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/

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.

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.

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

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

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!)

Keep watching… I think the first post hits first thing in the morning.

Todd

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 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.”

Thanks Todd - I have more perspective now than I did yesterday.

Brad

P.S. - I didn’t realize this was such a hot issue.  It almost sparked as much response as the KJV controversy might in our hyper conservative bloggs/forums.

I don’t want to rant on Todd’s blog so I’ll give the cliff notes here. (I’ll post my full rant on my blog) There are three arguments against multi-site I don’t understand:
1. Multi-site churches don’t develop and deploy leaders. I would argue that a multi-site church employs more rather than fewer leaders. Many of their leaders, however, are home grown.
2. Multi-site is somehow inferior (or superior) to church planting. Multi-site is A strategy, not THE strategy. Most multi-site churches I work with do both.
3. Multi-site churches aren’t evangelistic. In research we’ve done with Leadership Network we’ve found that new campuses are MORE evangelistic (i.e. conversion growth) than the original church.

As to ego-maniacal, consumeristic, market driven feel good churches; you got us there. That pretty much sums up what drives us all, doesn’t it

2.

Glad to see Ricky back. He gives us food for thought! The Lord loves us all and I think we can learn from each other. Perhaps that is a part of the “one anothering “ we read about in scripture. God’s grace to you and everyone that is a part of this blog!

Geoff said:
“Multi-site churches don’t develop and deploy leaders. I would argue that a multi-site church employs more rather than fewer leaders. Many of their leaders, however, are home grown.”

Sure, they create “sub leaders”, but not leaders on par with the senior Pastor looking over the whole network.  If you plant a church, you plant a peer leader (and also lose control; a good thing!).  If you do a multi-site, you build a hierarchy and maintain control.  Multi-site is growning more my addition and less by multiplication.  Multiplication is the goal.  I agree that multi-site is “easier,” but “easier” shouldn’t be a prime justification… doing what’s right is what’s more important.

...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247

I’d be interested to know some of the experiences of those who are so hostile to the multi-site thing.  My own experience it is purely first hand.  I blundered into Seacoast a while back and have since seen how it works (and some of the challenges) up close and personal.  But that’s for another post.

People in this post talk about the ‘fad.’ Well, this ‘fad’ is changing lives.  I had a woman at a small group in my living room tell us that, not only was she not a Christian, but she was into witchcraft, etc.  Yet God brought her into the Kingdom through our multi-site church.  She would not have gone to a more traditional church because of previous bad experiences.  She felt that meeting in a movie theater was very non-threatening.  Over time God softened her heart.  And it was a direct result of a message one Sunday that she reached the moment of conversion.  That particular message was played via video on our movie screen two hours away from where it was recorded.

And her story is far from unique.  We have seen literally thousands who would not have gone (or, more often, gone back) to a traditional church setting come to know Jesus personally through this ‘fad’ we are a part of.

Two things that really impressed me about Seacoast early on coming out of a more traditional church setting: First I saw what seemed to me to be a much higher percentage of men in the congregation than I was used to seeing in church.  The second thing I noticed right away was their depth of leadership.  As I have looked closer I have seen that the vast majority of their leadership comes up from within their congregation.  Seacoast is growing leaders at a much higher rate than any church with which I have been associated.  Quite frankly it takes a large number of highly skilled leaders to man all of the campuses.  If they weren’t producing them, they wouldn’t be able to keep growing.

To say that those leaders will never be “higher” than the Senior Pastor is a straw-man argument.  Every organization has some sort of hierarchy.  I see leaders throughout the Bible, many of whom were at the “top”.  That argument necessarily becomes one against bigness simply because bigness is “bad”.  However at the beginning of Acts we see one big church meeting in the temple courts and from house to house.  How many mega-churches are seeing thousands join in a single day like Peter did?

If people are looking to see what multi-sites are really like, go spend some time in one.  If they are looking to “prove” that multi-site churches are “evil” all I can say is good luck.  Having seen it first hand, I think those people are ill informed.  Regardless I am confident that God will sort it out….