McDonalds? No, but close.
It is true. It appears Mars Hill Church is going to plant a branch in Portland. In spite of the dozens upon dozens of churches already in the area; as well as all the new, eager church plants all over town; Mars Hill thinks we need their brand kind of like every town needs a Walmart or a McDonalds.
I guess when a branch popped up in Albuquerque, New Mexico, (because there was no good churches already there!) we should have known that their ecclesiastical capitalism knows no bounds. Sigh.
I guess the good news is it is not slated until late 2011 and I am out of here in mid-2012.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Mars Hill Church Coming to Portland « Near Emmaus -- Topsy.com
November 23, 2010 at 10:29 am
Is that Driscoll’s or Bell’s Mars Hill?
November 23, 2010 at 10:41 am
Driscoll.
November 23, 2010 at 10:46 am
I am no defender of Mars Hill; I am Presbyterian and my wife works, but I’ll always give Mars Hill the benefit of the doubt, even if I disagree over method.
Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.
Now onto bigger things to slay.
November 23, 2010 at 11:03 am
@Casey: That is a point one of my friends made as well and I agree that I am glad the gospel is proclaimed. The criticism then is two-fold: (1) toward church as marketed brand and (2) toward one non-local church trumping local churches with limited cooperation. I think it reflect negatively on MHs understanding of the church global.
November 23, 2010 at 11:12 am
Yikes.
November 23, 2010 at 7:08 pm
BL,
Where did you read that Mars Hill was installing a screen in PDX? According to the Acts 29 site, there are already four of their churches in Portland? Maybe one of those will be the broadcast site.
http://www.acts29network.org/churches/#state:Oregon
PGR
November 23, 2010 at 7:30 pm
Twitter accounts of MH staff. The current worship pastor from Seattle is coming down to plant MH PDX. Also, insider info.
November 27, 2010 at 12:18 am
It would seem that since Portland is still one of the least churched cities in the United States that there would be plenty of room for another one. As to the branding thing, I really do believe that it is a non-issue. I see that Dr. Fee is given a tribute because he has achieved something even though he is “branded”. I guess I am biased as I am a church planting missionary in an overseas context for a “brand” (read: denomination).
November 27, 2010 at 8:49 am
Vance,
I understand your angle on this. Others have said something similar. People are just glad the gospel is being preached. That is not the issue here though.
First, just because a city is unchurched doesn’t mean it lacks churches. If MH cared for PDX why not fund the dozens of needy churches already here?
Second, it is not the same thing as denominationalism which is usually based on teaching of doctrine. While I see denominationalism as a weak excuse for preventing churches from working together I understand that pragmatically it can’t happen some times. MH is not a denominationally affiliated church; they’re becoming a franchise.
Third, there is no pleasure is having to explain again and again why this or that garbage dripped from Driscoll’s lips. Now with a baby church here I am sure we will hear more of it. O for the days when we were separated by three whole hours!
May 12, 2011 at 8:55 am
” People are just glad the gospel is being preached. That is not the issue here though”
wow…that’s… actually always the issue
May 12, 2011 at 8:58 am
@Mimi: No one said that it not an issue, but that it is not the thing being critiqued. Think of how Paul refused to build on the foundation laid by others. It is not quite the same, but there is a principle there. A “Mars Hill” brand will likely vacuum as many Christians out of small local churches as it will reach those who have no Christian affiliation at all.
July 11, 2011 at 7:59 am
A couple of questions:
Do you think that Portland’s current churches are successfully reaching nonbelievers?
Do you think Mars Hill is successfully reaching Seattle’s nonbelievers?
What is it about Mars Hill theology or message that bothers you the most? Do you think his teaching is unbiblical?
Regarding Paul’s calling, I hope that we can agree that was unique to Paul, especially since many of the other apostles spend the bulk of their time in areas already evangelized (in light of which, I think it may not be a valid critique in this discussion). Besides, this would be an argument against church planting in places where churches already exist– and I hope that is not your position.
July 11, 2011 at 8:07 am
K. Erickson:
(1) Yes, they live here. They love their neighbors and they share the gospel with them. The churches here are engaged in the city, love the city, and they allow God to bring the increase.
(2) It would seem so.
(3) It is not MH’s “message”, per se (though I don’t respect Driscoll very much). Rather, it is the idea that one preacher is so important that he is better at pastoring through a video from many, many miles away that someone could be who live and loves the people as their neighbor.
I don’t think Paul’s principle of not building on another person should be ignored so easily. Church planting is fine. Is Mark planting a church here? No, he isn’t coming to Portland. He is staying in Seattle. If he comes to Portland we can discuss this being like a church plant.