What’s the Real Difference Between a Traditional Church Plant and a Multi-Site Satellite Campu
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, December 20, 2004
- Viewed 181
- (64) comments so far
"Johnson Ferry Baptist Church has a great reputation, and we're transferring the core mission, the values of that institution, to this campus," said Terry Nelson, head pastor of the new Johnson Ferry @ Cedarcrest.
The 23-year-old church is counting on its trusted name. Such branding is used to sell everything from hamburgers to computers, so, why not use a brand name to sell salvation?
The spinoff church will draw people from west Cobb and east Paulding counties and will initially hold services at Shelton Elementary School on Cedarcrest Road in Paulding County.
Services at Johnson Ferry @ Cedarcrest will be a mix of live music, live prayer and videotaped sermons delivered by Bryant Wright, the senior pastor at Johnson Ferry for 23 years, who is known for his "right from the heart" 60-second radio homilies.
The mix of live worship and videotaped sermon has been used at Johnson Ferry, Wright said.
Midmorning services are held simultaneously in the chapel and the church gym. One week, Wright delivers the sermon live in the chapel. The next week he speaks in the gym while those in the main sanctuary see a video version.
Such spiritual franchises, Wright said, "are definitely a trend across the country, especially among larger churches of all denominations."
North Point Community Church of Alpharetta has a branch in Buckhead, where the Rev. Andy Stanley appears via 3-D video image. North Point also has started a congregation in Dothan, Ala., and plans another in Forsyth County.
A 2000 Hartford Seminary study of 153 megachurches (there are an estimated 850 nationwide) found that 22 percent had satellite churches. Being a branch of a big church, as opposed to an independent start-up, has several advantages, Nelson said.
Church members know what to expect. "There are no unpleasant surprises," Nelson said.
The worldly expenses of running a church ? rendering unto the power company what is the power company's ? are covered by the established church.
"You can pour your passion and your energy into the ministry instead of worrying if you'll survive," Nelson said.
Until a a Cedarcrest campus is built, Sunday services are being held in the school gym.
The church paid to have heating and air conditioning installed in the gym, an expense beyond the reach of a typical start-up operation, Nelson said.
The staff of the new church is holding practice services in preparation for the Jan. 16 official first service. Equipment loaded into four trailers and a 26-foot cargo truck transforms the school gym into a worship center in about 45 minutes. About 120 people have been attending the practice services.
The services will be a bit more casual than those of the mother church, Nelson said.
"We'll never be in a coat and tie over there," he said.
Is this really any different of an idea than what we're used to in the past with the traditional church plant model for church growth?
Montpelier Baptist Church was a church plant of First Baptist Church of Stryker, OH (a church about 20 miles away). MBC was started because one local church cared about the spiritual well-being of people from another local community. Fortunately, I lived in that other community. 
What's the difference between what Johnson Ferry is doing in January and what First Baptist Church did 35 years ago? There are only two things that intially come to mind:
1. The name of the church
2. Technology
I know many are reluctant to take the multi-site movement seriously. I know that many think that multi-site churches somehow should not exist ("Why are they making their kingdom larger rather than just starting an entirely new church?" "Multi-sites are just another way to make mega-church pastors more popular and feed their own ego"). But in many ways, multi-sites make sense from a start-up standpoint... they take a local church's strengths (their values, vision, and mission) in their own community and duplicate this to a nearby community. Everyone is on the same page because they come from a mother church. And the financial pressure that many church plants find themselves under can be better leveraged by being more closely connected to the mother church.
Just as First Baptist saw spiritual fruit through their efforts 35 years ago, so will Johnson Ferry during 2005. Lives will be reached. Souls will be saved because God's people are once again reaching out.
For those who are opposed or look down on the multi-site approach, I would ask you to consider what the differences really are from the ways that we are already using and willingly 'accept'.
That should be enough to get the wheels rolling this morning... what do you think?
Todd
I was saved almost 30 years ago in a small church plant in Montpelier, OH. Today the evangelical church world is being rocked by a new type of church plant. The ‘multi-site church’ movement is gaining strength every week in America. Clint Williams of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution recently wrote an interesting article on another church that is opening a new church via a multi-site, satellite campus approach. Take a few minutes to read this article and consider some of the questions and ideas that I took from this article…
-----
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.
Dan on Mon, December 20, 2004
I attend a church which has planted several affiliated churches in surrounding areas. Each of these church plants has its own leadership, with a (real, live)pastor that does his own teaching. We do have special speaker presentations by video, occasionally. Each operates separately, though we do all gather together for fellowship several times each year. I think this system works well. When I relocated just over a year ago, I did not have to search for a new church home, I was familiar with one already.
Ricky Roubique on Mon, December 20, 2004
Todd responds to Ivan:
“The multi-site church movement is not just happening with mega-churches. I think you’ve missed the point of the article. Many smaller churches are beginning to multiply through this same method.”
Todd, while I certainly don’t intend to speak for Ivan, I believe his remarks underscore one of the major problems facing the American Church today: the definition of what is a “church.”
I would also conjecture that the “multi-site movement,” as you’ve described it, is just another desperate attempt (i.e., a fad) at keeping the status quo, otherwise known as “church.” By simply opening up another campus, where either the superstar preacher makes an appearance before the awaiting crowd (sounds like a presidential campaign doesn’t it?), or a likeness of his is presented via a videotape or satellite, all that is accomplished is an extension of the status quo, where one man is considered the hinge pin of the ministry.
In other words, all that is happening is the expansion of a single man’s or ministry’s influence (i.e., fifedom) instead of presenting the uniqueness of Christ’s headship alone, which is generally what house churches focus on and separates them from institutionalized organizations where one man controls the flow.
I’ve been on staff of a large organization (I refuse to call an organization a “church”) that opened up two multi-site locations to “bring the gospel” to certain areas, areas where certain (i.e., affluent) members were moving to. The services were scheduled at the “established church” and one of the two sites to allow the “superstar” to drive between them, arriving just in time to bring the “meat” to the needy congregation. At the third location, a videotaped sermon of the “superstar” is presented on a big-screen TV.
Now please tell me Todd, where in all of this is the spirit and intent of the Early Church represented? I think until we can honestly debate that and answer it in the light of Scripture instead of the light of marketing an man/organization, we will continue to miss the boat when it comes to experiencing genuine CHURCH.
Bill Moore on Mon, December 20, 2004
I’ve been on multiple staff for over 30years. Some small churches, some larger. It seems this concept may be less expensive, but probably not desireable. Not a bad concept, mind you, but one that bridges the gap between TV church goers and personal involvement. Seems a bit impersonal…..or occasional at best, when it comes to pastoral contact. The concept seems more doable on a single campus when seating is maxed out in a single location. Obviously it’s better than sitting at home and claiming a TV personality is your pastor because that personality won’t be doing your funeral, wedding or calling on you when you’re sick. Evenso, there is still a bit of “disconnectedness” with somehow the multi-church. It is safer, however, for the main church body because there would be little change in the main church philosophy, little to risk if there is a reputation of the main church at stake. More control…..? Power thing from the leadership? Time will tell.
Workable? Yes….desireable for one like me? No.
Ricky Roubique on Mon, December 20, 2004
Kim writes:
“Quite the contrary…I think that having multi-site venues actually increases the church’s ability to reach people ‘where they are.’”
Question: Who is “the” church? Don’t you mean that particular organization’s ability to reach people?
Todd Rhoades on Mon, December 20, 2004
Hey everyone,
Todd again.
Some interesting comments so far. Much of what I expected, frankly; and some new things as well.
First, let me say that I did not hold up the multi-site model as the only way; or even as the prefered way. My goal is to educate and to help keep us all up on what’s going on around us. I think many professionals keep their heads in the sand or boo-hoo every new thing either because they’re not doing it or because they think it doesn’t apply to them. So, my goal is that we can open some lines of discussion in this area without lamblasting each other in the process.
One of the more interesting things brought up so far is comparing the multi-site church to what we’ve known as the ‘denominational’ model. As denominations and denominational influence fades, I think the multi-site could be looked at almost as a small, localized denomination. It has some simlilarities to denominational structure in the past: one centralized leadership/authority/accountability; financial connection; some denominations even control who the pastor is and own the property. Again… doesn’t sound a whole lot different than the multi-site model in many ways.
Another thing that was brought up was the separation of teaching and shepherding. But really, we’ve done this in many ways in the past as well. Books, radio teaching, and television evangelism to give just a few examples. Even one local church with multiple staff usually separate these roles. I’m not saying it’s the best way to do things, just that it’s really nothing new. That doesn’t bother me. What does bother me is the idea that those churches that take a multi-site approach obviously aren’t doing any shepherding. That just isn’t the case in the multi-sites I’ve observed. One multi-site church that I can think of is doing an absolutely remarkable job in the area of shepherding and small groups connecting.
But for those of you who read my entries in the blog often, you know what’s coming… for me, the multi-site church is just another option that seems to be working in some areas for some churches. I’ve been in multi-site churches that are being tremendously effective in reaching their communities for Christ. And I have a hard time criticizing that. I have not seen the egomaniac pastor that everyone illudes to. And I haven’t seen the ‘we’re expanding to continue to promote ourselves’ that many others accuse. The multi-sites I’ve attended and researched are doing so for one reason: because they feel it is the most effective way that they can reach the lost in their community. When that’s the reason, I say, GO FOR IT!
As for the ego of the pastor… most of us just don’t know. (Ricky, it sounds to me like you’ve had a rough go of it and been burned… and it sounds like you’re around the NorthPointe area from what I can gather). But some of the comments here about what people say about ego pastors seems out of line if you don’t know for sure. I mean… consider the charge… some here have charged that certain multi-site churches are starting new campuses (churches) only to build the ego of the superpastor. If this is true, and there is no regard or concern whatsoever for the lost, I would be number one to criticize it. But honestly, I just don’t see that the ego pastor is the drive behind the multi-site movement.
Finally, there seems to be some criticism of the multi-site church from the comments here that it is actually a good thing for church plants to struggle to survive, either financially, numberically, or spiritually. I will not dispute that these struggles will help build strength and character; but what I have seen in my own denomination and circles have been that we have a terrible track record with church plants (I know this isn’t everyone). We support them for the first couple years, then say, “time’s up” and let them die. I find it hard to criticize a plan that helps church plants be successful and use start-up money wisely.
OK… now that I’ve totally made everyone livid again http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif let’s have some more comments.
Todd
Ivan on Mon, December 20, 2004
I see nothing in the mega movement that resembles the kingdom of God. I am weary of the fad of the hour. However, no matter how many fads come down the pike the Church will not die because she is the bride of Christ, but what is needed in our day are disciples of Christ who will glorify God and give their lives for the kingdom’s sake, not the corporate building that passes for the Church today.
Someone may say, “there were 3,000 souls saved on the Day of Penetcost, there’s your first mega church.” Ah, but where did they meet together? As it says, “House to house”. We do not need mega, multiple site churches. We do not need 40 days of Purpose programs. Soon and very soon, we will need the absolute commitment of disciples of Jesus Christ who will follow Him anywhere. The days of playing church will soon be over. The fads will not stand.
Todd Rhoades on Mon, December 20, 2004
Ivan,
This is exactly what I’m talking about… obviously you like the house church approach. That’s fine.
But why the antimosity toward everyone else who doesn’t take your approach (the house church approach)?
My church benefited greatly from the 40 days of Purpose ‘fad’ that you say we didn’t need. And why the feeling that everyone involved in a multi-site ministry is just ‘playing church’?
All I am saying is that hopefully you in your house church and people in a multi-site church might just share the same goal: “the absolute commitment of disciples of Jesus Christ who will follow Him anywhere.” Am I wrong when I think this can happen in both places? Aren’t we all on the same team? And if so, why do we keep beating each other over the heads rather than playing nicely together?
OK… I’ll shut up for a while now. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
Todd
Al on Mon, December 20, 2004
One of the things the Mormon’s do, I cannot believe I am referring to the Mormons, in any event, they limit their “stakes” (i.e. churches) to 200 people, and if they get larger then that, they create another stake. They also use one building for 3+ churches.
There might be some wisdom to this if we can get past the Mormon thing for a moment. At this level, the elders of the church are well able to maintain the right care over their people.
Would the Christian church be able to do this? I doubt it because of the egos involved.
Here is another thing – if numbers are, the sign we are looking for to identify if a ministry is ‘relevant’ then the Mormons must be really doing the “right” thing – for they are building their organization faster then any Christian church!
IMHO
Blessings,
Al
p.s. I still can’t believe I am referencing the Mormons!
Ezra on Mon, December 20, 2004
To quote from above,
“Everyone is on the same page because they come from a mother church.”
As satellite campuses begin to crowd out smaller churches, those smaller churches may simply merge with the mega-church. The senior pastor of Small Church might become the chief associate pastor of Mega-Church - CityStreet Campus. The other ministerial staff will be absorbed in the same way.
Fortunately for church staff, this will help job security. Not getting along with the associate at your campus? Put in for a transfer to another position at one of our other church campuses.
Is the idea of such centralization the opposite of the Protestant Reformation? Is this good? Bad?
I pray that God will give all of us wisdom for this hour and vision for days ahead.
Pastor D on Mon, December 20, 2004
We’re a new church plant in a large city in Ca. We meet in a home. We have no financial backing from any church, or denomination. We have the spiritual backing of God. Like Ivan, we’re tired of the hype and entertainment that attracts people to church. Christ(and Him crucified) is what we use to attract people to our small church. Our marketing tool?? The Bible!
The local mega churches and smaller ones don’t preach Christ. They give motivational speeches/feel good messages. I’ve seen 40 Days of Purpose at a church too. It was great for bringing in people, but sad to say, 3 years later they’re still being fed milk, no meat!!! Churches today seem to lack spiritual growth.
Todd Rhoades on Mon, December 20, 2004
Pastor D,
“we’re tired of the hype and entertainment that attracts people to church”
ok
“Christ(and Him crucified) is what we use to attract people to our small church”
Sounds like a methodology difference to me in many cases. Methodology and Theology are not the same thing. There is no other church in your area who preaches Christ? All other churches in your area ar motivational and feel good and don’t preach Christ (and Him crucified)? I doubt it. But I do bet they use a different methodology to bring people (and yes, attract people) than you do.
I say… more power to you; and more power to those who are reaching Christ in your community through other methods… even if you don’t agree with their methodology.
What may seem hype to you may be the same thing that draws someone else to Christ? What say you?
Todd
PS—by the way, I find this discussion fascinating and stimulating! http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
Todd on Mon, December 20, 2004
Thanks for the article on multi-site churches. Our family recently started attending a “video church” in Western Palm Beach County. The church is a branch of Christ Fellowship in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida where John Maxwell was recently added to the teaching staff. This promises to be a big marketing tool for the church. In our version of the “video church” the music is live, the “campus pastor” is basically an MC for the “main event” when the senior pastor speaks via video. It is not even a fresh sermon. It was taped weeks or months before. Why not have a pastor tape a year’s worth of sermons and show them each week? That way the pastor wouldn’t even have to show up on Sundays. This would lead to a reduction in clergy burnout. (ha ha)
During the Christmas season we love talking about the God who got personal with us when Jesus came to earth as a baby. Why are we content to send an impersonal speaker in the name of growth? Why can’t the church be content to sponsor a new daughter congregation without the strings attached? If leadership is about training leaders, why can’t we train leaders to lead the new churches?
Thank God He didn’t send a video.
Don on Mon, December 20, 2004
I had the privilege to visit Johnson Ferry last spring and spent several hours with Bill Gambrell, Asso. Pastor of Ed & Program Ministries. I was quite impressed with how they were expanding their ministry to reach and minister to those God was leading to the church. The simulcast of the message to the gym service with an alternative style of worship was a great way to keep unity in the church, remaining culturally relevant, keep everyone thinking on the same page and reducing the senior pastors work load & stress level.
It seems the multi-site was the next progression for them as they continued to fulfill the great commission in their part of the world. Rather than expecting the people to come to where they are, they are going to them.
As evidenced by their tremendous growth, Johnson Ferry has perfected a ministry system that is biblical, evangelical and best of all, it works! Why wouldn’t God lead them to duplicate this process?
This summer, during my sabbatical, I visited Seacoast church in Mount Pleasant, SC near Charleston. They have been doing the multi-site for a number of years. They currently have 8 sites in 6 cites across 2 states. Each has at least one pastor on site to give leadership on the field and other ministry teams to assist in the ministry functions of the church. They too have developed an effective ministry system and are ministering to far more people than they could if they were confined to an old paradigm. http://www.seacoast.org
I appaud Johnson Ferry and any other churches who are finding new ways to take the old message to an every changing world.
Pastor D on Mon, December 20, 2004
Agreed there are different methodologies. Granted I cannot say with absolute certainty that EVERY Christian church in my area is all motivational speaking and feel good messages. But folks who I know who attend other churches in my community tell me there isn’t much difference between churches, except for ours. I am sure there are other small one or large ones that use the Bible only. No seminars, no extra programs, etc.
Did you know churches here are careful NOT to have a cross anywhere around their buildings? They are also careful not to mention the BLOOD of Jesus? Lest, they offend someone, and lose an attendar.
And the thought of asking God what the congreation needs to hear from their God, these pastors use sermons off the internet, then mold it to ‘fit’ their congregations.
I too find this an interesting dialog!!
God Bless each who are reading and contributing. And Merry CHRISTmas!
Pat Ridpath on Mon, December 20, 2004
I find it interesting that Ricky is so against the multi-site approach. Paul said that he became all things to all people, to reach some. I believe that the multi-site church is ONE of the ways that we can reach people. What won’t reach people is the attitude that it can’t be from God, just because someone has had a bad experience with one megachurch preacher.
We are a two year old church that will be launching a second campus next fall. It is not to being done to inflate my ego, as our approach is to go with the team teaching model. There are a number of reasons why we are launching a second campus, but primarily to answer the call God has placed before us. This second gathering of the body of Christ will be to reach people in another area of town.
Bottom line is that when we pray, discern and step out in faith, God promises to move in mighty ways. That is true whether it is a second campus or a house church.
Page 2 of 5 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
Post a Comment