Why I’m Passionate About the Multi-Site Church Movement
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Wed, September 07, 2005
- Viewed 352
- (34) comments so far
Great question. And a fair one as well. I do try to cover the multi-site movement pretty closely here at the MMIBlog; and I'll try to explain why. Doing so has caused me to really consider why I like and support the multi-site concept. (This is mostly off the top of my head, so please excuse any typos) 
1. Multi-site Churches are growing Churches
I've been nailed so many times here at the blog for defending multi-site churches; but the bottom line is (in my opinion) multisite churches are getting the job done. Many churches that have adopted the multi-site format are simply growing and making disciples at a very rapid pace.
This quickly brings me to the topic of criticism. Those opposed to the multi-site format have a ton of criticism to throw out:
--The egocentric mega-church multi-site pastor (I've yet to meet one);
--The lack of training of leaders and empowering leaders in the multi-site movement (leveled mostly by people that have never attended a multi-site... it takes just as many people, if not more) to pull off a satellite campus).
--The feeling that only one person is 'gifted' enough to speak. In fact, many multi-site churches use teaching 'teams' and on-site campus pastors who speak occasionally. Actually, the gift of communicating is an important skill... maybe some focus should be put on the number of pastors who bore their churches to death week after week.
--The feeling that multi-sites should just plant churches if they want to expand the Kingdom. (I'll discuss why the multi-site model actually works better (in many cases) than traditional church plants, and why.
--That people won't sit, watch, learn and grow from teaching on a screen. That's just not true. Believe it or not, they do.
--That it's not right that people don't have access to their pastor. Let's face it... if you're in a church over 100; you have increasingly limited access to your lead pastor. Multi-sites don't just leave this void, they fill it with a campus pastor or other staff that meet the needs of the people just like a 'regular' church.
--That multi-site churches are 'church-lite'; or don't teach a valid message. Many go as far as to say that converts and disciples made at multi-sites aren't 'true disciples' because the message they hear is only a feel good 'what's in it for me' message that leads to non-redeeming faith in something other than God's Son. I've just not found this to be the case. Some multi-sites even buck the trend... 45 minute messages; expository preaching; etc.
OK... enough about the critics. Here's my stance... Rick Warren said it well at the Leadership Summit this year... the public body of Christ has lost it's arms and legs and the only thing that's left is a mouth. Many times, I think the Christian community (and pastors in general) are nothing but a mouth for the things we are against. I hate that. I'd rather be part of something that is positive. And that's the main reason I and passionate about the multi-site movement. Here's my experience:
Multi-site Churches are passionate for the lost.
Critics can argue methodology, theology, financial aspects, personality aspects, and other things all day long. But many times I wonder what the purpose of all the criticism is. Sometimes I think it's jealousy (they're being successful and I'm not). Sometimes I just think its ignorance (I don't understand it and it's different, so I'm against it). And sometimes I think it's just people talking about things they have never investigated. For example, saying that multi-site churches are not making disciples and have egotistical pastors is a moot point if you've never even attended a multi-site church to experience it for yourself.
Multi-site Churches are passionate for the lost. I like that. And it's a team I want to be a part of.
OK... this is getting long (as I'm just going off the top of my head).
A couple other things I like about the multi-site model:
2. I like worship options.
As a former worship pastor; I do like the multiple worship styled venue options. Things were so much easier 25 years ago when there was one style: traditional. Like it or not, our culture has changed; and offering different worship styles is a great tool in breaking the ice with people. Think that's not so? Take yourself out of your own worship setting and pick one that would be opposite of your personal taste. Now picture yourself worshipping in that service for a year. Could you do that? What would your attitude be? I can worship in any style (and I like just about all styles); but I have a preference. And my preference really helps me move into God's presence in an even deeper way. If your truthful, your worship preference probabably does the same. Multi-sites have this luxury of formatting their services in greater ways to reach who they're going after. All without sacrificing the main message and theme of the service.
3. Multi-Sites Just Make Sense In So Many Ways
Multi-sites just make sense in a lot of stewardship ways. Multi-sites can share staff members. Multi-sites can save money on overhead in all kinds of ways just because of simple 'economy of scale'. Multi-sites can save money on all kinds of things that smaller, independant churches cannot because there is less duplicating of tasks. Seacoast Church, for example, can start a new campus for as little as $75,000. Try doing that with a that with a traditional church plant.
I realize this is a rambling rather than a 'ready to be published' treatus. And I'm not sure that I really even said all I wanted to say. To those involved in multi-sites; all the North Coasts, Seacoasts, LifeChurch.tvs, Buckheads, Community Christians, Saddlebacks, and others... I say, "Keep up the great work!" Let's see where this mult-site movement goes and how many thousands of lives will be brought into the Kingdom as a result!
These are exciting days!
Todd
Discussion: Please feel free to respond to specific points if you like. We'll not turn this into a full-blown debate on multi-sites though... we've been there; done that (and I've got the scars to prove it). Just check the archives.
Yesterday, Brad left a comment here on the blog that I wanted to respond to. Brad wrote: After reading the blog for a year or so now, you seem to be very passionate about the multisite church concept - what’s the story...I am always intrigued by what make people ‘go’ - and this seems to be a pretty important deal to you - so shed some light for me, an associate pastor, who’s church is considering launching another site, on what you like/dislike about the "multisite" concept…
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.
bernie dehler on Wed, September 07, 2005
Todd wrote:
“Those opposed to the multi-site format have a ton of criticism to throw out:—The egocentric mega-church multi-site pastor (I’ve yet to meet one); “
Hi Todd,
The problem I see with most mega-churches is highlighted in your previous post from the mega-pastor who confessed to the problems. Please see your recent article “It’s Just Not Working.”
The mega-Pastor had spiritual insight to see the problem, and further, to admit it. I’m afraid most are embroiled in it. Snippet from that mega-Pastor, after bringing in 83 new members:
“It was the first time in thirty years of ministry I had admitted something I was leading wasn’t working. It appeared to be working, but it just wasn’t.”
How many are still fooled by the “appearances?”
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247/
Todd Rhoades on Wed, September 07, 2005
Yes, Bernie… I understand; but you can’t automatically assume that growth means that it’s not working either. Many times, (probably most times) I believe, it is. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
I believe a much larger problem, if you want to talk about being ‘fooled by appearances’ are the many pastors and churches (large and small) who think that status quo is just fine.
Todd
Gerry on Wed, September 07, 2005
Bernie,
You’ve misinterpreted Bill Hull’s article. Yes, he’s frustrated. But it’s because activity has been substituted for transformation. That happens all the time in churches of any size, in one or multiple locations. Bill Hull is not taking issue with megachurches or multi-site churches, per se.
Jim Reich on Wed, September 07, 2005
I serve in a seeker church of 400 and we just launched our 1st multi-site campus in March. It’s been a blessing for both venues & was much easier than doing a traditional church plant. Keeping the status quo has never been an option since the original church was launched ten years ago.
The status quo may be “just fine” for some, but let’s call it what it is… it’s being stuck in a rut. And as someone has aptly observed, a rut is nothing more than a grave with both ends kicked out! No wonder people get bored w/ ministry, no wonder churches are dying. How can we keep doing the same things and expect a different result? That’s insanity!
Lest I get too smug, even those of us who are doing ministry differently find ourselves gettting in ruts from time to time. We constantly have to shake ourselves out of our “slumber” to find better ways to help people connect with God.
Doing ministry the way we do, it seems like Sunday comes every three days! And to borrow a phrase, it don’t come easy… But, would I trade it for being in the rut of traditional ministry? No way! Been there, done that & there is no comparison!
Dean on Wed, September 07, 2005
I only have one comment about this phenomenon… If we are to be honest about national church attendance/participation statistics, we must acknowledge that growing churches is not doing much in the way of growing the “Church” in America. Do I need to criticize those who are experiencing expanding congregations? No. Do I need to ask why the percentages of highly involved and committed followers of Jesus are not really increasing in America with all these intriguing methodologies of church growth? Yes.
Rich Viel on Wed, September 07, 2005
Hi Todd,
Good to have you back.
I find this whole debate intriguing. I am neither for nor against the multi-site concept. I can see some real advantages and I can also see some dangerous pitfalls. Paul recognized that some preached Christ from impure motives, but then said praise God Christ is being preached. Since I have no way of judging the motives of those in the multi-site movement, I choose to pary for their godly success. Some of the criticisms raised may be true in some places, but that does not make them universal to all multi-site chruches. Besides, I think criticism of what others are doing is a waste of time. The more important question is “Am I being effective where God has planted me?”
Just another note. We are a small but steadily growing congregation and are in the process of looking for a larger facility. Just a few weeks ago one of our lay leaders approached me with what he thought was a unique idea. Instead of buying a larger building or another property, we could rent some storefront properties around town, offer a variety of worship styles at each location for a target group of people and have the sermon sent to each location through an internet video feed. He is a family man in his early forties and had never heard of the multi-site movement. This is way outside the box for our rather traditional church but I’m excited to see how our leadership will respond when he brings this suggestion to our Elders. It should be interesting!
Rich
Bernie Dehler on Wed, September 07, 2005
Hi Gerry-
My point is that I think Bill was operating as a typical mega-church Pastor. Then his eyes were opened. He may still have a mega-church, but I think he’s a different breed now.
Deep down, they mega-Pastors have to ask what their goal is. What kind of growth do they want, horizontal or vertical (numbers or Christ-like character)? Sure, they claim both, but look where the energy goes. And then there’s the fundraising and all the false teaching about tithing, to support their mega-structures. (A free book about tithing is on my website.) Then we are all fooled by the many numbers. By and large, we need to stop playing church and start getting the job done.
False humility is very dangerous. It seems to be in abundance in many prominent Christian leaders (although I’ve also seen some good role-models).
...Bernie
http://www.freegoodnews.com
Geoff on Wed, September 07, 2005
Hey Rich,
Very cool that your church is considering multi-site not because its cool but because its possible. That’s why I think this might be a move of God, its popping up all over the country in churches that have no idea its a trend.
If we (Seacoast) can help let me know!
Bernie Dehler on Wed, September 07, 2005
Todd wrote:
“The feeling that multi-sites should just plant churches if they want to expand the Kingdom. (I’ll discuss why the multi-site model actually works better (in many cases) than traditional church plants, and why.”
Oh, Todd, I would LOVE to see this analysis! For best multiplying God’s kingdom in an exponential manner, I don’t see how you can beat a church plant. Esp. considering the new leaders required and flatter hierarchy.
Please consider the investment in human potential as much as any capital dollar expense amounts. Try to take a very serious look beyond the financial accounting side of it… I don’t think we ever want to get the McDonald’s-style franchise of churches going, although that’s the thrust of your multi-site approaches… franchising & branding christianity. However, franchising is great for the hero/cult/celebrity worship types with false humility.
I have no problem with large churches. It just bothers me when the decision between mega-church or church plant goes to mega-church, because it’s cheaper, easier to manage, and brings more glory to the flesh. When you plant a church, you’ll lose control of it, if you do it right. This is a good thing, but extremely hard on the ego.
,,,Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Todd Rhoades on Wed, September 07, 2005
Bernie is a good example of the criticism I mentioned in the article. Bernie, I love you brother, but you do have a problem with large churches; or maybe to be more fair, large church pastors. Maybe it’s because so many large church pastors, especially the one’s who aggressively market themselves on TV, have failed so terribly in the past (and continue to do so).
But consider for a moment that there may be some people that God gives great influence that are sincere followers of Jesus. I thank God for the people God has given a measure of influence to, whether it be for their ‘pastoring’ skills; their leadership skills; their communication skills… whatever.
Don’t think for a minute that those churches involved in multi-site formats haven’t asked all these same questions. Things that are less costly and easier to manage are good, right? You’re a strong proponent of using God’s money wisely… so these are good things. The last accusation, about it bringing more glory to the flesh is a rather low blow. To be honest, we’ve discussed this before; and I’m not really willing to give any more room to that accusation.
In fact, if the truth would be known; many multi-site churches are also church planters. LifeChurch.tv has also planted churches; but you don’t hear about that.
The bottom line is… how can we best reach people for Jesus?
For some, it’s a house church.
For others, it’s through a small church that continually replants itself.
For others, it’s through a multi-site approach.
If people are coming to Jesus, then let’s root them on; not tear them down.
The thing we really need to tackle are the 90% of the churches that are stagnant and do nothing to reach their communities. You see, it’s many of these 90% that sit back and criticize those who are attempting to change lives. At least, that’s my take on it.
We’ve got some great multi-site guys here on the blog… what are your thoughts? You’ve had to think through this… what are the pros and cons of starting a new campus vs. starting a new church plant. Share with us (better than I can) the rationale behind how you came to do multi-site.
Todd
Todd Rhoades on Wed, September 07, 2005
Also, Bernie and others.. I have some great posts on the megachurch and positives and negatives; church size, etc. in the next couple days… these are things that I really enjoy discussing (although some may not!) http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif
Keep watching… I think the first post hits first thing in the morning.
Todd
Tally on Wed, September 07, 2005
I’m going to blog about this. I started to comment but it got too long. TallyWilgis.Blogspot.com
Randy Smith on Thu, September 08, 2005
Discovery is a new church in New Jersey with two campuses and we’re just laying the foundation to start a third. resultantIt isn’t hard to imagine that I have a strong positive opinion on the multi-site model - I see it working in a geographical area known for its lack of spiritual interest and the resulting church plant failure rate. So I’ll keep my comments to pros and cons of starting a new campus vs. starting a new church plant.
I think the biggest “pro” of multi-site is that it is a better stewardship of time, talent and treasure. As a pastor I firmly believe stewardship is of vital importance to spiritual growth. The same holds true in church planting.
The multi-site model utilizes an existing leadership structure, a larger volunteer pool, equipment sharing, financial support, a reputation of ministry and most importantly, an already established body of prayer warriors and wisdom. Other than a “Mother-Daughter” church planting approach, there is no other church planting model that offers more “up front” advantages to the church planter.
And don’t fool yourself, the Campus Pastor and the team of a new campus are planting a church. Sometimes I almost chuckle at the comments that obviously show how some forget that. While mult-sites have a greater and more solid infrastructure they still are starting from scratch. They are planting a church and that is back breaking, mind numbing, spiritually draining work. It seems to me that we’d want to plant churches in the most effective way possible - for us in NJ (the vacation spot of America - ????) - the most effective way of planting churches is the multisite model.
PS - the multisite model isn’t such a new phenom. Missionaries have used the model for decades (one leadership, multiple locations). The missionaries just call them “villages” instead of campuses.
The early American church was a mult-site church. We just called them “towns” instead of campuses, “circuit riders” instead of teaching pastors.
Bernie Dehler on Thu, September 08, 2005
Randy said:
“the multisite model isn’t such a new phenom. Missionaries have used the model for decades (one leadership, multiple locations). The missionaries just call them “villages” instead of campuses.
The early American church was a mult-site church. We just called them “towns” instead of campuses, “circuit riders” instead of teaching pastors.”
I don’t understand this logic. Missionaries did it because of a shortage of ministers. This is no shortage today. Look at the resumes Todd has for you.
“Circuit riders” were also in one place at one time, because they had a calling from God to travel with their message, to hit a wider audience. Today they would be on TV or the internet.
The post had many other issues… I’ll respond on Todd’s topic “Megachurches: The Positives”.
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Ricky on Thu, September 08, 2005
Bernie said:
“I don’t think we ever want to get the McDonald’s-style franchise of churches going, although that’s the thrust of your multi-site approaches… franchising & branding christianity. However, franchising is great for the hero/cult/celebrity worship types with false humility.”
Too late Bernie.
The American, consumeristic, market-driven religious organization’s of today are straight out of the Fortune 500-style of franchises. They have learned their trade by examining and adopting the top-to-bottom, pyramidal leadership structure that is foreign to Scripture.
What’s sad is how many of those who have been infected with this latest fad can’t see that, just as McDonald’s intent is to steal the customers of other restaurants (if you want to classify McDonald’s as that), the franchised religious organizations are not growing THE Church but only stealing customers from area organizations.
Barna’s, et al, research regarding the decline in church attendance and the escalation in the amount of cash spent on facilities hasn’t fazed the ego-maniacal leaders and proves the insanity behind the belief that this latest “product” is the wave of the future (although it will die out just as all the other fads have).
Bernie:
“I have no problem with large churches. It just bothers me when the decision between mega-church or church plant goes to mega-church, because it’s cheaper, easier to manage, and brings more glory to the flesh. When you plant a church, you’ll lose control of it, if you do it right. This is a good thing, but extremely hard on the ego.”
So true, Bernie, and yet so ignored by those who sincerely believe that building an organization that caters to the “felt needs” (i.e., fickleness) of people is the way to reach people with the gospel.
Todd and others who promote the multi-site fad equate size and supposed “growth” to success, when in fact what happens is the creation of “sub denominations” that are controlled by one man who is seen as the only one gifted enough to preach or teach.
All one needs to do is to follow the chain of command from these multi-site pods and you will always find one man who is considered THE leader. Such a structure is not found in the New Testament, which clearly establishes a horizontal, level understanding of service to others as the grounds for “leadership.”
Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >
Post a Comment