Critiquing a Biblical Defense of Multisite Churches

Dustin L. Slaton, Multisite Churches: Biblical Foundations and Practical Answers. Kregel Ministry, 2024. 320 pages.

The multisite movement has exploded over the last couple of decades. I can remember my first experience at a multisite church back in the mid-90s. At the time, the specific church I attended called themselves “A Church Distributed.” The way they connected with masses of people via technology was groundbreaking. The multisite movement has since progressed to churches having multiple sites spanning not only cities, but states and even countries. Some proponents of the movement will claim that it began long ago alongside the early church (65). Yet, regardless of its beginnings, we ought to ask: Is the movement biblical?

In his book Multisite Churches, Dustin Slaton seeks to prove that it is.

Defining Multisite

From a publishing standpoint, Slaton picked a great topic, as few books offer any sort of in-depth theological defense for the multisite movement, with the exception of writings by Gregg Allison, John Hammett, and Brian Frye (24). Most pro-multisite books focus on the functional advantages without providing a biblical defense (24). But as Slaton rightly observes, “It is unwise, if not irresponsible, to use an ecclesiological structure without first considering if it is biblically valid” (32).

Therefore, after surveying the multisite movement in chapter one, Slaton offers his definition of a multisite church as he seeks to prove its biblical validity. He defines a multisite church as “one church meeting in multiple separate physical campuses. These locations may be in the same city or region, or they may be in different cities, states, or nations. A multisite church shares a common vision, budget, and leadership” (64). This definition is broad, likely intentionally, due to the movement having no set polity and not arising out of any one denomination (22).

Multisite Churches is divided into three parts. Part One provides an overview of the movement. Part Two seeks to display how multisite churches fit within a paradigm of biblical, healthy churches. Part Three attempts to answer critiques of the multisite movement. In all three parts, Slaton provides a well-researched account and biblical foundation for how to think of a healthy church.

Defending Multisite

Despite Slaton’s biblical foundations for a healthy church, his understanding of what a “local church” is leads to some confusion. For example, Slaton provides an extended definition of assembly and admits that the concept poses a significant issue for most multisite churches (251–252). Yet, he concludes that multisite churches who do gather all together at least periodically would conceivably meet the biblical expectation of assembling (253). Even so, Slaton suggests that an understanding of the local church based on the etymology of the word “assembly” should not be a first-level issue (253). His reasoning here is that “one cannot define a concept simply by defining a word” (253). At the same time, if assembly, as represented by the Hebrew word qahal in the Old Testament and the Greek word ekklesia in the New Testament, is defined as a singular gathering of people for a specific purpose, then it is not right to discount this definition. For as Slaton rightly acknowledges, if the definition of the local church is defined by the word assembly, then a “church” who fails to assemble would no longer be considered a true church (254).

Instead, what Slaton argues for is a definition of the local church based upon covenant. Quoting J.D. Greear, Slaton says, “Assembly is a much-needed function, but covenant is the essence” (254). The reason why Slaton emphasizes covenant over assembly is that, though “assembling signifies the gathering of the church, it does not capture the purpose behind the gathering” (254). It is true that the covenant, as Mark Dever says, defines the parameters of membership (255), or we could say that the covenant provides the parameters of the assembly. But what is the purpose of covenanting together if there is no assembly? Slaton seems to concede this point by suggesting that multisite churches should have “periodic” gatherings where they are all together (256). Yet if assembly is not the essence of the church, nor should the assembly be defined etymologically as a singular gathering, then why suggest periodic gatherings? Does the “local church” need to gather in order to be a church?

In a related way, how should we think of the marks of the local church? Slaton, along with Protestants from the time of the Reformation onward, have understood the marks of a true church to be the right preaching of God’s Word and the proper administration of the ordinances (102). And yet, Slaton concedes that these marks are fluid in that they’re only consistently practiced by those who are joined together in covenant (107). The problem with emphasizing covenant over assembly (even as I mentioned earlier) is that Slaton creates an unnecessary and unhelpful division between the two. How can those covenanted together (multiple sites/campuses) practice the marks of the church without regularly assembling? This is where Slaton would say that a “church” can practice these marks differently and still be considered a “church,” meaning multiple locations can practice the marks locally and it still count toward the whole. Even so, let’s consider how Slaton views the marks of the church and their relationship with assembling a little closer.

When it comes to preaching, Slaton says, “Preaching, whether in person or via video, must be grounded in the Word of God” (118). He is exactly right that preaching must be grounded in the Bible! But more must be said. Does it matter who preaches and how it is done? In other words, does Christ give pastor-teachers as gifts to certain assemblies or can one pastor-teacher routinely preach to several churches of which he has little knowledge and is not necessarily present in? After all, if it doesn’t matter whether a pastor-teacher is a member of his congregation and present with them, then why not just throw on a John Piper re-run and give your church better preaching? It matters because pastors are to watch over specific people in light of the fact that they will one day give an account to the Lord Jesus for each one (Heb. 13:17). Churches should not accept being preached to by someone on a television screen who does not know them personally and care for them meaningfully.

When it comes to baptism, Slaton says, “Baptism is also an initiation into a local church and therefore is to be administered under the oversight into a local church body and leadership” (123). He indicates that an option for multi-site churches would be to have all campuses present for this event, but that if this were not possible, baptisms could be conducted at each campus as the new believer is incorporated into that segment of the church family (126–127). Here again is where Slaton’s view of the local church is confusing. Should we strive to have the “whole family” present, or only a segment? If only half of your family (or less) showed up to your wedding, wouldn’t that indicate that something has gone wrong? So with baptism, when members are joined to the body via the first ordinance, the body should be present, and this proves the importance of the body assembling.

On the Lord’s Supper, Slaton mischaracterizes Tom Schreiner’s view of Acts 2:42 and 46 (and “breaking bread in their homes”) to defend the Lord’s Supper being taken apart from the assembly. Schreiner says that Acts 2:42 and 46 could refer to the Lord’s Supper “since the church met in houses,”^{11 .} Thomas Schreiner, “The Lord’s Supper in the Bible.” In Baptist Foundations: Church Government for An Anti-Institutional Age, by Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman, 131–143. (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group. 2015), 138 not that the church divided into separate “house gatherings” apart from the assembly, as Slaton suggests (129). Additionally, Slaton doesn’t even deal with 1 Corinthians 11:17–34 and what it means for the church to “come together” when taking the Lord’s Supper.

Final Assessment

Overall, Slaton does a proficient job of providing a theological basis for many essential functions of the local church. In addition to defending preaching and the ordinances, he provides a solid, biblical basis for membership, discipline, leadership, discipleship, prayer, and more. He also provides an accurate depiction of the multisite movement, as well as its perceived functional advantages. In the end, however, he falls short of adequately connecting the biblical foundations of a church to the perceived functional advantages of the multisite movement.