« 1 in 4 People: Church Hoppers | Main | What Do You Believe About Your Ministry? »
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Multi-Site Churches: Your Input Needed
I received an email from Greg Surratt, the Senior Pastor at Seacoast Church last week. Seacoast is one of the leading churches in the multi-site movement today. He asked for our help. Greg wrote:
Todd,
I’m speaking at the multi-site thing in Chicago
Frankly, I don't just want to be a cheerleader for multi-site...so it would help me if you could take a minute and help me reflect on what needs to be communicated on the topic:
- What are the questions, hot buttons, concerns, issues concerning multi-site?
- If you were coming...what would you want to hear from me specifically?
OK... here's your chance to direct your questions; identify your hot buttons, concerns, etc about multi-sites to the pastor of a bonafide multi-site church (and a successful one at that!).
If you were going to the conference, what would you like to hear? What would you ask Greg? (I'm going... but unfortunately, the conference is all sold out; which should tell you something about the momentum of the movement.)
From my past experience here... this could turn ugly; but I will not allow that. Everyone gets one post on this one, and no more. I'm interested in your input; but not your arguements. :) Express your concerns; ask your questions; and be sincere and respectful.
Thanks for your help... I'm sure your input will help Greg put together a great presentation!
Todd
Add Your Comments and Ideas now...Pass this post on to a friend now...
Subscribe to RSS Feed | Get Email Notifications on New Posts
September 28, 2005 in Multi-Site Churches | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451dafb69e200d83459414453ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Multi-Site Churches: Your Input Needed:
Comments
My comment (looking for a response):
Multi-sites are inferior to church plants because they don't raise up new peer leaders, but rather builds a leadership hierarchy to glorify the top Pastor, no matter how well he is cloaked in false humility. It's still personality/cult-building rather than raising up new independent and equal leaders. It's advancing God's kingdom thru addition, rather than multiplication.
Sure, creating a multi-site is easier than planting a church. But did our Lord emphasize the "easy?" Consider Luke 9:23.
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Luke 9:23
23Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
Posted by: bernie dehler | Sep 28, 2005 1:41:58 PM
Uh, sorry Bernie, gotta disagree there my friend.
Given the fact that 80% of church plants fail, I would say that there has to be an additional avenue to enlarging the kingdom other than planting churches.
(Don't get me wrong...I am a church planter--and it is going very well for us here at NewSpring.)
And I don't think it's fair to say that multi-site's are cult building and merely attempts to glorify the senior pastor. I have kept up with Seacoast for a while, and contrary to your statements...the kingdom IS being enlarged and leaders ARE being developed.
Just because the sermon isn't being preached live does not mean that leaders aren't being discipled my friend. Trust me! And creating a multi-site is easier than planting a church? My question would be, "How would you know--have you done both?"
Seriously dude--don't go out and attack multi site church planters because it isn't your preference. These guys are being used by God...and are seeing some great things happen. I know a lot of pastors that are doing multi site--and their agenda is to see God's kingdom enlarge. Before you criticize a man...get to know his heart.
Posted by: Perry | Sep 28, 2005 3:09:36 PM
Poor Bernie, taking a beating as usual :(
Back to post:
How do we establish accountability, oversee and maintain the resident staff in a site?
Are there any examples of a multi-site church which has successfully transitioned from the founding father?
In terms of $, how much on average does it cost to do a new site?
According to the research, how many of the attendees at a site have truly been born again versus transfer growth as a result of the new site?
These are some of the questions I'd like to see answered. Most of the info I have been able to gleen at this time is anecdotal rather than actual factual.
Posted by: pjlr | Sep 28, 2005 3:32:01 PM
We have two members of our staff team going!
We already do one service next door in a school and now we are planning a 5th service in that location--but our first with video.
Questions:
1-Quality. I know some say only a bit more than expectations (Osborne, for instance). Where is the quality factor value in presentational quality of the video, worship music and setting.
2-Video: budgeting for gear, training, etc.
3-Staff and leadership structure. Anything on the planning and organizational side.
4-How to keep all sites and venues feeling like one church?
Blessings!
Rich
Posted by: Rich Kirkpatrick | Sep 28, 2005 4:25:27 PM
Multi-Site/Mothering Starts is clearly one of the most faithful uses of resources and leadership in starting a new church. Instead of creating Mega churches that just keep getting bigger and bigger, we now are learning to train churches to reproduce themselves. My question: What sucess have medium size churches had in this type of church start? Is it so capital intensive that only large churches should attempt?
Posted by: Bryan Simpson | Sep 28, 2005 6:51:46 PM
One great benefit of multisite would be accountability because the overseer could have less experience than a church planter. I’m sure that’s not always the case but allows for quicker expansion. I am familiar with multi-site and as I see the awakening-taking place in this country we need both. September 11 showed us that people will look to the church in difficult times. We all have to deal with how to get people to stay and plugged in. Giving people a job to do in the church or multi-site will always be the number one reason people come consistently, that and small groups.
Posted by: Linda | Sep 28, 2005 8:47:49 PM
I have some genuine concerns about a multi-site church, though I know God can use many different forms of church. I have never done it and admire that someone is out there taking risks in these ways. How will we know if someone doesn't try so, good job. Three questions I would like someone to answer are these:
#1 If you are looking to bring someone to church as the seeker model defends, why would you invite someone to watch a simulcast on a TV? Are your people motivated to do that? Are they actually doing it? Doesn't seem to me like that would be attractive to church people or better yet, that it would be missional at all? But I could be wrong.
#2 Why do you need more sites and people for a church that probably has issues developing the people into disciples they already have? I think most churches are good at putting people in programs but terrible about truly helping people with life change.
#3 Is transfer growth driving your video venue? To me, that is a waste. What about spending more energy on relationships and less on presentations? Better yet just put your video on the internet and let people download it from home...
I would never go to a video venue because the last think I need is a "good message."
The pastor doesn't grow the church, I think the church was meant to grow away from a building or one inspirational leader teaching. What I think doesn't matter as much as what non-Christians think
The key would be to ask some non-Christians what they think about things like TBN. Is that really attractive to people who don't believe in Christ? Or should it be more the act of serving and love that attacts people to Christ?
Just some thoughts, would love to hear your responses.
One more thought - regarding the quality issue from the above post...in my experience when we focus so much energy on quality, we create a atmospere of evaluators. Especially in Christian circles
Posted by: jconn | Sep 28, 2005 11:52:44 PM
I used to think multi-site was totally wrong, that it diluted effective church planting, but although I'm not singing a new tune yet, I am learning the notes... ;-)
Here's my big question. How does the leadership of a church that is expanding by multiple sites keep in touch with the unique needs, characteristics, et cetera of those sites. Different congregations have very different distinctives. How can you keep in touch with those in those different churches. I don't mean my question as a negative challenge. I really want to know the answer to that!
And I want to stress that we in the "medium sized" churches (mine is just barely bigger than medium in my opinion, at just under 1000, but lots of seekers and brand new Christians) want to know if we should be seriously considering this, and if there are others like us that have, and what their experience has been.
Thanks!
Posted by: Peter Hamm | Sep 29, 2005 7:11:34 AM
From a more logistical/practical standpoint:
1) Will I need tech staff to augment my tech volunteers in each venue AND in the "main room"?
2) Technologically, what kind of "we-wish-we'd-known-better" or "we'd-do-it-differently" wisdom can you share?
3) If the video venues are in multi-purpose and/or temporary space, how many people and how much setup time do we need to be ready and still have a dry-run rehearsal?
4) Would you recommend two side screens (IMAG - close up shots) and a center "lock-down" stage screen to give the illusion the person is in the room? Or would you recommend a single screen with tight shots? Which one has the greater suspension of disbelief?
5) What is the minimum amount of technology? Conversely, if you could do it all over again, how much more (if any) would you have spent?
6) Is there a minimum size threshold for churches (based on attendance) that needs to be achieved before adding multi-venue and/or multi-site?
7) Before going multi-site, would you recommend first adding multi-venue in your existing facility with differing services as a learning opportunity?
Posted by: Anthony D. Coppedge | Sep 29, 2005 9:20:03 AM
I'm not sure what to say here. You can't deny a church its growth and the moving of God within its ministry. But as a church consultant I see so many churches in America ready to close. In fact 90% of churches in our land are under 75 people and are doing all they can to keep their head above water. Pastors have to work outside the church and far to many of them washout. When I make myself available to assist them their response is, "finally, someone to help us get our act together." I believe that a better plan is to develop teams from huge churches to go out in their ministry areas and network with churches willing to take their help and then help them to become healthy, dynamic churches for God's glory rather then provide live feed of a pastor preaching from another site. I guess there is room for both ideas, but reviving the very backbone of our nation (the local church) is a better idea.
Posted by: Pastor Andy | Sep 29, 2005 10:35:15 AM
Pastor Andy said:
" I believe that a better plan is to develop teams from huge churches to go out in their ministry areas and network with churches willing to take their help and then help them to become healthy, dynamic churches for God's glory rather then provide live feed of a pastor preaching from another site. I guess there is room for both ideas, but reviving the very backbone of our nation (the local church) is a better idea."
Wow, that sounds like a great idea with lots of insight. That sounds like a good prescription for the kingdom of God. But where's the glory in it? One would have to be more focused on the church (Christ's body, globally) than the ego to do something like that. There's no payback in fame or fortune to do what you suggest; one would get nothing but the inner joy of doing God's will, which is priceless.
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Posted by: bernie dehler | Sep 29, 2005 11:45:09 AM
I'm not familiar with multi-site churches, but it seems to me (just my first impression) that this elevates the pastor to celebrity status. This "problem solver" assumes that people only come to church because of the senior pastor and his great message. I am not one of those people...there are other factors involved as to why I go to church and the sermon is near the bottom of the list. It also seems to me that a larger church would be able to attract gifted teachers and I'm sure some of those teachers would be willing to preach at an off-site venue.
Maybe I'm misuderstanding the purpose. It just seems weird to me...and extremely impersonable.
Posted by: Mountaingirl | Sep 29, 2005 11:56:38 AM
Pastor Andy mentioned that maybe the larger churches should get a team and go help help the smaller churches. Every large church I know is doing that. They have a burden to help churches that are in need. Also, to be honest Bernie, every pastor I know of large churches are very humble. Maybe that is why God allows them to lead such large churches, because He knows that He can trust them to do it without being prideful. I do consulting with smaller churches and I have found more pridefulness in the smaller churches than with pastors of large churches. Possibly a point of discussion for Greg Surratt and the conference would be the question of how large churches can help smaller churches even more in the years to come.
Posted by: Larry | Sep 29, 2005 12:31:27 PM
I blogged about this not too long ago. I have some concerns about the multi-site church, but also think it's foolish to throw the baby out with the bath water. Rather than posting my entire blog, or prostituting my blog on this site, here is the summary of my concerns:
1. There is an inherent lack of accountability that comes when the pastor is completely inaccessible to his congregation. The congregation loses the ability to observe their pastor in real life. Though my sermons are important, they don't come close to the impact I'm able to make when people get to see me live out one of my sermons in a random situation.
2. It seems to me that the multi-site church overemphasizes one person's spiritual gifts over others.
3. It also seems to me that there is an emphasis placed on the skills of the person presenting God's Word rather than the fact that the message is God's Word. God promised His words would never come back void (Is. 55), is there only one person in a 3 state area who has the skills to present God's Word?
4. I think the most ironic challenge with the multi-site church is its inability to be culturally relevant. It's ironic because the multi-site fad is seen as the _most_ culturally relevant thing out there. What could be more cool than watching church on video? But as another person mentioned earlier, it's difficult for a pastor in Edmond, OK to be in touch with the individual needs of a church in Phoenix, Arizona. His only options are to (1) accept his irrelevance and hope he meets that congregations needs next week, or (2) water down the message. Both have inherent challenges.
5. I didn't blog about it, but I'm also concerned about the future of these churches when the stud communicator dies or moves on. If a church is built on the ministry of one person's gifts, what will the church do when that pastor isn't around any longer?
I'd be interested in hearing Greg's responses to these issues. I think the multi-site church very well may be the future of the mega church in America, but that it also needs to be very intentional in addressing the above issues to avoid being mega-dangerous instead.
Posted by: chris | Sep 29, 2005 1:26:55 PM
I believe the church during the first two or three centuries were multi-site by necessity. The early church managed it quite well. All the "home" churches were under one identity - the region or city they all were located in. Teaching elders were in each group. One particular elder, often called a bishop, would pastor one of the home churches and also work with the pastors of all the others. They would baptize once a year or more and that would often be the time when the entire church of the region would show up.
The modern cell group is just another variation of a multi-site church. If we were to adopt the idea that the church is an assembly of people rather than a building or location, we can probably wrap are arms around a mult-site concept.
I notice a lot of focus on logistics like screens, sound systems, and other items. Why? There should be teaching pastors in every location. Keep it simple. Keep it streamlined.
Just my thoughts.
Dan
Posted by: Dan Moore | Sep 29, 2005 2:58:16 PM
question: what about establishiing the "identity" of the main church before launching a multi-site? Doesn't this take time?
Posted by: Michael | Sep 29, 2005 3:16:09 PM
Chris says:
"I didn't blog about it, but I'm also concerned about the future of these churches when the stud communicator dies or moves on. If a church is built on the ministry of one person's gifts, what will the church do when that pastor isn't around any longer?"
When you look at the major Christian celebrities, the answer is that the leader's son usually picks it up. Examples, look at Billy Graham, Robert Schueller, and John Hagee (and their sons). If they don't have a son to pick it up, I'd imagine it's all downhill from there... yesterday's news... meanwhile, another Christian cult figure is developing somewhere... preparing to build a dynasty...
Meanwhile also, plenty of unsung/unknown heroes giving/spending their life on the mission field for Christ... like those at http://www.gfa.org .
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Posted by: bernie dehler | Sep 29, 2005 3:18:56 PM
This is great stuff...thanks Todd for doing it.
I will probably take some time over the next month before the conference to blog about some of these issues. For the most part I think it is good to bat it around...there are legitimate things that we need to think about and address.
Let me hit one real quick: Let me go on record as saying that I don't feel like a "stud communicator"...I don't feel like a stud anything! That being said, I've done a lot of thinking what happens when I'm taken off the scene? How does that impact the church and how healthy are we now?
A few years ago we went to a teaching team concept. We have 4 teachers that tee it up for the weekends and we have a minor league system that is now training 3 or 4 more. In fact...recently I didn't teach for 13 weeks straight, without any apparent damage to the church. I loved it. I think the church is less dependant on me than it ever has been.
Why not just split the teachers up and go plant churches? That's not a bad idea...in fact we also plant churches...we have planted 22 of them in the last 3 years. It's not either/or for us, it is both/and. But...the 4 of us love the idea of not having to preach every weekend. We help each other with our messages...and the guys at the campuses are free to spend their time building teams and caring for people. We are each using our gifts in the best possible way.
There is a lot more that can and should be said about this part of the discussion...but I hate long posts...what are your thoughts?
Posted by: Greg Surratt | Sep 29, 2005 5:10:54 PM
Greg said:
"Why not just split the teachers up and go plant churches? That's not a bad idea..."
Greg, you asked the question, but didn't answer it. Curious as to your answer! Why maintain the hierarchy if they can be totally independent? Is it like a parent not wanting their grown-up kid to move out of the house? Don't you have the confidence in them to set them free? I wonder if they could really speak freely, if they'd want to be set free (they likely would never tell you because you're the boss).
How did your 22 church plants do? Are they all thriving? I'd love to see an article on how to plant a church, and what to do (and not to do), from your experience. Maybe the top 5 things to do, and top 5 mistakes, speaking from experience.
...Bernie
Posted by: bernie dehler | Sep 29, 2005 7:36:24 PM
Bernie...you continue to come across so judgemental. Is it impossible for you to communicate with grace? The language you use is so inflamatory. Not sure where the bitterness comes from, but it will only hinder your own ministry. I'd encourage you to deal with it...it's as dishonoring to Jesus as the indictments you make against the long list of mega-church pastors.
Perhaps a new way of looking at the multi-site issue is this...something is going on within churches like Seacoast; God is bringing people into the kingdom. Instead of using money to build a huge campus to house all of the people, here is a leadership that is committed to using financial resources differently by renting and building smaller. They get the benefits of both the medium and large churches.
Why are you so against people who are high quality presenters doing the presenting. Sure, it's God's Word, but so many preachers give God a bad rap because they can't present even close to creatively. God's Word rises above that, but aren't people going to be impacted more by people who are hitting their sweet spot?
Just think, a man or woman who is gifted to sheperd and lead can pour all of their time into the people of their church because men and women who are gifted at communicating are doing their part. Why do we assume that everyone called to lead and pastor should always be a great presenter/preacher? Seems like a good use of the various gifts in the Body, to me.
Posted by: matt | Sep 29, 2005 10:20:04 PM
One of the reoccurring comments that seems to get thrown out there a lot when the multi-site topic comes up is that of "why does just one person teach" and then some variation of "why can't each campus/venue/location have their own live teacher".
There is one reason why it really seems like a good idea to have one person teach each week and pass it around to the different campus/venue/locations via video. That is REUSE.
Let me explain. I teach each week at a church plant that currently has 1 location, and each week I look at the amount of time I spend in message preparation and practice and study and then the energy that is expended in communicating that message.
It seems to me that what many multi-site churches are doing is simply taking that huge amount of work, treating it as a resource and then reusing it over and over again. What a savings. Each time another campus views the teaching via video, represents many hours that a minister doesn't have to spend preparing a message, hours that can be devoting to other (non-reusable) areas of ministry.
Posted by: Philip Canarsky | Sep 30, 2005 12:50:18 AM
I really like alot of the questions I see here. These are valid issues when it comes to haveing a multisite church. One issue I can address (from my own expirirence) is that of cultural relevance. There are at least three ways that the campuses remain culturally relevant. First, the messages are from the Bible which is "God Breathed". That is cultural relevance at it's best. Second, each campus has its own campus pastor who is totally in touch with the needs of the congregation at his campus. Third, the campus ministers meet weekly with a central staff that supports them in the ministry, and in this meeting they are able to share solutions to common campus issues.
Anyways sorry so brief, but I must go.
Please reply
Posted by: T. Bradford Singleton | Sep 30, 2005 9:51:56 AM
One question that has been posed a few times I would like to answer due to I am looking into multi-siting with my home church here in Va Beach. Why one teacher you may ask? Why not church plant instead? At my church of around 800- We have a few different worship teams and a few different leaders with an abundance of musicians. My Senior Pastor came to me and said- I think you have the gifts to plant. To some degree I told him I thought he was right but do not feel the call to preach weekly which planting requires- I do "on the otherhand" feel called to Lead Worship weekly in which that position is filled- so by multi-siting- I can continuing growing in the Preaching gift- Lead Worsip and start building a leadership team underneath me to one day be the mothering church. To me it simplifies and stabilizes the planting model in the early years. Just my two cents...
Posted by: Rick Courtney | Sep 30, 2005 11:12:42 AM
Phillip said:
"It seems to me that what many multi-site churches are doing is simply taking that huge amount of work, treating it as a resource and then reusing it over and over again."
Good idea if it's just a job to get done. That's from the perspective of the Pastor, who wants to do it as easily as possible. What about from the view of the church member, and what they want and need? The mentality saddens me... for the health of the church...
Taking it to the ultimate conclusion, after a few years, just play the same videos over and over... even after the Senior Pastor/Preacher dies. That's the ultimate in re-use and low cost delivery. The sermons could also be as general as possible, so they remain timeless (no reference to current events), as well as powerless.
,,,Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Posted by: bernie dehler | Sep 30, 2005 11:32:06 AM
Rick says:
"My Senior Pastor came to me and said- I think you have the gifts to plant. To some degree I told him I thought he was right but do not feel the call to preach weekly which planting requires"
If it's not your calling, maybe it is the calling of someone else. Did the staff pray over it, and ask God to raise up a leader, in response to the need?
...Bernie
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/247
Posted by: bernie dehler | Sep 30, 2005 11:35:51 AM
