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

Tom,
I don’t think that “branding” of a church as an identity has anything to do with “branding salvation.” Quite the contrary...I think that having multi-site venues actually increases the church’s ability to reach people “where they are.” Every site, no doubt, has its own uniqueness that will help reach people in that neighborhood--greatly increasing the church’s outreach effectiveness. How people come to salvation is an entirely different discussion, and one that is not necessarily impacted by a church’s decision on multi-site expansion.

We have been doing multi-site, multi-venue for over three years with seven “branches” (as we call them) up and running with one slated to begin just after the first of the year. It works very well for us. Among other things we share- practically, we share proven leadership, centralized administration, financial strength and accountability.

Dear Todd;
Fascinating article about multi-site churches. I can’t help but wonder if multi-site churches are not an indication of an overall failure of denominations, which are, in essence, multi-site churches growing out from a centralized core? From what I am reading and observing, the identifying and franchised link among these churches is core practice, no surprises, a systematic way of doing things versus believing things (which is the core of denominationalism). Is this not an indicator of a shift into a theology pragmatic utlitiarianism? Denominations are in trouble today because they stopped listening to local churches long ago and expected them to obediently follow along and support the center. Now there is a growing and viable alternative. Denominational leaders ought to sit up and take notice. Thanks for the good article.
Don

We are in early stages of planning for a Satellite Church/Church Plant.  We have not yet come to a decision which it should be called.  We anticipate that our Lead Pastor for this venture will do most of the speaking, and give significant leadership.  They will provide their own worship leadership, etc.  While they will share our basic vision & values, they will certainly have a more specific targetted vision for a particular audience in our city.  Is it a satellite or a church plant?  Most important of course is that the Kingdom of God be expanded.

I was asked to submit a resume for the JFBC “plant” because I had worked for a church plant before, had pastoral experience and had planted churches on the mission field.  It didn’t hurt that my brother in law is a deacon there. However I didn’t want to be considered for the job because I wouldn’t have been able to preach.  I think it requires the right person and the right giftedness to work in a church like this.  I enjoy pastoring and preaching too much to consider it although Bryant would be a great teacher to listen to every week.  I read what Bob wrote in an earlier post and I think it is my main concern: that the preaching/teaching ministry is seperated from the sheperding ministry.  I would guess the approach will be very popular because they will “do church” with excellence.  And I guess the divide between counseling/sheperding and teaching/preaching is no diferent here than in a megachurch because in the mega church you will never see the pastor anyways.  I just don’t think I would enjoy working or attending a church once it has gotten so large.

Like many others, I have reservations about the multi-site church growth. My two main concerns are these:

First, I’ve been on the staff of a mega church which lost its senior pastor after 23 years. What I see is a proliferation of large churches built around the “personality” of the charismatic and gifted senior teaching pastor. The multi-site church is a prime example of this extension. What happens then when that teaching pastor leaves? What typically happens is that a new strong teaching pastor is sought to replace him or her. My concern is the emphasis on the “Super Pastor” mentality which seems false and unbiblical. Additionally, a large financial structure is often jeopardized during the transition period.

My second conern is in regards to money. It grieves me that it is regarded as an advantage to start multi-sites because they are financially stable from the get-go and that’s A REASON to do it. Church planting in the U.S. is about the lost; reaching new neighborhoods and new sub-cultures. We do it to be obedient to the Great Commission in Matt. 28.

Are unbelievers getting saved? Is there more than mere transfer growth? I assume (and hope) that there is.

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.

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.

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 let’s have some more comments.

Todd

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. 

Todd

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.