« Conflict? Ask Ken: Runaway Congregational Conflict and Why We Should Solve It (Part 2) | Main | Ask the ChurchStaffing/MMI Guy: My Testimony (follow-up) »
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Multi-Site Churches: Answering the Critics
This is a follow-up post to yesterday's story about LifeChurch.tv's move to form two new satellite campuses in Arizona (LifeChurch.tv is based in Norman, OK). Today, I said we would follow up with some words that Pastor Craig has to say to those who are against the multi-site church concept. (We've already heard from some of these people in the comments section of yesterday's post).
Here's what LifeChurch.tv's pastor had to say... again from the article:
Groeschel said the multi-campus approach is today’s big news in the religion world. He said he is aware that the concept is not without its detractors, people who believe senior pastors should be planting more churches with new leaders.
“They ask, ‘Why don’t we just build up other leaders and send them out?’ They think that the pastor has a big ego and has to be in front of everyone, but I’ve found it’s quite the opposite,” he said.
“These pastors would really rather not draw attention to themselves, but they realize that it’s an effective way of reaching people.”
The Arizona campuses, like the campuses in Oklahoma, will have their own campus pastor, Groeschel said. He said the campus pastors do everything a senior pastor does, just not every week.
“They are very effective leaders.”
Larry Osborne, the Pastor at North Coast Church in Vista, CA (well-known for their use of the video venue format) says the following on this subject:
To teach effectively and powerfully a pastor must know and connect with people. But knowing the pulse of people doesn’t mean knowing the pulse of everyone. We’ve long ago proved that effective and life-changing teaching can be done from a distance. Radio ministries, books and tapes all powerfully carry out the work of the Spirit without the communicator being in direct relationship to the listeners. A message on a video screen is no different.
As far as shepherding a flock, no one who pastors a large church shepherds the flock in a hands-on way. It simply can’t be done. And for those who try, the advice of Jethro to Moses is well taken. Large churches that are healthy long ago learned to depend on small group ministries and a team of pastors and shepherds empowered and equipped to lead an assigned portion of the flock.
An off-site Video Venue (whether across town or across the nation) will always need an on-site pastor to shepherd and lead the flock. An off-site Video Venue is really no different than a church plant, except that the primary leader needs only to wake up thinking about shepherding and leading rather than shepherding, leading and teaching a weekly message.
Finally, Geoff Surratt, the Pastor of Campus Development at Seacoast Church (another well-known user of the multi-site format) says this at his blog. I think he sums it up well:
If we are to truly go into all the world and make disciples of all nations, we can no longer hold onto the comfortable thought of being a church that meets in one location under one roof. We have to cross boundaries into other neighborhoods and cultures. We have to open our doors to other churches that may be more effective at reaching the lost and making disciples than we are. We have to put aside our preconceptions of what a church is, what a pastor is, how the Good News should be delivered. And when we do it will said of us that we have turned the world upside down.
I realize these are a bunch of random thoughts on multi-site, but I hope they will prove helpful to you. What do you think?
Add Your Comments and Ideas now...Pass this post on to a friend now...
Subscribe to RSS Feed | Get Email Notifications on New Posts
June 23, 2005 in Multi-Site Churches | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451dafb69e200d8344ab21a53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Multi-Site Churches: Answering the Critics:
Comments
Personally I'm all for trying new methods to reach people with the gospel. Since I have no personal experience with multi-site churches I'm really not prepared to criticize them. But their structure concerns me in that it seems to be one more way to build a church around a personality. What happens when the Senior Pastor at Lifeway Church is gone? The same question could be asked of Saddleback when Rick Warren leaves or Willow Creek when Bill Hybels is done.
The answer, I think is obvious -- the churches will decline. That was the result when John Maxwell left and when Swindoll left to go to Dallas Theological Seminary. When a church is too closely identified with the identity of a particular person, I believe that it begins to draw a significant number of people who are there for the pastor and not because of the church. When the pastor leaves, so will those people.
Posted by: Jim Behrendt | Jun 23, 2005 4:28:01 PM
I am just starting my ministry Harmony Christian Ministries! I'm starting a church as a part of my origination! First Harmony Christ Church! (Nondenominational!) My plans call for a main Ministry office and several satellite offices and multiple Church
Blessings to all that read this!
Posted by: Rev.Dr. Dirk E. Miles | Jun 23, 2005 4:43:20 PM
[comments deleted by moderator]
Posted by: Ricky | Jun 23, 2005 9:08:12 PM
[comments deleted by moderator]
Posted by: Ricky | Jun 23, 2005 9:20:35 PM
Moderator's note:
I deleted a couple of posts by Ricky because he directly attacked individuals. Not cool here. In addition, Ricky's already had his say on the multi-site movement at our first post in this series. You can go there if you'd like to read his take.
Thanks,
Todd
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Jun 23, 2005 10:53:49 PM
If you really want to have a multi-site to reach the lost, why not set it up where the gospel needs to be preached the most-- in the Arab countries or in China?
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Posted by: bernie dehler | Jun 23, 2005 11:02:52 PM
In response to Jim's comments...
Thanks, Jim... you do bring up a good point... but it's really a question that ALL churches should be asking, large or small. All churches should be looking at transition plans, and quite frankly, some larger churches, from what I understand, don't have a real good one. But I would encourage you to not automatically think that the Saddleback will decline when Rick Warren leaves, for instance.
[[SIDENOTE: One good example of a transition plan at a major church is First Baptist Orlando. They just hired their replacement senior pastor who will work alongside Jim Henry until his retirement.]]
Actually, my understanding is that Skyline actually has experienced nice growth since John Maxwell's left. (Phil, who's on staff at Skyline hangs around here frequently... he can probably speak better of what's happening there recently). I hear great things about what Jim Garlow is doing there. I've also heard that First EFree in Fullteron is doing just fine after Chuck's leaving (it's been years ago now)... it's just that you don't hear much about their current pastor cause he's not in the limelight as much.
So I do believe the risk is there, but I don't draw the same 'obvious' conclusion about the outcome. I guess I choose to think positively that God will continue to work in His church, even after the personality is gone. (That, of course, is His perogative.) :)
Again, (back to multi-site), while the teaching pastor is the one doing the teaching, most campuses have a specific head-pastor on site who is responsible for everything that happens.
Todd
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Jun 23, 2005 11:07:16 PM
Bernie asked,
"If you really want to have a multi-site to reach the lost, why not set it up where the gospel needs to be preached the most-- in the Arab countries or in China?"
I can think of two reasons just off the top of my head:
1. They don't speak arabic or chinese.
2. The lost people in Phoenix and Mesa are just as lost as the people in Falujah and Bahgdad.
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Jun 23, 2005 11:10:19 PM
Todd says:
"The lost people in Phoenix and Mesa are just as lost as the people in Falujah and Bahgdad."
Yes, but they also have an abundance of preachers, Christians on radio/tv, etc. in the USA.
Todd says about Christian leaders:
"They don't speak arabic or chinese."
1. So what.. why assume ministry is easy?
2. There are arabic and chinese ministries in place to do the job; they just need support (financial, and otherwise). If anyone doesn't know this, they "simply don't get out much."
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Posted by: bernie dehler | Jun 23, 2005 11:17:07 PM
Todd:
"I deleted a couple of posts by Ricky because he directly attacked individuals. Not cool here. In addition, Ricky's already had his say on the multi-site movement at our first post in this series."
First: Who did I "attack" individually? Are those people here on this blog? In addition, why must you carry their water, Todd? Aren't they big enough to defend themselves?
Second: I thought the rule was 5 posts for each thread. There are two different threads concerning the multi-site scheme. Am I wrong about the rule?
Posted by: Ricky | Jun 23, 2005 11:56:36 PM
Ricky, I'll reply to you in public only to serve as an example of what is and isn't acceptable here.
In your first post you said "The pride that [a certain person] has is disgusting." I consider that a personal attack that will not be tolerated here.
In your second post, you responded to an individual's comments in what I consider a rude manner. (Admittedly, that's my call).
Some multi-site leaders are a part of this blog; some are not (that I know of)... but again, the rule is: you can disagree; but please respect people. I don't feel like I need to defend anyone here; but at the same time I won't pay for the space to have anyone trashed here either.
On the five post rule... Yep, you're right... five per topic... and you can still use your last two (you've used 3 so far) if you'd like to tone done your rhetoric and speak respectfully. If you do that, you'll be ok. Other than that... it's up to my discretion.
:)
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Jun 24, 2005 12:10:32 AM
It truly blows me away how so many people are so wheels off (this and the previous post). How on earth can some of your readers Todd be such navel gaisers? Some would rather turn inward towards their holy huddles pick their navels and flip off their communities and tell them to go to Hell. Wheels off!
Go Lifechurch go! Reach people for Christ! If that is wrong, then brotha I don’t want to be right...
Posted by: Terry Storch | Jun 24, 2005 12:39:42 AM
Oi, You want to know about Life Church? I live in oklahoma. About twenty minutes, or 17 miles if you prefer, from Life Church. If anyone should know anything about community envolvement, it would be from someone who actually SEEs them in the community. MY Community. Life church has many campuses across the OKC Metro, and other larger cities in OK. They do MANY community projects, and one of the greatest ones I see making a big difference is "The Jesus Booth". It's on the corner of the street in an area of "Bricktown" of Downtown OKC. I regularly pass by the Jesus Booth on my way to the coffee shop to get a mocha grande. They hand out free Bibles, talk to people with problem, pray with people, people even dedicate their lives to Christ, right there on that street corner. They are making a difference. They recently rented out a venue downtown and played music. They stood out on the same corner and handed out flyers for the event. I worked the night of the event, so I wasn't able to go. But let me ask you guys, what are your churches doing in IT'S communities. Or are you blinded by the own planks in your eyes. Yeah, I mean both eyes. I don't understand the smaller churches who have those one or two people who just disagree with what any larger growing church is doing. But fail to look at their own churches. Their dieing and closing. Their not making a difference. Small churches are not learning what it takes to reach people for Christ anymore. Their quick to judge larger churches as becoming too worldly. Some will even covet what the larger churches are doing. I don't know if it's envy or jealousy, but people seem to have a problem reaching the damned souls. This is serious. People are going to go to hell if we don't save them. So I ask you, why sit in your traditional churches, in your pews, with every ounce of man made theology and church traditionalism stuck in your mind, and not getting out, and GOing to reach the lost. Christ said, GO!, and MAKE! disciples of all nations. Ed Young has made this pretty clear. Not criticize or complain about other churches who are reaching people, but in your opinion are doing it the wrong way. Some seem too quick to JUDGE larger churches for reaching people. We're all suppose to be reaching people for Christ. How hard is it to worry about your own communities, but out of things you have no idea about, get off your duffs, get out into the world, and show someone the difference Christ has made in you. Forget your philosophy and theology you've acquired, go by THE BOOK, and preach it to the nations. This is better than being self centered, fake, and making no difference at all.
FYI: I myself attend a small church, and yes, we do reach people for Christ in our community. I guess if we were doing it in some manner you had no idea about, but were quick to judge us on what you did know, you'd be knocking us down as well.
God Help Them! Amen!
Posted by: Marcus Monroe | Jun 24, 2005 4:03:45 AM
Ok, so I have one more thing to say.
Why should we over look our own mission field? Other countries are sending their missionaries here. We need to reach our own, to send our own.
Posted by: Marcus Monroe | Jun 24, 2005 4:14:17 AM
Ok, I don't get it. I can't imagine why anyone would want to attend a video venue. But then again, I have enjoyed the teaching of a variety of pastors on radio and TV. I just don't see the point in criticizing the way another person feels called to do ministry. If they are being effective in reaching and teaching people for Christ, then praise the Lord! And I don't think it is possible for us to judge effectiveness from afar. Marcus can talk about Life Church because he's there and seen its impact. I can't because I'm not there.
Also, Jim made some good points to open this session. However, I don't think it is fair to criticize some of our large church brothers because some are attracted to their personalities. My wife attended 1st E. Free in Fullerton for several years back in the 80's. She tells me that Chuch Swindoll was very humble and expressed on more than one occasion his discomfort with those who came there just because of him. In a success driven culture, some people are attracted to "successful" pastors. But then maybe they might learn something by sitting under the teaching of these humble leaders.
Posted by: Rich Viel | Jun 24, 2005 8:48:00 AM
I'll try to be careful here, but a quick glance at Jesus might be okay in all this (not suggesting that no one has; let's just say it here). I think it would be wrong of us to point to Jesus and mandate any particular method of ministry based on mimicking what we see Jesus, but there may be room to accept that:
- Jesus drew some decent crowds in his day. When he died the church went underground for a little while. But it didn't stay there - she's thriving pretty decently still.
- Jesus seemed to be pretty open to decentralizing the church. He rallied and taught and mentored those he sent out - but they did go out with his message. :)
- Jesus warned his early disciples about judging others who did ministry differently and concluded - if they're not against me, they're for me.
Just some thoughts.
Posted by: mark waltz | Jun 24, 2005 10:13:57 AM
Thanks, Marcus... and thanks Mark.
Mark, I wish that some of the detractors here could see the passion and excitement with which many people here serve. For instance, I've had quite a bit of exposure with Granger (Mark's church, which is NOT multi-site, BTW) and I can tell you that they are all about bringing people to Jesus. As a matter of fact, everything they do is to that end. And they do it, not with an egotistical, arrogent, number-crunching state of mind; but out of a love for people who are dying in their community without Jesus.
Respectfully, I do think that some people who are so against new ideas would do best to search out some good examples and research them rather than instantly thinking the worst about them.
And, Mark, I too wish that everyone could separate the methodology and the message, but we've had that discussion here before, and It's not possible for some. If the message changes, there's a problem... but methodologies should always be in a state of flux. (My opinion).
Todd
Posted by: Todd Rhoades | Jun 24, 2005 2:31:07 PM
Just noticed that in the article that lit this fire I've been promoted to "the pastor" at Seacoast. While I do occasionally stuggle with an "egotistical, arrogent, number-crunching state of mind", I'm afraid the other Seacoast pastors, not to mention the Sr. Pastor, might want me to point out I'm just the Pastor of Campus Development. But thanks for the significant, albeit brief, promotion :-)
[Todd's note... sorry about the Geoff... guess if I'm going to mis-state your position, I might as well go all out! I've fixed my error in the post.
Actually, you might be a bigger target here as "Pastor of Campus Development" than the "Senior Pastor" would be. :) ]]
Posted by: Geoff Surratt | Jun 24, 2005 3:02:00 PM
Comment regarding the lost in other countries? I think it is wrong to assume that life church is not active in world missions. Many churches including Seacoast and other members of ARC are very active in world missions. Billy Hornsby has a heart for missions domestically and internationally unlike few that I have ever met.
I don't see it as an either or. God called us to witness in Jerusalem, Judia, etc. to the outer parts of the earth. For me, that starts in my own back yard. The local church campus, as God has given us influence we have started to become a city wide church, others like Seacoast have regional influence, Fellowship National. Most all of them also have a global missions mindset.
God is up to something with multi-site. We are learning more about it every day. It is exciting to see God use this tool and allow others who might not be as highly gifted communicators spend the 20+ hours a week they might have spent preparing an average message loving and caring for people, or leading God's Sheep!
To use an analogy I once heard geoff say. The technology Paul had in his day was letters, so he used them to spread the Gospel. Over the years people have used radio, tv, and a variety of other means to spread the good news. Why not use the internet, tape, or DVD to spread the word! Especially when people are getting saved!
Posted by: Eric Jaffe | Jun 24, 2005 4:12:53 PM
Can't we all just get along?
Posted by: Sarge | Jun 24, 2005 9:25:09 PM
unfortuneatly Sarge, we are all entitled to our own opinions. Some will lack to see the larger picture, or be quick to judge others. I honestly don't know what the driving force behind their ministry against unconventional yet still biblically sound and moral means of reaching the lost is all about. I don't know if it's a site of envy, or the work of the devil strongly working. I believe if they could actually experience the things first hand, they would be revolutionized in their thinking. I never thought the capactiy of ministry at which some churches function could be possible until an annual trip to Arlington for Six Flags had caught my eye on the large letters reading FELLOWSHIPCHURCH.COM It was all I thought about on the whole trip. I couldn't relax until I got back home and opened up my browser to fellowshipchurch.com. At first, I was quick to judge the ministry efforts of FC as just absolutley "not church". But when I experience the ministry myself, I could see that the ministry of FC was one that was saving souls and changed the way I looked at life as a christian, and the way I do my own ministry.
Alot of people who don't know or just don't understand will say that this is just a fad. But I believe that after all the traditional churches have died out, and that's currently at a rate of 11 a week, that the mega-church will become the norm.
People still question how such a large church can still meet and reach the needs of each and every individual person. But their own capabilities have limited their thinking. It's not just one person. It's several hundred volunteer laymen working and caring.
I really don't know what to say to nay-sayers. I guess all our questions and thoughts will be answered when we're in heaven.
God Bless, i'm off to bed.
Posted by: Marcus Monroe | Jun 25, 2005 2:29:19 AM
What is church? Is church a place with a choir loft, hymnals, and a 3 point sermon? Is church a community where the common bond is Christ's love and grace? The ground truly is level at the foot of the cross. What does it matter as long as God is working. If people's lives are being changed, then glory to God. The common bond of Christ's love crosses cities, counties and states. It is exciting to see. Same grace, same God, same hope.
Posted by: John Ventry | Jun 26, 2005 4:34:16 PM
Marcus wrote about LifeChurch.tv:
"They are making a difference. They recently rented out a venue downtown and played music. They stood out on the same corner and handed out flyers for the event. I worked the night of the event, so I wasn't able to go. But let me ask you guys, what are your churches doing in IT'S communities."
Just to clarify, Marcus, that downtown event is called Oasis, and it is an ongoing weekly ministry held in a nightclub in Bricktown on sunday nights. While it is supported by LifeChurch with the use of some resources, there is no official connection between LifeChurch and Oasis. Before anyone takes this as deflating Marcus's point however, let me point out that Oasis was started by a single home group from the body of LifeChurch.tv. 25 or so people take time to not only attend and serve in their local church (lifechurch.tv), but also spend most of their remaining sundays putting together an outreach event to reach the lost who would never set foot in any church, mega or otherwise. So if you feel that the multi-campus mega church model is destroying community, take a look at this ministry. I don't think that anyone would say that Life is a perfect model for a church. But if God is using its ministry to inspire people to start ministries of their own, I'm willing to give them the benifit of the doubt.
Posted by: justk | Jun 27, 2005 11:26:36 AM
My experience?
The video venue I participated in ended up being nothing more than a good way to off-load people in a facility (rather than build a bigger sanctuary). While many things were done to try to build an identity for this congregation, they still remained spectators. Hopefully that will change as the future moves on.
I like Willow Creek's approach - don't start a satelite unless you have a campus pastor, worship pastor, youth pastor, and children's pastor. That's one way to start the thing off with a good foundation.
I'm still working on digesting this whole concept... right now I like the idea of church planting a bit more.
Posted by: Tony Myles | Jun 27, 2005 4:24:44 PM
In case it matters, Lifechurch IS involved in a bunch of overseas ministry--they're goal is to "tithe" their people. In other words, a tenth of the people who attend go to serve the 3rd world once a year. Give them some slack in this area.
Second, I interviewed for a pastoral position with Lifechurch...found that I was pretty uneasy about the whole "single-voice" deal from the stage--and their OBSESSION with every last syllable of your message being scrutinized. If excellence and authenticty were pitted against one another, excellence won--probably because they're arminian in their theology and believe people's response to the gospel hangs on their every word.
They were also less than interested in candidates that were slobbering over their technology and methods. The intermediary in the interview warned me in advance that they would come off as "arrogant". Can that be good? When does coming off as arrogant become arrogant? Regardless, I thought Craig and the gang are great people who love Jesus--seriously! My short time with them DID NOT sour me on them as people. Craig has IMMENSE character, from my observations.
One major knock though...lifechurch does a count of "hands" every week regarding who accepts Jesus--they freely admitted that there was zero follow-up as to how many were actually making a commitment for the first time, getting plugged in, etc. Things may have changed since then, but I'm not aware.
Last, I still think its lazy leadership to not develop and send other leaders to be what pastors are supposed to be (more than just shepherds)--ministers of the Word and prayer. Pastors/Elders teach...it's that simple. It's the only "skill" listed in 1 Timothy 3--the rest deal with character issues.
thoughts from my inside peek of LC.tv
Posted by: rick | Jun 27, 2005 9:57:22 PM
