Taking Multi-site Church to a Whole New Level
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Wed, June 22, 2005
- Viewed 268
- (30) comments so far
Pastor Craig said ?We?ve seen God bless it locally and believe that state lines wouldn?t really blur the message,? he said.
Similar approaches are currently working well already... like the success of Seacoast church which has a state-wide network of churches in South Carolina.
Some other quick, interesting facts about LifeChurch.tv's expansion to Phoenix and Mesa:
- Initial investment expected to be about $1 million for each campus
- About 100 church members have committed to move from OK to AZ, find jobs there, and help start the new campuses.
- LifeChurch.tv's most recent Oklahoma City Campus was started with $1.2 million in capital raised prior to launch. The campus now has an attendance of over 2,000 with between 30-40 people making commitments to Christ each week.
- They have also produced a 28 minute TV special that will run in the Phoenix market before the launch that will show what people can expect when they attend.
- Craig said he and other ministry leaders have met with several pastors in the Phoenix area with the hopes of developing good relationships with them and their congregations. He said about eight or nine pastors from Arizona are expected to visit the Oklahoma campuses in July to get a firsthand glimpse of Life Church as the ministry prepares to become their newest neighbor.
Sounds like an interesting and exciting endeavor. I know that everyone is not a fan of the multi-site concept; but it is something that you should learn about now because it is quickly becoming an accepted and even preferred format for many churches across the country. In a post tomorrow, we'll share what Pastor Craig says to his detractors... those who feel that rather than start new campuses they should start new churches. Stay tuned...!
Here's a link to a press release from LifeChurch.tv...
Until then... what are your thoughts on LifeChurch.tv's plans?
We’ve discussed alot about the multi-site church format here at the blog, in our email newsletters and at our sister-website ChurchVideoVenues.com. Many churches are setting up additional campuses/venues, either across the building, across town, across the state, and now… even across the country. LifeChurch.tv (based in Oklahoma) recently announced that they were starting two new campuses/churches… in ARIZONA!
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Terry Storch on Wed, June 22, 2005
Life Church rocks! They are doing an amazing job, I have a ton of respect for them.
Tally on Wed, June 22, 2005
I’m with Terry. I say “go get’em”. We seriously have to get over ourselves and focus back on reaching the lost. If Life Church can be used by God to increase salvations in every town in the country I say let them at it.
Ricky on Wed, June 22, 2005
Sorry to rain on everyone’s parade, but this “new” multi-site emphasis will last about 3 more years and it will be forgotten just as all of the other programs.
It will not have lasting power because it is nothing more than an extension of the larger “mother ‘church’,” with all of its control and predictability.
Where will be the spontaneity that the Early Church enjoyed? Will ALL of the members be free to minister their giftings as the Spirit leads, without having to be told “Quiet! The video feed is starting?”
Where will the ownership of the service lie? Will the Spirit have complete control of the service?
Until each (and more) of the above questions are answered in light of Scripture, people will grow tired of this “new” thing, which will open the door to the next fad.
James "Smiler" Farrer on Thu, June 23, 2005
Ricky,
You have to remember that most of these US megachurches don’t believe in the use of the charismatic spiritual gifts for today - I assume you are referring to these.
So there’s that… Then also remember that the services are scripted and timed to run to what , an hour at most? It’s probably all the average seeker can “be put up with”.
Todd Rhoades on Thu, June 23, 2005
You’re not raining on anyone’s parade, Ricky… not mine at least.
Let’s check in this forum around June 23, 2008 and we’ll see if it’s a fad or not. If so, there are going to be a lot of successful (and by successful, I mean the likes of LifeChurch.tv’s campuses that are seeing the high amount on converts) churches shutting down. That just isn’t usually what happens. It’s usually the stagnant, inward-focused churches that die a slow agonizing death.
Take for example the church this is about. LifeChurch.tv has over 100 people MOVING HUNDREDS OF MILES to use their gifts. That’s not some shallow fad thing; I would rather suggest that it is the people of God sold-out to His work (enough to leave family, friends, homes, jobs and incomes behind)
What you call ‘control and predictability’ I would call a method and plan to reach the lost.
And where they are seeing 30-40 people making committments to Christ, you would ask, “Will the Spirit have complete control of the service?” Seems to me the Spirit might be working here all ready.
Todd
Chris on Thu, June 23, 2005
I have a question…
What about community? I would be curious to know what these “mega-productions” do in regards to community building among the body.
Also, if you are interested in planting seeker friendly churches, why telebroadcast one pastor’s message to all of them over a very expensive system? In this country we are so egocentric to think that we have to telebroadcast one person when there are many called.
Also, can’t that money be used more wisely elsewhere. I just met a wonderful Christian leader from Africa this week who has christian schools that can be funded for decades on the kind of money that we spend on marble floors in our “mega-production” churches in America.
I think that this is yet another example of American Christians disconection from the real work of God in soulwinning, not a triumph for it.
I applaude thier desire to reach out but abhor their method.
pjlr on Thu, June 23, 2005
Let’s wait, watch, pray and see. The success of these innovative ways of doing ministry will be measured by the infrastructure they build to support the initial attraction of their methodology.
I believe that if adequate discipleship measures are being implemented that this will work. If there are “Christianity 101, 201” classes, fellowship groups, accountability groups, service groups etc. then these types of churches will be successful. If they are personality driven, then we will see what happens when the leader leaves, dies, falls or is asked to leave.
Let’s encourage these types of innovations as long as they are paying attention to the foundational needs of their congregants.
Todd Rhoades on Thu, June 23, 2005
Well said, pjlr; and Chris, you hit on a couple of the main criticisms of the multi-site church: Size and Ego. We’ll deal with some of this in a later post on this topic later today right here!
On pjlr’s comments: Absolutely, there must be connection and small groups and growth. Without this connection, these churches/campuses WILL fail. But I think we have to be careful (Chris) in automatically assuming that these churches aren’t doing this. As a matter of fact, those multi-sites that I’ve checked out are pretty much built on small groups… they just get more publicity because of their multi-site format. North Coast in CA is a great example. They have an absolutely outstanding record on being based around small groups that meet weekly. But they get much more publicity because of their multi-service venue format.
On the issues of Ego and Size… again, I think we need to be careful. Pastor Craig (from LifeChurch.tv) will discuss this in a quote we have from him later today. Most everyone I’ve talked with and corresponded with says this has nothing to do with ego OR size; but rather with the best and more productive way to reach people for Christ. They would adamantly disagree with you Chris when you say that what they’re doing is a “disconection from the real work of God in soulwinning”. Actually, they have been working on ways to best multiply their soul-winning efforts and this is the method they find works for them. You might abhor it; but I don’t understand why (other than a huge dislike for large ‘mega’ type churches).
Finally, I find the whole ‘cost-benifit’ ‘return on investment’ point to be moot. Many who complain the church is too ‘business-like’ are sometimes the first ones to complain about how much money is spent to acheive a goal and think that money would be better spent elsewhere. I think that’s a tough arguement to make when you’re not in charge of the money or have any stake in it.
For example, let’s say that the commitments to Christ that LifeChurch.tv says are happening at just ONE of their campuses (30-40 a week) is valid; and their start up cost was 1.2 million. Let’s say just 20 (not 30 or 40) new Christians a week over just one year:
20x52 = 1,040 new converts in the FIRST year resulted from the 1.2 million investment. That’s about a thousand per soul. Large investment in this case means a large number of new people brought into the Kingdom. Not something I’d want to criticize too much. What price is too high? Where do we draw the line to say, ‘It’s not worth it’ or ‘I could do it better’.
Oh well… we’ll discuss this more over at the post later today. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
Have a great day!
Todd
Ellen on Thu, June 23, 2005
LifeChurch.tv has over 100 people MOVING HUNDREDS OF MILES to use their gifts. That’s not some shallow fad thing;” No, that’s not a shallow fad thing - it’s a “I (self) want to go where the action is, instead of growing where God (God) planted me. It’s people leaving their lost loved ones in order to be part of a “larger thing” “20x52 = 1,040 new converts new converts in the FIRST year resulted from the 1.2 million investment. That’s about a thousand per soul.” Only if you track them and find out if the commitment is real, or if they were carried along by the excitment of a large group.
My biggest concern is the raising up of new leaders. In order for the video-service to work you have to have one “charistmatic” (in the earthly sense of the word) preacher (how is this man going to shepherd his flock from hundreds of miles away?)
And what happens if this man falls in sin, or is injured, or dies, or retires? Who is the next man who will be charismatic enough to hold a video-congregation together?
I have no doubt it will “work” (but then, a lot of things “work” according to earthly success standards.) But is it really better than raising up new leaders and planting churches - and having the man that just taught you shake your hand and tell you that he’s happy you were able to be there that day?
Geoff Surratt on Thu, June 23, 2005
I am amazed by Life Church’s passion and commitment to reaching lost people. A couple of comments:
1. “What about community? I would be curious to know what these “mega-productions” do in regards to community building among the body.”
At my church (Seacoast Church) we’re finding that our new campuses have an even greater sense of community than our original “mega-campus”. All of the multi-site churches I’m familiar with emphasize community through small groups as Todd said.
2. “My biggest concern is the raising up of new leaders. In order for the video-service to work you have to have one “charistmatic” (in the earthly sense of the word) preacher (how is this man going to shepherd his flock from hundreds of miles away?)”
We have four campuses 100+ miles from our original campus, the key to shepherding for us is the Campus Pastor, not necessarily the teaching pastor. In the New Testament they often read Paul’s letters at their gatherings, but the local pastor (such as Timothy at Ephesus) was responsible for shepherding and discipleship.
The bottom line for us (and for Life Church) is changed lives. If you want to know what drives us take a look at this letter. http://seacoastchurch.typepad.com/seacoast_church_blog/2005/06/a_seacoast_stor.html
As long as lives are being changed we’re willing to deal with the challenges.
Sorry this is so long, thanks for the forum Todd.
Todd Rhoades on Thu, June 23, 2005
Thanks, Ellen for your comments; and Geoff for your response.
As far as raising up leaders goes, here are a couple thoughts:
1. Does it have to be the ‘teaching pastor’ that “shakes your hand and tell you that he’s happy you were able to be there that day”? Unless you’re in a small (under 200) church, this probably doesn’t happen much anyway. The campus pastor (as Geoff commented) is actually key here. He is the ‘goto’ person. And while he doesn’t do the teaching, he is the point man, the contact person, the ‘senior pastor’ per se.
2. Setting up multi-site campuses means that the church is actually doing a BETTER THAN AVERAGE job at training leaders. These campuses don’t run themselves. (It’s not like someone shows up 5 minutes before the service and plugs in the video projector, takes an offering, and leaves). Most multi-sites utilize full children’s programming (with leaders from within); a full worship team (with leaders grown from within); a full support team (technical, greeting, care, small group leadership, etc.) that all must be raised up from within. (Terry Storch from Fellowship Church has discussed this at times at his blog… it’s amazing the number of leaders that need to step-up and be trained to actually pull off a second campus!)But for some reason, when we hear ‘multi-site’ or ‘video venue’ we think that it’s either pushed by an egomaniac or a lazy man who doesn’t want to develop leaders. I don’t think either is true in most all cases.
Finally, Ellen, about the 100+ people moving… you said:
No, that’s not a shallow fad thing - it’s a “I (self) want to go where the action is, instead of growing where God (God) planted me. It’s people leaving their lost loved ones in order to be part of a “larger thing”
I’m sorry, Ellen, but you don’t know that. That’s a pretty cynical way to think about it. If that were the case, then no one would leave ‘home’ to go to the mission field. I mean, isn’t that why people leave for the mission field; to find a place that’s ripe for harvest? I hope that that’s what these people are doing. And I have no reason to believe otherwise. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
Todd
joshuapchase on Thu, June 23, 2005
There is so much that God wants to accomplish with and through us. So many lost and hurting, and this number will continue to grow until we as the church…God’s church decide that to reach the lost at all cost means putting aside our idea of what church is and begin to focus on the needs of others…America is just as important a mission field as any other country… As much as the multi-campus church is an out of the box idea…it’s just another tool that Jesus wants to use to bring HIS love to the world…starting as close as the next town or as far as the next state…or the next country… when will we realize this is not about me, but about HIM.
Ricky on Thu, June 23, 2005
From the article:
“Arizonans, like Oklahomans at the church’s five campuses across the state, will see and hear Groeschel’s weekly messages live via satellite.”
Quote from Todd:
“Take for example the church this is about. LifeChurch.tv has over 100 people MOVING HUNDREDS OF MILES to use their gifts.”
And what “gifts” will those 100 souls get to utilize, Todd? The ability to turn on the video monitor? To make sure that the feed from the controlling senior pastor miles away will come through loud and clear?
Wow! That’s what I call releasing God’s people to utilize their gifts!
You don’t seem to get it, do you? If that senior pastor was a true spiritual father, he would not only totally give the ministry away to those 100 people, he would bankroll it as well and stay out of their way as they seek to reach Arizonans.
But no, he thinks that he’s the only one who can minister in a city hundreds of miles away from his home while his followers obediently make sure that HE is the main attraction. How is this helping people, Todd? How is this representative of the Body of Christ? Of the Early Church?
This is nothing more than “superstarism” and the senior pastor is bilking the hapless souls that are leaving by telling them that they are vital to the “ministry.” They can’t see that they’re nothing more than pawns in his game of chess.
Seacoast, LifeChurch.tv, et al, who espouse the “multi-site” strategy do so on the backs of ill-taught believers who haven’t been told that the Church is to be wild and free and not shackled by the inventions of MAN.
Koolaid, anyone?
Ricky on Thu, June 23, 2005
Chris brilliantly said:
“What about community? I would be curious to know what these “mega-productions” do in regards to community building among the body.”
Chris, from one who served on the staff of a mega-complex that also utilizes the “multi-site campus” scheme, I can tell you that they will have small groups or cell groups where the lesson will center around the pastor’s sermon.
There will be no encouragement to grow in true community, but the “leaders” will make sure that they toe the company line.
Chris:
“Also, if you are interested in planting seeker friendly churches, why telebroadcast one pastor’s message to all of them over a very expensive system? In this country we are so egocentric to think that we have to telebroadcast one person when there are many called.”
This deserves to be said again!
My answer is because the pastor believes that he is being a “good steward” only if the new “ministry endeavor” bears his name and “influence.” It’s the “superstar syndrome” again, and again and again…
Again Chris:
“Also, can’t that money be used more wisely elsewhere. I just met a wonderful Christian leader from Africa this week who has christian schools that can be funded for decades on the kind of money that we spend on marble floors in our ‘mega-production’ churches in America.
I think that this is yet another example of American Christians disconection from the real work of God in soulwinning, not a triumph for it.
I applaude thier desire to reach out but abhor their method.”
Yes, the money would be better spent in either caring for truly needy people, such as the brother from Africa, or even taking care of the ones who attend the congregation.
But in order to “help” someone from another country, that brother would have to “submit” to the “authority” of the pastor who wishes to give the cash. Also, to selflessly give money with no strings attached, would mean that the pastor truly has a kingdom mentality and not an emperical one, as it seems that this pastor does.
Ricky on Thu, June 23, 2005
Todd said:
“Finally, I find the whole ‘cost-benifit’ ‘return on investment’ point to be moot. Many who complain the church is too ‘business-like’ are sometimes the first ones to complain about how much money is spent to acheive a goal and think that money would be better spent elsewhere. I think that’s a tough arguement to make when you’re not in charge of the money or have any stake in it.”
It’s not hard at all, Todd.
As we see in scripture, the First Church was careful to make sure that THEIR OWN was taken care of to the extent that “none of them had a need among them.”
This so impressed the local community that “disciples were added daily to their number.”
However, today pastors stroke their egos by sending money elsewhere without first seeing to the needs of their own. By developing a bloated “mission budget” (that happens to include local radio/tv, newspaper, brochures, mailings, etc., that promote the pastor/church), pastors can claim that “an investment” is made in the local community.
All for his glory and not God’s.
As I said, Todd, it’s not that hard.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Post a Comment