Ed, thank you for asking these important questions in a humble way. I hope this generates a thoughtful and fruitful discussion.

Ed, good article and you make some good points that apply to churches of all sizes. Perhaps you can share with us in a future blog how you address these very issues in the multi-site church you pastor. You have a full time job with Lifeway, teach at several schools, do media interviews, write for magazines, write books, and travel frequently to speak at conferences. You are a busy guy. Can you share how you balance all of that and as a pastor still model the values expressed in your article? Thanks.

Good words there Ed. You take that contrarian position!

We must constantly remind ourselves that cloning is not biblical. Even if it works and appears safer. (Hey! the outcome is pretty much already set when you clone.) Reproduction - which involves the mixing of DNA thus riskily producing something new, distinct and different - is a biblical mandate. It can't be just about "production," as slick and wonderful as that might be. It's about reproduction. It has to be about allowing others to come into place.

Glenn

Dr. Stetzer,

I really appreciated your talk on doubt and faith at Whiteboard. Do you know of any resources that might help a church that is thinking about changing its name (statisticts, stories of other church who have done it, etc)?

Ed,

Great post! I'm not anti-multi site either. But I wondered the same question as you about building up new communicators. I wonder if rotating speakers at various venues might be a better way of going. What is going to happen to one of these multi-site churches when (I hope this doesn't happen) someone dies or has a moral failure? Will all of the venues die?

Ok. so next you need to write about what a church needs to be, before they start considering going multisite. Here's why: Not every church can go multisite and make it work. Buckstops is a bigtime brand. They have a rock solid infrastructure. For every Buckstops there are several "Cuts Fitness for Men" the male only fitness center. Gulp. Not being a "church" expert and only being a connoseiour of fine business, here's what I see:

1) Unusually good leadership already established.
2) a commitment to the same core values as the original.
3) an unusually strong brand.
4) an infrastructure in place to serve the "franchisees".
5) Leadership who is extremely focused on the mission of the church.
6) God's leading.

The average church that I see could never pull this off and be successful. The church you preach at had a leader who was exceptionally strong and focused. And this church didn't do multisite to my knowledge until about 15 years into his leadership. We have two different services at one time, and some how don't have an "us-them" mentality. This is not normal. And won't work in 99% of the churches out there.

I'm looking forward to your follow up article... and Jerk Free Evangelism, there's a concept. LOL.

Ed,

Long time reader, first time commentor. This was a great post today and very timely with really good information. My church has recently looked at branching out with campuses. We have planted several churches in the Middle Tennessee area that are very successful. We have talked about shifting the paradigm to planting campuses versus planting more churches.

My question is, with this new venture, what is your take on the responsibility of the Campus Pastor versus the Senior Pastor? Should the Campus Pastor be looked at as just another staff Associate Pastor that teaches during the mid-week service and plays a DVD on Sunday? Or, should the Campus Pastor be looked at in more of the leadership role in that community? He IS the Pastor under direction of the main campus Senior Pastor.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Joe, I am just the "interim," an odd tradition where you help the church when it is without a pastor. So, I don't really excercise leadership (beyond preaching) in my role there.

Dan, thanks for the good word. No, I don't have any resources on that, sorry. And, let's talk multisite in this thread. Grin.

Kevin, some do it that way. They often rotate speakers. In my brief column, my main focus was video venues.

Micheal, good word.

Rick, That is a good question which I am sure that Geoff will get into with us tomorrow.

Ed, I couldn't agree more with the comment about reproducing new teachers. Besides the inherent danger of building something based on a single person (did we learn nothing from the great falls of the televangelists), multisite strategies that do not incorporate teaching teams (diverse, coaching environments) ignore biblical mandates for growing disciples. They lose an opportunity to raise leaders, while risking the encouragement of faith based on personality, rather than Christ, in new believers.

Ed,

great thoughts...right on.

Brother Ed,

I believe you have hit on some of the drawbacks of consumerism that is easy established in the church setting today. Billy Graham used this model on a grand scale, with some success to push people to the local churches. But in the final analysis, the church is about people that are called out and involved.

Satellite churches that depend upon "personalities" really do miss the point of what the Apostle Paul was teaching Titus as he instructed him….

Titus 1:5 “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,�

and to Timothy….

Titus 1:5 “For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,�

The Spirit of God leads the church to organize and function in the fashion given to Titus and to Timothy, it is overtly clear that God’s design for his church has no reason for change. In contrast, however, to what the world would like to participate with….the church is less of a Theatre where you go to get the impact of a study or a dynamic “worship� presentation…..whereas the Spirit of God informs the church with what has been brought to Titus and Timothy. It is a place, where as you put it, “DNA� actually speaks to each other, and where discipleship becomes a centerpiece to reproduce once again.

If Leadership is not appointed, and if things are not continually set in order (sound doctrine), that particular group will ultimately diminish as a pillar and ground of the truth…… and this same warning was given to the earliest of churches….

1Timothy 3:15 “but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.�

We are living in a “social�e�motion� age of communicators, looking for the next layer or platform for social involvement. It is the cheapest trick in the books which always leads to a doctrine less/light community of believers.

Thanks for the post,…It is something to think about.

Blessings,
Chris

Ed,

I find that I teeter dangerously close to being both anti-multisite and anti-mega (probably a deep-seated streak of the green-eyed monster rearing its ugly head). I do wonder about the number of young ministers training for service in Bible Colleges, Universities and Seminaries who will struggle to find a place of service in their calling because of the growing number of Video-based worship services.

I would lean more in the direction of Warren's settup that encourages pastors and pastors-to-be to apply principles and start/re-start/or transition churches into local bodies based on those principles.

Benj.

Ed,

I appreciate the caution flag being raised here. Great thoughts. The article is a challenge for those of us who are multi-site. I will share this article with all our campus pastors.

But, I do believe that healthy multi-site churches launch new sites from a missional viewpoint more than an attractional one. We moved to multiple locations to take the message into different contexts within our County -- instead of attempting to attract everyone to one central locale. And our biggest "win" so far has been the leaders who are being developed. People who merely attended church are now stepping up to lead ministry in new places. Additionally, we are finding a deeper biblical community among these people because they worship and serve among their neighbors.

I pray we are not neglecting pastoral responsibility, and believe we effectively fulfill the biblical commands you list.

The teaching piece is a challenge we wrestle with. We are not completely video. My senior pastor and myself rotate and we use other teachers as well. With that said, I understand why video teaching is popular. It is simpler because it allows for "economy of scale" (good stewardship) on the time and preparation investment of leadership, media, inserts, and all the details of teaching. And the one message helps unite all the campuses. Our tension to be incarnational yet wise stewards has not yet been resolved.

eric

Ed,
When we first planted our church in upstate NY, we went to one of these mega-churches that is actively doing multi-site in its immediate area and was surprised to learn that they were interested in supporting us. Great! Until in a conversation with the pastor's assistant it was made clear that we would have to show his feed every week. When I inquired why, I was told that they just didn't believe there were that many good communicators out there. I asked the same thing you said: what if his dad had said that to him.
I'm not opposed to multi-site in every circumstance, but I fear that in many cases there is just a lot of hubris involved.

Hey Ed,

Great thoughts. Here are some questions:

What's the difference between a multisite church (with video preaching) that has 5 locations with a total attendance of 3000 and one megachurch of 3000? Is one better/worse?

Does the multisite/video/mcchurch model provide an opportunity for gifted leaders (who aren't gifted preachers), an opportunity that didn't exist before and is that good?

Will we really know how much a multisite church's success depends on the primary communicator until one actually does die or fail morally? Also, is that really different than the same thing happening in a megachurch the size of some multisites?

Ed,

You have raised valid concerns. These are certainly issues that should concern us in every church.

What I fail to see is how any of these issues are of greater concern in a multi-site context. Is there any data from experts who have truly studied these models thoroughly, such as Warren Bird, to suggest that pastoral responsibility is more lacking in a multi-site venue than in any other type of church in America? Certainly the issue is worthy of concern, but what data would cause you to make such an insinuation? Why assume a campus pastor cares less for his congregation than any other pastor? One could argue that the campus pastor actually has more time to devote to care. To leverage such a "concern" without foundation is simply to encourage friendly fire.

In fact, the same is true of your other concerns. They are real, for sure, but they are concerns for EVERY church, not just multi-site.

The bottom line is that if the mother church is lacking in any of these areas, the satellites will be lacking also. But if the mother church is strong, outward-focused, and developing healthy networks of care and community, then the satellites will do well in these areas. After all, we're not out to replicate a church service, we're out to replicate the entire life of the church. That includes healthy vertical and horizontal relationships.

And finally, would someone PLEASE define "consumerism" in the church for me? Everyone loves to rant against it without defining it.

We live in a culture full of consumers. They aren't "out there." You are one and I am one. Every time you and I express our preferences, we're acting like consumers.

Like loud music? You're a consumer. Like soft music? You're a consumer. Like small groups? You're a consumer. Sunday School? VBS?

The question isn't whether we should listen to consumers. We already are! The question is WHICH consumers should have a louder voice—those inside the church or those outside?

Ed, I've heard such good things about you from people that know you. Opinions are cool, but when they denigrate what others have given their lives to, I would expect someone of your stature to have data to support your views.

Just the other day I spoke (live and in person) to our congregation and very kindly but directly offered the same invitation Andy would offer in Atlanta, "Join the mission or give up your seat." For the life of me, I can't see how that encourages spectators.

Rich,

Some fair questions in your comments, but let me first respond to a few things I think need to be cleared up before I agree with you on most of the rest. Grin.

First, I don't "insinuate" things in the article. I ask some questions and made some observations.

Also, on more than on occasion, I made a point to affirm multi-site (in the midst of a magazine issued filled with positive articles on multi-site). So, I would say I asked some questions and gave an opinion. Note how often I say, “it can,� “sometimes it…,� and “often it does not happen.�

It is not an always the case, and I even give a positive example, but I have seen many cases where these things are true. And, yes, we have recently done a major research project on the subject with several dozen churches we think are doing it well. But, we also have found many that are not. They stuggle with these (and other) areas.

Anyway, I think that these are important questions. And, if we can't ask them, I think we have problems.

Second, I don't think that asking questions and expressing concerns "denigrate[s] what others have given their lives to." If questions asked (in the tone I asked them) are denigrating, I think perhaps we have a different issue.

Third, you named someone in your comment that I was not quoting, so I edited that part out.

Now, on to your comments, and to some of the comments above.

I can tell you love your church and love what you are doing. I don’t know you, but you may be an example of multi-site done at its best. And, I can tell from your comment that these things matter to you. I appreciate that.

Yes, I think you are right and these concerns are just as valid in every church. And, your point is well taken. Several others have made this observation—I preach at a megachurch and much of the same cautions should be made there.

My favorite part of your comment is this:

The bottom line is that if the mother church is lacking in any of these areas, the satellites will be lacking also. But if the mother church is strong, outward-focused, and developing healthy networks of care and community, then the satellites will do well in these areas. After all, we're not out to replicate a church service, we're out to replicate the entire life of the church. That includes healthy vertical and horizontal relationships.

I think you are right on. I think that it often has to do with the impulse to be multi-site. Is it to provide more seats for a well known speaker or to multiply more sites and leaders? When it is the later, that is what gets me excited. And, it sounds like what gets you excited, too. So, we share that.

So, please hear my questions and don't think they are directed at you, personally. But, do know that they are questions that come from observing many multi-site churches.

So, my question are this? Are there no drawbacks to this approach to ministry? Are there no concerns to be considered? And, are those who ask those questions not allowed to ask them, even in a friendly manner? I am guessing that some of the areas I listed are the ones you work hard to overcome. Since you work hard at them, you probably know that these are areas where many others have struggled.

And, tomorrow Geoff Surratt and I will talk about these very things. Be sure to drop by then. It should be good. (I think Seacoast is an example of a church that has worked hard to overcome some of these issues.)

Let me say again what I said at the end of the article:

I am not anti-multisite, but I am anti-consumerism.... And if multi-site thrives by appealing to the "come and see" mentality that is so prevalent in American evangelicalism, we will all regret it... One writer recently wrote about his franchised church--calling it "McChurch--I'm loving it." Well... I think I will love it more if reproduction is the goal--reproducing believers, ministries, groups and churches. I would love it more if we all worked harder at producing disciples and leaders, and not spectators. And, if you are going multisite, make sure you stay focused on the mission and its multiplication.

Nick,

You wrote:

What's the difference between a multisite church (with video preaching) that has 5 locations with a total attendance of 3000 and one megachurch of 3000? Is one better/worse?

And I answer...

Ugh... ugh... I pass.

You've got me-- they are similar. Not identical, but similar.

Actually, Andy Stanely and I talked multi-site once and that was his very argument. If you watch the mega-church pastor on the screen and you watch the multi-site pastor on the screen, what's the difference.

There are some differences, and I think the multi-site video venue can complicate it, but consumerism is the danger in both cases.

And, my church planting bias would come through in both cases, multi- and mega.

If churches are being planted, and people are not worried about people "stealing their church members" but are instead sending them out, I would consider that a sign of health and outward focus, mega or multi-site.

Time for bed...

Ed, thanks for this article. I am a student here at Southern Seminary and this is always a fun topic of discussion. There was even a panel discussion done this past semester addressing this very topic. I appreciate your article and questions and await your interaction with Geoff. I also thought that you would enjoy, if you haven't already, this article that Mark Dever wrote over at IX Marks blog yesterday and that it would factor into this discussion of broadcasting the sermon to different sites - http://blog.9marks.org/2008/06/when-seeing-doe.html#comments.

Personally, I struggle with both the multi-site church and the megachurch. I'm not really even a fan of the multi-service church but much of that probably comes from my missionary background. What are your thoughts on Paul's letters to the churches at Ephesus, Galatia, etc? Do you think he is addressing the churches or the church at these places? I realize that this is slightly off topic so feel free to defer and maybe answer in another blog later.

Thanks Ed,

Ed,

I appreciate your response. It's clear you want to keep an open dialog on this. I do, too. I don't ever want to shy away from hard questions. I just think the particular questions you raised in the article have very little to do with multi-site and are more applicable to churches in general.

I apologize if my passion comes through as defensiveness. We should certainly be free to ask questions of every model. Just keep in mind that while for you this is a passing topic, for us it is what we think about every day. After lengthy discussions on Out of Ur, MMI, and Video Church Blog, it seems like there are no NEW questions being asked.

It appears that the real rub most have with multi-site is not that we are re-using proven systems (as previous church-planters have done), but that some (not all) of us are using a video communicator.

So I ask (tongue-in-cheek), how will local songwriters develop their gifts if we sing from a hymnal or use Chris Tomlin tunes? How can we expect women to learn from Beth Moore studies when she is not a part of the local body? And what are we thinking--buying Lifeway curriculum? Won't that reduce our tendency to care for one another if we're not writing curriculum for each other?

Okay, just in fun. Really. Everybody should buy Lifeway stuff.

But honestly, if anything is apt to create a "come-and-get" mentality, it's the idea that a church should have 190 ministries to meet the needs of every individual. What if, instead, we had attenders that said, "The video-thing is a little weird, but I'm on board because I'm in love with the mission of this church to reach the city!"

Thanks. I'm honored that you'd take the time to read my thoughts. Really.

Oh, and for a future article, PLEASE define consumerism. What's so bad about the word "consumer?" Every church has them, and every church listens to them. Every time a fellow walks past you and says, "Great message, pastor," he's acting like a consumer. And you're listening.

Or, someone says, "I just can't imagine church without small groups." The sentiments might be the same as yours, but they are still consumer-mindset sentiments. So, the real question becomes, "Which consumers are you going to listen to?" Will you listen to the consumers INSIDE the church, or the consumers OUTSIDE the church?

I live in a world filled with consumers that I'm called to reach. I'm honestly interested to see an example of a church that is intentionally and consistently ignoring consumers, but still effective in making disciples.

Come on over to today's post as we continue the dialogue there.

Rich,

Great and gracious response. And the shameless plug for LifeWay warmed my soul. Grin.

If you have time, come on over to the dialogue with Geoff. You have much to say.

Ed,
I appreciate you applying your analytical thinking and thoughtfulness to the multi-site church. Every movement is well-served by objective critique, especially by someone who desires to see the Church function at its best.
Yet, as others have already responded, your concerns are appropriate for every church regardless of its size or strategy. It seems whenever a successful new method hits the church scene, there are always critics that erect issues that often don’t exist as proof that they are flawed. As I read your concerns, I wondered if you have been in enough multi-site churches to draw those conclusions.
As a veteran pastor, multi-site pioneer, and now church consultant, it has been my privilege to assist a number of churches in developing a multi-campus strategy. I have found the vast majority of senior pastors and church leaders to be motivated not by the size of their church, but the by the size of the harvest. They are motivated to be the best steward of their gifts, resources, and reputation in the community. They strive hard to reproduce, not clone, their ministries in new communities. The level of pastoral care and biblical community tends to exceed the larger sending campus. Often campus pastors are on the teaching team. We are beginning to see some of those campus pastors become senior pastors of their own churches. You made a lot of assumptions about multi-site churches that just don’t hold up upon further scrutiny.
In a day when church attendance has been declining for years and over 80% of Americans are essentially unchurched, I rejoice that new congregations are getting launched in communities all across the nation regardless of the strategy or approach.
Jim Tomberlin

Ed,
You raise some great questions and concerns for churches to consider before going multi-site. I'm the Executive Director for a church of 2000 that went multi-site at the beginning of this year and to be honest I was a big skeptic when we first starting talking about it. However, we have found two of your limitations to actually be positives for us.

1) Pastoral Responsibility - as you note, most Campus Pastors are charged with the responsibility of the pastoral care but that "often does not happen". When we set out to hire our Campus Pastor, we were first and foremost looking for someone with a pastor's heart, someone with the spiritual gift of "shepherd". As a result we are experiencing a community that is getting more direct pastoring than perhaps some of our congregation at the original campus (an issue that we are addressing). Our second site runs 300 average attendance each Sunday versus 1500+ at the original site. Our experience has been that pastoral care is easier to manage/identify at the smaller site.

2) Christian Community - community groups are core to our culture and so we actually launched small groups for our new site before we launched the church. As a result, we ingrained a culture of community before the doors were even open for the new site. In addition, we've experienced a higher ratio of serving at the new site.

All in all, our experience has been that people are engaging at a much higher level in our new site versus the limited connectivity that people sometimes experience in a 1500+ church setting.

I think that each church needs to weigh the pros and cons to the multi-site model and make a prayerful decision about what is the direction God is calling them to as a church. It would be dangerous to just chase the fad.

As you summarized... "if you are going multisite, make sure you stay focused on the mission and its multiplication."

Ed:
You again sounded a prophetic note of caution to us. Consumerism is our cultural temptation.

Ed, this is another good post and raises more great questions and challenges, which you have become famous for. (Famous at least in our church world.)

I have always been cautious about our church exploring multi-site, even though at times it has seemed that we were loaded with talent and had more energy to share. My opinion has been that we don't appear to be a church good at multi-tasking, so the reason we haven't considered it before if for basically the same reasons you mention here.

I am going, however, to the multi-site conference in Chicago in Sept hoping to learn and explore this avenue for church growth. Your concerns will go with my thoughts.

I do believe, however, that some of your thoughts could easily be applied to large single-site churches also. The larger we get the more likely we are to lose sight of some of the responsibilities you challenge us with. I see some of that already in our church. There is no way I can adequately live out for example 1 Peter 5 unless I am equipping leaders who will carry out much of the pastoral assignments. I know you weren't implying that I have to be doing all this ministry by myself, but the challenge remains the same in a single site church that is growing rapidly. (Growth is of course a good New Testament model for a church to have.) I guess the real task is to make sure Biblical ministry of the church is taking place, regardless of the model.

Thanks for the reminder.

I am a campus arts pastor in a recently multi-site church, and I would definitely say there is less leadership development and creativity happening than if we had planted a new church, rather than a new campus.

I also fear that video teaching on a wide scale will develop more "CEO" or "celebrity" aspects of being a Lead Pastor, which we don't need.