being viewed as a disadvantage, this should actually be seen as a strength. After all, we often advance the Gospel best by investing in others, rather than by accumulating more influence and resources for ourselves. This idea seems counterintuitive in our commercial and cultural climate. However, it can be traced back as far as John the Baptist, who understood that if Jesus Christ was to increase, he himself must decrease (John 3:30). This is not only true for individuals, but it is also true for local churches. And single assembly plays a crucial role in helping churches to decrease themselves for the sake of increasing the Gospel.
Being forced to invest in others is a significant advantage, because it can help us from becoming preoccupied with ourselves. A single assembly model provides a God-given cap for the size and scale of your church. It provides a point from which you are forced to overflow outwards rather than continue to invest inwards. With multi-site/service, you can expand indefinitely across time and space, increasing your services and locations endlessly. In contrast, single assembly forces you to send out, rather than merely extend out. You must eventually hand over control and credit to others. Like John the Baptist, you are forced to increase the Kingdom by decreasing yourselves.
(2) Single Assembly frees churches to invest in others
Of course, churches should seek to invest in others long before they are forced to by the limits of single assembly. However, having this backstop can encourage this investment from a much earlier stage.
Single assembly convictions are the humble acceptance of the limitations God has placed upon us as humans. When we adopt single assembly, we accept the boundaries of our bodies, which are limited in time and space. By this, we can free ourselves from any expectation that we alone can reach our town or city. If everyone in our region is to be reached, we know we must partner with other congregations to advance the Gospel together. In this way, single assembly helps create a culture for supporting others.
Alternatively, multi-site/service carries the risk of implying or believing the best hope for your town, city or country is the expansion of your empire and success of your brand. Such models encourage the continual centralisation of power and accumulation of influence, permitting the existence of vassal groups, sustained by and subservient to the central site or service.
Of course, we must be careful not to imply multi-site/service models necessitate such pitfalls. We can be thankful for the many Kingdom-focused congregations who invest in others despite their multi-site/service model. Nevertheless, we must not miss that the model itself contains a clear temptation to limit the growth of God’s Kingdom to the growth of our kingdom.
Single assembly never allows us slip into empire building in the same way. If we are to advance the Gospel, we must eventually invest in others. By refusing to ever allow our flag to be flown at another church, we are freed from both the temptation and expectation of extending our own kingdom. With single assembly, the only relationship you can ever have with another church is a partnership, and so you are freed to wholeheartedly develop and invest in these.
What does this freedom mean in practice? For our congregation, it has meant pointing members towards another church, for we know we must partner with that congregation if the Gospel is to advance in that area. It has meant raising up elders and pastors for others, so they can serve in the places we can never reach. It has meant investing in fraternals of pastors and associations of churches that build up Gospel witnesses elsewhere. It has also meant releasing our resources: supporting plants or revitalisations financially, lending or giving buildings to other congregations, and regularly sending preachers or musicians to support other churches.
Obviously, multi-site/service churches can also do these things. Nevertheless, single assembly frees you to invest in others as your main (and only) strategy for advancing the Gospel beyond your own building. Afterall, we know that if the Gospel is to advance across our land, other pastors and churches must flourish.
How has the Gospel advanced across the ages?
If such a strategy seems strange today, we must never forget that this is how the Gospel has advanced throughout history. Single assembly has always been the best way to skin this particular cat. For example, the early church advanced the Gospel effectively by investing in other churches (Acts 14:21–23; Romans 16:1; 1 Corinthians 16:1; 2 Corinthians 8–9; 2 Timothy 2:2; Titus 1:5).
Similarly, Charles Spurgeon provides a great example of the strengths of single assembly for advancing the Gospel. Spurgeon went to much effort and expense to maximise the capacity of his building, gathering the largest Baptist congregation globally at the time. However, despite still regularly turning hundreds away from his services for lack of space, he never advocated using multiple sites or services to advance the Gospel.
Instead, Spurgeon embraced the blessed limitations of single assembly. He encouraged members to overflow out to hundreds of church plants and revitalisations, raised up countless workers for other congregations and regularly preached at services for other churches each week. Spurgeon set about maturing a great forest of churches, rather than limiting his investment to a single sprawling tree. As a result, long after his own church declined in health and strength, his investment in others is still advancing the Gospel today. And single assembly frees us to follow his example, planting a forest of churches that may stand bearing witness to the Gospel long into the future.