Insights from the Multi-Site Church
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Sun, October 10, 2004
- Viewed 508
- (17) comments so far
2) Keep it personal. Since the venues will be video preaching, you must have a strong campus pastor that can keep it personal. People connect with people, and church needs to be relational. The power of small groups, bible studies or core relationships are critical for these venues to be successful.
3) Keep it excellent. All aspects of the campus must be excellent. This is a core principal of FC anyway, but in a remote campus you must stay focused on the excellence factor. This is again why keeping it simple is key. Do a few things and do them with excellence. Example, the venue is video preaching, so the video feed better be excellent!
4) Keep it connected. A remote campus must stay connected to the big picture and the overall vision. For example, the slogan One church, multiple locations is great. Keep the vision white hot for the members, attenders and the staff.
5) Keep it cultural. Know your audience and the culture of the area. A remote campus my have a different audience or culture then the main campus. A remote campus may give you an opportunity to do different music, programs or events. Don't fall into the trap of not adjusting your methodology.
6) Keep it purposeful. Know your purpose for the site and keep it on target. Is it to relieve space at the main campus? Is it to reach a new audience? Both? If you are trying to relieve space then get on purpose and strategic about challenging your membership and attenders to move to the new campus. This is hard work if you do it right! Promote, promote, promote. Cast vision... people don't follow your need, they will follow their own felt need. Vision will create the felt need.
7) Keep it goal oriented. Know your definition of success going in and set tangible goals throughout the organization. Do not assume that all things will just happen because you expect them too. Attendance, life-change, small groups, etc will not just happen because you open the doors. Stay strategic, and goal oriented and measure your results with numbers!
8) Remember, its a start up. Staff selection is key to the success of a remote campus. Why? Because more than likely if you are starting a remote campus then your main campus is fairly successful. If your staff has only seen the glory or wonder years of your church they might not be aware of what hard work it took to get their.
9) Keep it strategic. Centralize everything that you can, personalize ministry, and outsource the rest.
10) Keep it structured. Staff alignment and structure is very important. Staff must know who is in charge, and the person in charge must be a "company" guy. The campus pastor or whoever is in charge at the remote campus must be trusted, and must be a great leader. Poor communication in a remote campus could create an implosion very quickly. The staff must feel apart of the bigger picture (vision) and must have great support from the main campus. In my opinion this is the hardest part of all, and also the most UNDER ESTIMATED! Do not make the mistake of thinking that this will just work... Please excuse my candid nature here, but most churches are out to lunch when it comes to this topic! I would look more to corporate america for a great model that can be adjusted to your church. For example, Chick-fil-a or Starbucks, both of these models have a great scalability plan, great accountability, and great brand consistency that can easily be tweaked to fit your church.
-----
Is your church currently involved in multi-site ministry? What have you learned? If you have questions about multi-site ministry, please post them in our comments section... I'm sure we'll have some people here that can help answer your questions!
The multi-site church is quickly becoming a growth and outreach model that many churches are starting to successfully use. Multi-site churches take on many different shapes. Fellowship Church in Grapevine, TX (pastored by Ed Young, Jr.) recently announced that they are going to a multi-campus, multi-site approach. This decision comes, of course after much research. Terry Storch, Fellowship’s person in charge of technology shares some insights that he has gained from visiting a large number of multi-site churches. Hopefully this will be helpful to you if you are thinking about this approach for your church, or if you just want to keep up on what others are trying. Here are his suggestions and comments about multi-sites:
-----
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.
Bill Giovannetti on Mon, October 11, 2004
We just launched an 8:00 am “CLASSIC service”. It is a blended service in a school gym next door to our church. We had to work through a major conflict: You’re kicking us out of the church we built! We weathered this storm for 9 months; and now people love the new service. It features: 1) quieter music w/kongas instead of full drums; 2) great refreshments; 3) an on-site pastor (live preaching by sr pastor); 4) excellence; 5) a shorter song time, 20 minutes; 6) more sitting than standing; 7) a closer more intimate feel. We’re running around 200 people. It solved parking and music problems in our other services in the main auditorium. I agree that you HAVE TO PROVIDE THE SAME services, brochures, fliers, kiosks, literature, announcements… as in the main service. The 2nd site can’t feel like 2nd string.
We’re still learning, only on month into it. But we’ve been getting rave reviews from the beginning. It was a great move, though there was a lot of conflict leading up to it.
Daniel Hillard on Mon, October 11, 2004
The only difference I see between multi-site churches and satellite churches of previous years is that now we have advanced technology to bring the senior pastor to the new site. Second, you are not bringing these people in on buses to the satellite churches as before. If you have a “pastor” at the multi-site site,and you have all these financial resources, then start a new church. That is what Paul would have done.
Richard on Mon, October 11, 2004
I think it is a little sad that we are not raising up other leaders that can handle the word of God, but we have to rely on piping in video. What happens when Mr. Video preacher dies?
A better strategy might be to raise up someone that can handle the word of God, and send them out with the new church. They might not be as good looking as some like Ed Young, but hey, it’s not all about him anyway, is it?
Just a thought http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/grin.gif
Daniel on Mon, October 11, 2004
They might be better looking than Ed Young. But Richard, I think you are missing the point. Your idea is a good one—perhaps something Paul would do in today’s culture, and lots of churches are already doing that. I’m sure Grapevien fellowship has spun out a lot of new pastors and churches. But this might reach some people too. In fact it IS reaching people, all over the country. I find it hard to be opposed to that.
all things.. all men.. all means.. reach some
Pastor Bobby on Mon, October 11, 2004
WOW!
I guess if anyone can make it work, Ed Young Jr. can… with God’s help. He is certainly creative and effective and has built a big church. I guess he got this current idea from his dad in Houston, with a little twist or two. His dad, Pastor at 2nd Baptist in Houston, has started taking over (or should I say “taking in”) other churches and/or starting and building satellite churches for some time now… 2nd Baptist West in Katy and now the “North” Campus in Conroe. I pastor a church on the SE side of Houston—I jokingly told some people at my church we ought to call Pastor Ed and offer our church and facility as the new “2nd Baptist South!”
** At 2nd Houston’s off-campus sites, they have live preaching and it is not the Head Honcho Pastor’s sermon via live video feed. So, like I say, there are a few twists at Fellowship church in Grapevine—formerly in Los Colinas.
Robert on Mon, October 11, 2004
It is a dark day in the American church when the phrase “I would look more to corporate america for a great model that can be adjusted to your church” is accepted, much less uttered, by ANY Christian leader. Is this a bad joke? Philosophically and theologically I just can’t agree with this. As if God’s Word and the Holy Spirit had to wait for 21st century corporate culture to help us find a “successful” church model?! Exactly what kind of “brand consistency” is he talking about? I suspect it is a particular church’s version of the gospel that is the “brand” we are supposed to market. And if we feel we have to market our “brand” of the gospel, shame on us and may God have mercy on us.
I agree with Richard. Why not raise up leaders on local campuses who can preach instead of relying on the “anointed” preaching of a single gifted leader? The Word of God speaks for itself when it is read and preached faithfully. We don’t need the “anointed” preachers, rather we need the Holy Spirit who convicts hearts by the Word of God read and spoken, even if the preacher is not that polished (2 Cor 10:10, 11:6).
I know this sounds harsh but I think we are venturing into dangerous waters when we accept this stuff. We are relying on our ingenuity and intelligence and, frankly, financial resources, to spread a gospel which I am not sure is even the Gospel. If you think I am off the wall, try substituting the word “company” or “business” for the words “campus” and “church” used above. Sounds like a policy manual for a Fortune 500, doesn’t it? There’s something wrong with that.
Christopher on Mon, October 11, 2004
Robert, I totally agree with u…What have we as the body of Christ come too? Does the word PRAYER sound familiar to anyone? I have not heard one person mention the word PRAYER, as an answer to these dilemmas? I don’t know anymore where this 21st century church is going….God Help Us!!!!
Paula Cracium on Mon, October 11, 2004
Gentleman,
I do understand your concerns- but the scriptures say, go into ALL the world. Technology is a part of our world - it is un-escapable. Just as ministries are no longer limited to open fields and courtyards as venues, neither are we limited to traditional building and formats.
The Church has always changed it’s approach to communicating the gospel. This is just another wave of change. As God continues to bless these ministries, all different approaches are being explored. Both church plants, with a “live” on site pastors to these venues with the message via video feed.
The only way that the gospel is at risk is if we (as the church) do nothing and limit our opportunity to spread the GOSPEL OF CHRIST through every means available.
Todd Rhoades on Mon, October 11, 2004
Hey now… come on guys… (Todd, the MMI guy here) Previous quotes…
“I think it is a little sad that we are not raising up other leaders that can handle the word of God, but we have to rely on piping in video. What happens when Mr. Video preacher dies?”
“ If you have a “pastor” at the multi-site site,and you have all these financial resources, then start a new church. That is what Paul would have done.”
“I know this sounds harsh but I think we are venturing into dangerous waters when we accept this stuff. We are relying on our ingenuity and intelligence and, frankly, financial resources, to spread a gospel which I am not sure is even the Gospel.”
My question…Why is it that a large number of pastors look down on the larger church and any type of innovation? I don’t understand most of the criticism in this area, really, and here’s why…
It seems to me that one of two things are true about Fellowship Church (Ed Young) and most of the other churches who are growing and making a mark and setting the standard for the rest of the churches in the US:
#1. Either they are of God
OR
#2. They are NOT of God
If they are of God, then why are so many pastors almost caustic in their view of anything a larger ministry or church does?
If they’re NOT of God, then we have a whole other group of things to deal with.
I very seldom hear reasoning #2 from the critics. But I do hear #1 all the time in different forms…
—What they are doing is unconventional (not unbiblical, but unconventional)
—What they are doing hurts my small church ministry (I can never come close to what they are doing)
—I will criticize what they are doing because it’s different from what I’m doing (I’m working hard too, you know and not getting much gain from it)
My main point is… if these people and ministries are working for God, then we’re on the same team; and if that’s the case, shouldn’t we applaud and support them if they are working to introduce more people to Christ?
Who knows whether Paul would use video? My guess, actually is that he would. Paul, in my opinion, would look and say… wow, look at the influence for Christ these people are having in one location; and now they’re going to expand to two, three or twenty locations? GREAT! Somehow, I have a hard time seeing Paul sitting back criticizing them for not doing things exactly the same as they had been done in the past.
This touches on a topic that really interests me that I want to write a whole blog entry on… the animosity between the small church pastor and the large church. (This is not a blanket statement; but I see it rear its ugly head more often than I’d like).
For example:
“What happens when Mr. Video preacher dies?”
I would imagine that someone else would take over. Many large churches are now team teaching; and not all multi-site churches are video venues. If “Mr. Video preacher dies”, I would assume that someone else just as gifted in the area of teaching would take over. (Also, there are many churches that would be in just as bad a situation if their pastor died).
“then start a new church. That is what Paul would have done.”
That is, in effect, what these people are doing… they are starting another church; except the church has the same leadership and vision/values as the parent church. Actually, in a way, these churches start out with great advantage because of their central, proven leadership.
“We are relying on our ingenuity and intelligence and, frankly, financial resources, to spread a gospel which I am not sure is even the Gospel.”
First of all, why are you not sure that this is the Gospel? Has the message changed? No… but the METHOD has; and that’s what’s so bothersome to most. Saying that large churches act purely because of finances and intelligence is a pretty biased comment.
OK… my final point. Let’s say that you are a very successful pastor… Let’s say you’re Ed Young at Fellowship; and God has blessed your church and has grown it from 150 to 18,000 in the past 15 years. What do you do if you are Ed Young? Do you say, “Wow, that was great… we’re plenty big.” Or, do you say, “God is really blessing what we’re doing here for whatever reason… what could we do to reach even more people for Jesus?” I think I would chose the last option. Fellowship’s multi-site strategy very well my double their already huge size in the next few years; and you can bet that much of the country’s Christian leadership will sit back and criticize their every move.
For those quoted, please tell us your thoughts. I’m not trying to tick anyone off, just trying to understand. I like lively debate; but sometimes debate in this format turns ugly. That is not my intent; and I will ‘filter’ http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/smile.gif anyone’s response that I feel is not at least kind in tone. (I’ve already done some editing on this topic today!)
Just my 2 cents…
Todd
Terry Storch on Mon, October 11, 2004
Todd,
Great thoughts and comments. I really had no idea that I was starting such controversy like this! Funny, no one put their comments on my blog…
Robert… I really think that you are misreading my post. Let me try and help.
1) Look to corporate America for your staffing structure. We in the church can learn a lot from corporate America when it comes to organization and staffing structure. Never am I saying to look to the biz-world for a “successful” church model. Why reinvent the wheel? The biz-world spends billions of dollars on this stuff…use it, not using it or looking to them would be poor stewardship.
2) Brand Consistency. Just that, your church brand. Not you’re Theology. Not your church “gospel”. Your “brand”. Fellowship Church (substitute any church name- Second Baptist, Life Church, Seacoast Church, etc.) is the “brand”. When we are going out to start these campuses we are going to use the “brand” Fellowship Church, and not try and name or “brand” the church something else. We want to keep it consistent.
3) Raise up leaders? Wow, are the only leaders in the local church the Senior Pastor?????? At Fellowship we are raising up many, many leaders for these campuses. In fact, we are training, developing and teaching them as I type. It is going to take many different pastors and campus leaders to run these campuses.
4) Fortune 500? Well no, not exactly. Fellowship and many of the wonderful churches that I have visited over the past year are not about the all mighty dollar. All of them have been about the all might soul! About the life changing message of Jesus Christ! Fellowship and all the churches that I visited were forced to come up with a new method for reaching people. A new method, a methodology, not a new Theology. As Andy Stanley once said, Theology and Methodology must be separated. You can change the methods and methodology, but the core Theology does not change.
Matthew 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
PS- Christopher, prayer is the one constant in my life through all of this. Philippians 4:6
David Davies on Tue, October 12, 2004
My brother attends a multi-site church in Orlando and I’ve visited there several times with my wife. My main impression is that this is simply a dying gasp of the mega-church movement. Church leaders obsessed with a supposed connection between congregation size and the success of a ministry are having to combat the cultural shift away from large, impersonal gatherings. I would add my voice to those in this emerging generation who would call out to the baby boomers “give it up!”.. smaller, community churches with local leadership (not some big-church pastor running the show), worked for 1,950 years and it will soon replace the mega-church fad of the 80’s and 90’s.
Just my opinion,
David
Kevin Marsico on Tue, October 12, 2004
Just a note…I am a part of a 3 year old church plant running under 200 (100 have come to Christ and more are in process). We are preparing to do a satellite location and we are definitely not a mega-church and don’t have overflowing finances. We are simply being strategic.
1. It is much cheaper. Our first year of expenses are estimated to be at $30,000. (rent, equipment, advertising) Our typical new church plant costs about $85,000.
2. One major issue is space. Our current rented facility holds around 250 and at the moment we can’t do a second service. So, do I stop reaching, or go to another strategic location and using some of the resources we already have, do another service where more can come.
3. It allows us to take the local congregation back to where our people are and allows us to enhance worship to different demographics of people.
The multi-site strategy is just allowing us to reach people more rapidly and is a more cost effective strategy.
Kevin
p.s. We are praying thorugh this.
#2 The question for us is whether we will release these sites to be independent local bodies of Christ one day? The answer, whatever will be the best to reach more lost people for Christ and disciple them to look like more like Jesus himself.
Robert on Tue, October 12, 2004
Terry,
Thanks very much for your gracious response. First, let me say that I was not criticizing you, Ed Young, or Fellowship Church at all. I was critiquing a few points of the blog entry. It’s not personal and of course we are all on the same team. I looked at the Fellowship website and it looks like a great place. I don’t have a problem with big churches and any envy between small churches and big churches is totally wrong.
I may be guilty of “blog eisogesis” – that is, reading some of my concerns about the Church at large into your suggestions. If that is so, let me apologize. I am sure that your tips were helpful to a number of people with the difficult task of leading a multi-site church. Without knowing you or the context of your larger ministry, I took the tips as symptomatic of what I see as a problem in the Church. Again, it was the blog entry I was critiquing.
I didn’t sufficiently explain my remark about the finances or “a different Gospel”. It sounded like I was implying that Fellowship (or you personally) was preaching a gospel other than the Gospel of Christ, or that Fellowship was more interested in money than in souls. I really apologize for that one. I didn’t mean that Fellowship or you were preaching another gospel. And, I did NOT mean that Fellowship was more interested in money than in souls. I should have explained what I meant or left out that part of my entry; it looked like a serious accusation against Fellowship. I blew it and please forgive my carelessness.
I’ve been trying to figure out why I was upset by the corporate stuff. I admit that the more the Church of Jesus Christ looks like a business, the more suspicious I get. That’s my bias. I don’t think it has to do with size so much as other factors. I don’t like the idea of bringing in methods from corporations because the fundamental purpose of corporations is to make money. The corporate way is to be ruthless with human resources so as to maximize revenue. Corporations tend to identify what job they need done and hire someone to do that job. And, of course, people advance in corporations by merit, by earning their way to the top. God’s ways are counter-cultural to all of these. My statement about the Fortune 500 wasn’t about money but about how I felt that those tips could have come from a policy manual of a corporation.
You may be right that organization and staffing structure may be imported harmlessly into the church from corporate America. You certainly have more organization and staffing experience than I do. And traditionally, Baptists in America have imported the democratic process into their church government and been O
Robert on Tue, October 12, 2004
And traditionally, Baptists in America have imported the democratic process into their church government and been OK—just one example of borrowing something from the culture.
On the other hand, I don’t think we can so easily separate our theology from our methodology. Methodology can influence our theology. My reading of the temptation narratives is that Satan never challenged Jesus on His theology, but on His methods (how the Son of God should achieve his goals). Some methodology can even pose as theology to the unchurched, whom we are trying to reach. For example, corporate organizational models can communicate to the unchurched that the corporate world is the best model for organization. Is it? Or should we be offering an alternative to the world’s model? Should we learn marketing our “brand” from the world, even if the brand is just our church name? I guess it depends on what God leads the individual church to do.
Where does Paul’s statement “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power” (1 Cor 2:4-5) come in? God is concerned not only that people’s souls are saved, but that He is glorified. I sense a subtle shift happening in many churches which goes along with a genuine concern to see people saved.
It is a shift from the organic dependence upon the Lord’s guidance to a more industrialized, formulaic dependence upon successful principles which many churches can emulate. This is what I meant by “another gospel” – the ideology of industry that pragmatically analyzes, adapts and reproduce whatever works. We as a Church need to be careful to keep this mindset out of our thinking. I’m not accusing Fellowship or a particular church of being guilty of this – we can all fall into it at one time or another. I do it in my own life. I’m not saying using this technology and principles means we’re not following the Lord. But whenever we say, as a principle, “tweak this corporation’s material to fit your church”—even organizational structures—we need to be careful not to lose our focus on the Spirit and some of our “other-worldliness”.
Sorry this is so long. I hope you understand this wasn’t meant to be ugly, and I can see it was more of an issue I have with the Church of Christ rather than with your posting. Thanks for your work.
Mark Clark on Tue, October 12, 2004
Just a thought.
What makes the use of video at a satellite church any different than the video segments of Rick Warren used for 40 Days small groups or a Beth Moore series? The teaching may be “canned”, but the ministry must be live. The facilitator/teacher is the living contact that touches the needs of those who have heard and been challenged by the message.
There is a lot to be said about the kingdom stewardship of the multiple site concept: Less paid staff (pastors), more lay leaders (ministers); More flexibility in seeking adaptible facilities to meet growing needs w/o necessarally locking many dollars into building projects; Greater flexibility in use of the “preaching” pastor’s gifts at multiple venues (on the same campus or off) w/o making killing him off early due to exhaustion.
Multiple sites also are the perfect form for mentoring the next generation of pastor/leaders. They are encouraged to develop their skills and utilize their gifts while under the authority of a seasoned leadership team. They are allowed to flourish w/o the grinding that establishing a new work can bring to someone. They take on portions of the responsibilities as they grow/mature/develop.
As for the last gasp of the “mega church” the challenge for any growing congregation is to remember this important credo: the larger you get, the smaller you must become. Whether that church is 200 or 2000 people can be comfortably anonymous. Small groups and ministry groups keep the personal contact real.
Multiple sites allow more creativity to reach people where they are across the demographic landscape.
As with any ministry there are potential pitfalls and potholes. That is part of the learning and growing experience. And most importantly, we must all be constantly seeking God’s will and leadership. If it is of God, get out of the way. If it is not of God, stay away.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Post a Comment