If you’re preaching about the proper position to urinate in, perhaps you shouldn’t BE in a pulpit…

I have a buddy who says being a pastor would be awesome if he didn’t have to preach.  Sometimes I hear a sermon and say… for every sermon that guy preaches theres 45 minutes of my life I won’t get back.

There are some really bad communicators out there who just don’t know it… maybe I am one of them…

I’ve been very cautious about the multi-site movement here in the US.  I’m all about the contemporary, “edgy” church (so long as it’s not “done” for the sake of “edginess") and I even work in one, but the whole satellite campus just seems too over the top.  These places are (hopefully) staffed with as many people as a similar church in respect to size.

Why not just plant a new church?  You can still be affiliated or “under” the parent church (a pseudo-denomination if you will) if you absolutely must.  Surely there’s someone who can step up and lead and I KNOW there are enough “speakers” out there.

It’s the community aspect I worry about.  I’ve not seen many multi-site churches (even the big ones that get all the attention by christian blogs) do a decent job of fostering community in those branches.  They do a sunday service well enough...but that’s really probably less than 5% of what constitutes a solid body of believers.

I just think it’s perplexing given the resources the American church enjoys that satellites are given preference over new plants.

For what it’s worth.

Great question.  For me it is not the multi site concept that comes into question, but the video driven aspect of it.  Perhaps this is because my gifting is in communicating and preaching and just can’t simply fathom pastoring a campus without being able to personally speak into the lives of those I lead. 

However, I know some who desire the former but not the latter and for that the model is great and who am I to throw stones at it. 

On a flip side, I know of some multi-site movements, both overseas and here, that utilize the power of both.  All campuses preach from the same text, sometimes use the same points, but each campus pastor brings his own personal touch with it.  I like this concept because of my desire to reproduce myself in those who come behind me.  Equipping them to carry on the work that God has placed in my heart.  That way the church isn’t about one person but about the heart of God.

When we started Seacoast Greenville, I received a death threat from a professional organist in town who felt that churches like ours were putting people like him out of work.

Organists are not to be messed with.

I feel that my primary calling is teaching (both preaching and writing) and I am not intimidated by the multi-site campus approach. I salute any approach to preaching/teaching that connects with people. I just had lunch with some friends from OKC, who attend a Life Church campus. I asked them about watching Craig on a screen. They said that in any large church you end up watching the screen anyway, so it seemed quite natural for them.

I --like in Matt’s post above--wonder what the advantage is to the multi-site approach vs. planting new churches. My concern is that these campus can be too dependent upon the personality of the senior pastor.

Most churches are built somewhat around the personality, style, values, etc. of the senior pastor, I guess. But if too much focus is on the man, I think it creates challenges in creating community and longevity. Plus, what if he leaves, moves, or gets “moved” out from his leadership position. What happens next? I hate sounding cynical, but leadership failure happens.

Derek

Marc,

I echo your thoughts on the decline of the church during a population gain.

In Washoe County NV in the late 90’s, the demographic shoed that less than 5% of the population attended church on a regular basis.  That, my friend, is a wide open mission field. There wouldn’t be enought seats in all the churches if they all decided to show up one Sunday morning.

Is this really any different from a high-tech version of circuit riding, on which the Methodist church was build in the 19th and 20th century?  Only this time, the congregations get to meet weekly instead of once a month.

Spectator mentality?  Preacher worship?  Putting poor communicators out of a job?  Difficulty forming community?  I’m still looking for how that’s any different from the messes I’ve seen in churches where a warm body gets up to preach every week.

As a Campus Pastor now for almost a year, I have growing concerns about the multi-site movment.  Are there no longer as many gifts of preaching distributed by the HS as in the past?  Has a whole new era of Bishops now appeared on the American landscape?  From an insider’s view of the multi-site movement, I think its a fad where fools are rushing in and one that will have unintended and counter-kingdom consequences.  Under the guise of growing the kingdom, many pastors are franchising themselves into various locations.  A question being raised and needing an answer is, “whose kingdom?” I see this movement as yet another step down the road of diminishing spirituality in the churches.  For the sake of the church, I hope I’m wrong.

Todd - I appreciate you continuing the conversation.  Though I obviously do not share your opinion on the matter, think that Bill hit the most obvious problems squarely on the head.

Paul worked pretty hard to root out the cult of personality issues these modern super apostles are hiring PR firms to foster.