First of all, Ed, thanks for the opportunity to have this discussion in an open forum. You raised some important questions and I appreciate the opportunity to respond. Let me respond to the first questions you posed in this post.

"Do you think you have been able to overcome the challenges inherent in the system?"

First I don't know that there is a multi-site system. Every multi-site church I have encountered operates a little differently. Its similar to what the President of the Charlotte YMCA's told me, "If you've seen one YMCA, you've seen one YMCA." Seacoast is very different from North Point which is very different from Willow Creek which is very different from Lifechurch.tv.

As far as Seacoast goes, we feel multi-site gives us several advantages to being missional in our communities. First, we are able to share resources. We have one staff shared among several campuses (or churches) rather than having to replicate every position at every site. Second, rather than being one monstorous church overwhelming our community we are several neighborhood size churches that fit within the context of their locations. Third, we are able to deploy leaders closer to the community level. Rather than having a staff that sits at a mega-office waiting for the people to come to them, our staff is deployed throughout the area and are more in touch with the needs of their smaller congregations. Fourth, because we use video teaching our campus pastors are able to focus on developing leaders and ministering to the needs of their congregation rather than spending 10, 20 or 30 hours a week preparing a sermon. Fifth (I'll stop with this one), we are able to share knowledge, encouragemetn and experience among several pastors working side-by-side rather than sending the Lone Pastors out to figure it out on their own. Teamwork baby!

There are definite challenges in being multi-site, I'd be glad to share those as well. But overall we feel that multi-site in general and video teaching in particular allows us to fulfill our mission to help become become fully devoted followers of Christ very effectively.

I'm a bit disturbed that Geoff used Hillsong London and Paris as an example. Hillsong are about to plant in Cape Town, South Africa - my home town. From what I can see all they're actually going to do is basically attract people from other churches to build their mega-church. They've simply brought the brand name over and are stealing from all the lesser brand names. That's not gospel growth. Ed I think your concerns were spot on - and I say that as someone who sympathizes with the multi-site approach.

After reading both Ed and Geoff, as well as the comment above, it seems that the discussion is too focused on attractional ministry style instead of multi-site. Shouldn't the discussion revolve around the distinctives of multi-site ministry?

Thanks, Geoff for your gracious response. I have never been rebuked so nicely as in your letter. Grin.

I would agree with you. Those are the strengths.
1. Shared resources
2. Time for leadership development
3. And, to share your Austin Powers quote, "teamwork baby!"

And, if I look for the best examples, yours has to be among them.

But, I still am struck by the fact that many of the multi-site churches I have looked at struggled at the three points I have listed.

In hindsight, there is one line I wish I could change. I wrote:

But is it all good? Since my column is to take a contrarian tone (yes, it is in my contract to be the Andy Rooney of each issue), let me share my concern that the attractional basis of multi-site ministry also has some dangers.

This is what I wish I would have written:

But is it all good? Since my column is to take a contrarian tone (yes, it is in my contract to be the Andy Rooney of each issue), let me share my concern that the many multi-site churches use an attractional basis of ministry-- an that has some dangers.

Last time Larry Osborne and I went to lunch we talked about this very thing—and how they overcome the issue at North Coast.

Now, I still think there is something lost when I preach and do not look people in the eyes, have journeyed with them during the week, and share as part of their community. I think it is hard to do that in a video venue. (And, of course, not all multi-site churches are video venues.)

Are there advantages, yes. Are there disadvantages, definitely. And, my job was to point out the disadvantages.

I have read both posts for this topic and would love to jump in with a comment. I hope this won't be long.

I currently am a Campus Pastor for Bay Area Fellowship in Corpus Christ, TX. Prior to accepting this role I have been in ministry since 1995 for three various size churches 350 to 3,500 in attendance.

At my first church...the mentality was that there should only be one church in a town. Therefore within that system there were no way for emerging leaders or speakers to thrive. I saw many well intentioned people who felt the call to pastor leave to launch their own church with no training or experience. There was never, except in my department, any intentional raising up of speakers. If you were an elder you may once or twice in a year outside of Sunday morning get an opportunity. But if you felt God had called you to pastor there was nothing for you.

I don't know that this trend exists across the board...but I would think that with that mindset you probably don't see many pastors being raised up in the sheer amount of churches across America.

I was actually planning the launch of my own church before accepting the role of Campus Pastor. When John Atkinson approached me with the idea of what Bay Area Fellowship was going to do with Multi-Site under Pastor Bil Cornelius...my only concern was that I wouldn't get to preach on Sunday's...as I feel God uses me in creative and relevant ways. With so many years of communicating under my belt...I felt now was my time to take it to a new level.

Personally the more I thought about what I was giving up...the more I realized how many other opportunities I would actually have to speak....I would be speaking into the lives of my leaders as I will intentionally pour more time into training and developing leaders. I will take time to speak into the lives of the teens for our campus as having their Pastor do that shows them what we are wanting to do in their lives.

I am also going to as time permits and I do this full-time spend more time caring for the flock, establishing the structure and excellence and making sure that our campus is utilizing our situation in a real missional manner.

I felt what I was giving up in speaking 30 minutes...I am gaining much more. Don't get me wrong...I will really enjoy those Sunday's when I get to speak into the lives of those on our campus.

I can honestly say that if a church is intentional about how they do it....all of your concerns will be shattered.

Stephen,

Welcome from South Africa.

I don't think Geoff (or I) know much about Hillsong, so please give him a pass there. It might not be the best example.

Stephen, do you see many multi-site churches in Europe?

Jason, your comment is not to long at all. I like your personal insights.

I'm willing to admit there are some advantages, but see them as trade-offs. In some cases, I am willing to make them.

Are there any downsides, though, to the approach? I know Bil C. (and for those of you who don't know, he is one "l" short in his name). I like his passion fot the lost. He won me over when Jessica, his wife, told me he often weeps over the lost at night.

So, I know your passion, his, and your agenda. But, does anything get lost in the multi-site?

I'm not in Europe so I'm not sure - sounds like there are lots of missional community type churches springing up there (thinking especially of the Crowded House) - they're multi-site in one sense I suppose.

In South Africa from what I can gauge there isn't really much in the way of multi-site here. I've seen churches begin to call themselves campuses and align with a more well known church from their own denomination (seen this in the AOG circles). But in the two denominations I've been involved with (Baptist Union and the Church of England in South Africa - CESA) it's pretty much unheard of. I'm in the infant stages of planning a plant in Cape Town city and we've been in contact with Redeemer Church Planting Center - one of the models they suggested we look at is Harbour Presbyterian in San Diego. In Cape Town we can't afford to simply plant one church we need to plant many churches (because of the massive diversity) and we need to plant reproducing churches to make any sort of kingdom dent on the prevailing culture - so we're going to try and think about and tinker with a form of missional/multi-site church.

As far as I can see...and I also have spent a lot of time studying and looking at others out there...perhaps the only down side that I can see is the personal connection some people want with the "traditional speaking pastor".

We have a huge catholic population...so they even come in with an idea of a local available priest.

But if it is done well they get that connection through the campus pastor

Let me pick up with your second question today, Ed.

"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 multi-site, make sure you stay focused on the mission and its multiplication.

Tell me... how does Seacoast live that?"

Reproduction is what we do at Seacoast. Before we had our first offsite campus we had one worship leader, one band, two teaching pastors, one children's director and one youth director. Now we have multiples of each including five (that's right FIVE) teaching pastors who all share the teaching load on the weekends. We have countless volunteers who were sitting and watching who are now actively in the game. Everyone at every position at every campus knows that their number one job is to replace themselves. Small groups reproduce, leaders reproduce, even campuses reproduce (We have two "grandchildren" and are expecting our first "great grandchild" early next year.)

We also reproduce churches. At about the same time we started opening campuses we co-founded the Association of Related Churches with friends like Dino Rizzo and Stovall Weems. We just planted our 60th church since the ARC began in 2001. Our unoffical motto is "Its the reproduction, stupid" (Actually I just made that up.

Stephen: As for Hillsong London my only experience was one visit last fall. The kids we talked to in the hall didn't seem to be transplants for other London churches, but honestly I don't know where their growth comes from.

Jason: Thanks for you comment. It is amazing to see what God is doing through you guys at Bay Area Fellowship. Campus Pastors are what make multi-site work. I think in some ways video teaching actually mitigates some of the arguments agains an attractional model. People can easily stay at home at watch the teaching on the internet. They come for the community and the connection they find at the campus and they come because there is a place for them to serve and to lead.

Greg,

Great insights. I'm first to admit I would rather hear most of the video teachers than --well even me. :) But Ed's points are well taken for me. I like those multi-site venues that give multiple teachers chances to use their gifts and grow in their communication skills. In fact, I would love to be a part of that.

Ed, you said:

Now, I still think there is something lost when I preach and do not look people in the eyes, have journeyed with them during the week, and share as part of their community. I think it is hard to do that in a video venue.

I would like to hear more about this "something" that is lost.

What does it mean to "journey with them during the week?" Lunches? Small groups? And if I meet with only 10, how do I preach to the other 200? Are the 10 somehow representative of the 200? Can 10 therefore be representative of an even larger number? And what about the new people that week that I've never met? So, my question is, "Who is the 'them', how many of 'them' can there be, and how far away am I allowed to live from 'them?'" (bonus points for specific mileage - wink)

How do I become "part of their community?" Is this immediate? Should I not be allowed to preach when I first move to town until I've been "contextualized?" It's hard to tell if you are opposed to large cities or large churches--both are situations independent of multi-site, where the communicator is unlikely to share grocers or school teachers with everyone in his/her congregation.

What about sermons on the radio? Podcasts? Guest speakers?

God's word is universal, as is the human condition. Certainly I can make some connections between the two without even having met you, right?

Would really believing your "look people in the eyes" approach to ministry mean that our worship leaders must write their own songs and our children's teachers and small group leaders write their own lessons? Why or why not?

And finally (and Greg asked this, too): Why the obsession with 30 minutes on Sunday morning? We don't really believe that is the single biggest catalyst for life change, do we? Our sites are staffed with seminary-trained pastors who love to look people in the eye and lead them *all week long*.

I know I'm throwing out a lot of questions, and that can appear sarcastic. That's not my intent. These are all just very real questions I have.

I think (like with many cases in Evangelical circles) we are all using the same word to mean different things. It appears Ed, that you are using multi-site to mean Mega-churches with multiple campuses and many times using video preaching. Others here using multi-site and mean networks of churches that are basically autonomous but with the same name and leadership (isn't this just a repackaging of a denomination?) Many of Ed's hesitancies could be equally be said about any traditional model of church, and they are valid arguments and criticisms. I know they have been my criticisms and frustrations of church both big and small for years.

The good that I see in multi-site is that they are networking together and pooling resources. At one point this was the purpose of denominations in America, but many of them have run their course and are dead. The bad that I see is that these churches are not reaching unchurched people, but instead dechurched people. My question to pastors of churches of all sizes is How many people have you seen come to Christ in the last year? I am all for any model or method that sees people come to Christ and trained to be leaders and followers of Christ, but if you are seeing numerical growth but not conversions what is the point of opening another campus?

Rich,

You have correctly read into one of my concerns. I AM obsessed with the 45 minutes (I can't do 30, grin) of preaching. I think God uses the foolishness of preaching in a powerful way. So, I put preaching in a different catagory than music (though I think it is GREAT when music comes up from the local community).

However, I would not preclude God using a video preacher, but I think there is something lost there. Are some things gained? Maybe. But, I think something is lost. I think it is OK to acknowledge that.

Micah,

Yes, mostly. I am not anti-mega though. I think some megas go multi-site for the wrong reasons. I think some small churches go multi-site for the wrong reason, too.

And, I am pro-multi-site and pro-mega when it is about reaching people for Jesus and changing the world. And, I have seen both mega and multi-site churches do that.

Micah,

I agree with your comments about multi-site and denominations. I think that pooling resources is one of the best things about both denominations and multi-site churches. Imagine if hundreds of churches across America could all draw from the same shared resource resevoir. It would be a river, a Lifeway if you will, of health :-)

I'm not sure I understand this comment "The bad that I see is that these churches are not reaching unchurched people, but instead dechurched people." I'm not sure where you are drawing your conclusions from. I know that when I have talked with John Bishop at Living Hope in Portland, Jamie Munson at Mars Hill in Seattle, Dave Browning at Christ the King in Mt Vernon, Washington, Dave Ferguson at Community Christian in Chicago, Mark Batterson in Washington D.C. just to name a few they have all shared incredible testimonies of completely unchurched, lost people coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus through their multi-site campuses. I know at Seacoast's Summerville campus we baptized 40 people this past week during our 1st Wednesday service. I don't know how many of them were unchurched prior to coming to Seacoast, but from their stories I'd say a significant number.

I do have to throw out a caveat; in South Carolina it is tough to find completely unchurched people. Almost everyone in South Carolina grew up at least attending some church. (We have more Baptists in SC than we have people) So, honestly, many of our people would fall into the dechurched category. We still think they are worth reaching.

Ed,

As to your point about video teaching I would agree that there is something lost every step along the way from one-on-one interaction to speaking to a small group, to standing on a stage, to speaking to a large congregation, to utilizing video teaching. I am sure that Paul would have preferred to go to every believer one-on-one to deliver his message, but he found using mass media more effective. He also found leveraging technology effective in freeing Timothy and Titus to prepare others to do the work of the ministry rather then having to deliver the same message again and again.

We have considered emulating the New Testament Church and simply reading letters from our pastor to each congregation, but in the context of our culture we have found video teaching to be more effective.

By the way, who is this "Greg" I keep seeing referred to? Surely not my lesser known brother, Seacoast's Sr. Pastor? Perhaps you can do an article on the evils of nepotism in the church, Ed.

You can say I’m a product of Seacoast Church
I wore the label that read Catholic with no real relationship with Jesus Christ.
I wandered into Seacoast in the spring of 2001, and asked Jesus to save me long before Multi-Site became part of our everyday vocabulary.

Yes the attractional element of Seacoast is what got me into the door,
but what made me stay was the missional element of the church.
I saw the church doing local outreach with small groups serving the community.
I saw that the hands and feet of Jesus were real and serving the community of Charleston.
I saw this church take discipleship seriously by making sure that
tools like The Alpha Course and our online learning tool, My Next Steps,
were always given major focus.

I saw this church, as a then church member, meet resistance when it went to the Town of Mt. Pleasant, to expand its facilities, and were stone-walled because their were those
who believed Seacoast Church was getting to large.

I saw this church through, the gift the of multi-site vision, given our Senior
Pastor Greg Surratt, export it’s unique Christ-Centered DNA to places like West Ashley,
Summerville, and Columbia S.C. In that tidy export package
went the blueprints for excellent Children’s. Small Group, Worship,
Student, Administration and First Touch ministries.

These campuses are led by Campus Pastors who in many instances
left the nest of the main campus because they have a true love for the
community that they serve. They have a real connection with the people
they minister too. And anyone who has met Summerville Seacoast Campus
Pastor Phil Strange knows that he is truly a People Pastor, with a real love
for the lost and the hurting,

Anyone who has met Sam Lesky, The Campus Pastor of the North
Charleston Dream Center, which is located in one the most dangerous
Cities in America, knows that he absolutely loves the people of the inner city.
The Seacoast Dream Center is a multi-site campus, inspired by Pastor Matthew
Barnett’s Dream Center in Los Angeles, complete with
food bank, and a “Dream Closet” that provides clothes for the needy,
Both in worship and make-up this campus reflects the community it serves.

I, Frank, lead a Recovery Community here at Seacoast, whose size
and influence is expanding thanks to Multi-Site Ministry.
We’re the model but the Campuses that are now making
their initial foray into helping those who struggle
with sexual sin, alcoholism, anger, prescription drug abuse,
are putting their unique stamp it.

Like my identical twin boys they share the same DNA, but they see and
will both impact their world for Christ differently. Our campuses share the same DNA,
but serve their unique communities differently.

I am grateful for Multi-Site because it may one day give
me the opportunity to lead a campus or even one day plant
a church. There is a lot that can be learned in the Multi-Site
environment!

I am also grateful for Multi-Site because it gives
those who are in recovery, those who do not have fond memories of church,
a place to experience church on the weekend near places they live, to be surrounded by people that they know.

When they experience “Recovery” Church here on Friday night,
it’s a taste of what they can expect on the weekend at any of our campuses.
It’s a taste of experiencing the Holy Spirit, a taste
of communing with a Holy God, a taste of responding
to Him through worship, prayer, candle lighting, which
happens at every service, in every campus, every weekend.

I know that there are both strong supporters and detractors
for Multi-Site ministry. But from where I sit, in my small part of
the Seacoast Universe, Multi-site looks good.

Seacoast believes in both Multi-Site Ministry as well
as Church Planting, We are the founding church
Of the Association of Related Churches whose mission
is to plant 2000 life giving churches by the year 2020.
Both approaches work! The challenge both for a regular church
plant, or a Multi-Site plant is in how best to serve the community
they serve.

Yes, even in Multi-Site Churches, the blind see, the mute hear,
and the captives are being set free.. Miracles are happening even today,
and Christ’s Church in what ever form it takes on in the
future, certainly will stand on solid ground.

I do not know if Multi-Site will work in Europe. I do now
it works here. It provides opportunity for those who never
would have known Christ a chance to spend Eternity with him.
Isn’t that the bottom line?

Thanks for letting me share.
Frank Ortiz
Minister Celebrate Recovery, Seacoast Church Long Point Campus

Geoff wrote:

We have considered emulating the New Testament Church and simply reading letters from our pastor to each congregation, but in the context of our culture we have found video teaching to be more effective.

Dude, that was hurtful. Don't bring up cultural relevance to a missiologist.

On the other hand, are you really equating reading the New Testament epistles to your brother's preaching? Grin. He is good, I know, but not THAT good.

And, whoever keeps calling Geoff by his brother's name should stop. Geoff is the good one. Grin.

Back in one hour. I have a phone appointment (unrelated to this) with Warren Bird. Pretty ironic.

Geoff, I am trying to wrap my head around the whole multi-site idea. Can you give more specific biblical detail where you say Paul leveraged technology and instead used mass media which freed up Timothy and Titus?

I am trying to fully comprehend your position.

thank you

Ed- I cracked up after reading your response to Geoff's comment in regards to cultural relevance. Priceless. :-)

I am fascinated by the discussion. I'm also fascinated by the multi-site movement. Part of the fascination is the variety of impetus and applications that seem to exist among the many churches that embrace a multi-site model.

The church I pastor has just announced that we're moving forward with a multi-site model. We're adding a campus at the first of next year but we're going to attempt something a bit different. Our purpose for adding an additional campus is an intentional effort to expand our ability to connect with those whom we are ineffective to reach in our city currently. When we look at our city, a major segment of our population that we have found very difficult to reach is the Hispanic population. As such we're going to plant a south campus of Frederick Boulevard that will be a Hispanic campus in an effort to reach people who won't come to our current campus. It will have a bi-lingual campus pastor who will provide live teaching in Spanish. Our reasons for planting this campus are related to the potential financial viability of the Hispanic work, the lack of mature leadership for that work as well as the ability to share resources with that campus that they would probably never be able to have access to if they were on their own.

I say all this to say that I'm looking for some help. Ed and/or Geoff, do you know of any other churches that are intentionally planting other campuses as part of an intentional ethnic outreach? I'd love to pick their brains but most of the churches I've found that are using a multi-campus philosophy are doing so for other reasons.

I'm am typing this on my phone while my wife shops for a wedding gift, so I'll be brief.
Frank: you are my hero, man. Thanks for sharing your story. By the way, were you unchurched or dechurched when you came to Seacoast?
Ed: I was actually referring to my teaching as inspired. :-) Actually I don't think all of Paul's letters made it into the Cannon, but it still seemed to be a major way of sharing the good news even though it wasn't in person teaching.
Sam: I was being a little tongue in cheek comparing letters to video. I do believe that if Paul were alive today he would use video teaching. And Twitter.

Ed,
I didn't mean to imply that anyone was anti-mega churches. Sorry about that.

Geoff,
While I know that many of these churches are reaching people that are unchurched, my experience with them (which I admit is very limited) seems to be that their main source of people are those that have some background in church. Because they do what they do so well it draws those people from all over a metro area to their gathering.

My context is on the East side of Cleveland, Ohio where many of the people I talk with every day are of other world religions, or their only experience with church is that they think their grandmother might have gone to church on occasion. Most are generations removed from anything resembling any religion. When I talk to these people about church they have no parameters in which to think about it. So I guess I am trying to say that almost all of these multi-site churches are reaching people that fall in the same demographic (Largely white, suburban, middle to upper middle class). I don't see these models working in places that are poor, diverse, urban areas that are removed from most organized religion (with possibly the exception of Redeemer Presb. in NYC).

All that being said, I think it is amazing that you baptized 40 people last week. I will give any church that can say that a standing ovation. Keep up the good work!

Micah Fries,

Always great to meet a fellow Micah! When I was in Seminary in Louisville, KY Highview Baptist Church launched several campuses, one of which was a hispanic work. I have been gone for several years so I don't know how it has gone for them but you might want to check them out.

Micah Fries,
A couple of churches to look at are Community Christian in Naperville, IL. They have opened a predominately hispanic campus. Also The Crossing in Costa Mesa, California. Finally a church called Seacoast in Charleston, SC has opened a campus in a predominantly hispanic/African American neighborhood. I hear those guys are really cool.

Micah (No fries)
I am in the Bible Belt, so I can only imagine the challenge you face in Cleveland. I know that my friends in Seattle and Portland and NYC face a similar challenge reaching those with no context for church. I would suggest that multi-site churches are at least as effective as any other church model in post-church communities.

Ed...this is the less famous, more annointed older brother.

At the risk of being crucified here, I am going to make the case that video is actually preferable to live sometimes. Have you ever done multiple services in one location where you felt like you really nailed it...said what you thought God put on your heart ... and wished you could put it in a bottle, duplicate it and use it again?

You can, it's called video!

Because of size limitations of our original campus, I do 5 services when I teach on the weekend. There has been more than one occasion when I really felt like it connected in service 1,2 or 3...then I hit a wall in 4 or 5...you pick it: I didn't physically feel well, a baby cried the entire service, I said something really fleshly (spiritual speak for stupid) about 15 minutes in and couldn't get past it mentally, somebody said something really hurtful between services and I feel like going home and watching a violent movie, I got really tired and forgot the most important point...you get the picture. In times like those I honestly feel the congregation would be better served by watching a video of the previous service. In fact, I've actually done that...gotten up and said, "This one went really well in the previous service...I'm going to take a break, put the video on, and I'll be back at the end to help with the response time." I'm not sure which law of preaching that breaks, but I'm pretty sure it breaks one of them...however, the Gospel is preached, Jesus is exalted, and I'm able to maintain a semblance of sanity in the process.

Micah & Geoff-

Thanks for the heads up. Obviously I've not studied your church much, Geoff. I'm laughing at myself right now. :-)

Questions I have about video venues and multi-site:
1. What is the shelf life of video as a teaching mode? What will we do when video is no longer effective?
2. Will technology go too far? I have been hearing rumors of viable hologram technology on the horizon (or already here) Are holograms acceptable?
3. What is the definition of a church? Does it have to include a building? A live teacher? Can it be virtual?
4. How big is a church? If 15 sailors on a submarine watch a Seacoast DVD, help each other grow spiritually and pray together are they a church?
5. How far is too far from the home base? Is multi-site effective from 100 miles? 500 miles? Across international borders?
6. What happens when Seacoast, Lifechurch.tv and North Point all show up in the same town at the same time? Pisols at high noon? Sabres at midnight?
7. Is Ed Stetzer secretly a multi-site advocate?

Greg,

I can feel your annointing already. Grin.

It was good to see you in Phoenix. (I think it was there.)

That is an interesting comment. And, yes, I know exactly what you mean. I preach three services each week. However, for me, the third one tends to be best.

Geoff,

Is that really you? Surely you are not ready to give up on video so soon!

And, I am a not-so-secret advocate of multi-site if it is done well. Remember, I was asked to take the contrarian tone in a magazine filled with glowing reviews of multi-site. So, I must confess again, I am not "anti," but I do think it is good to ask questions.

Geoff:
Great question, I would say I went to church but never heard the Gospel.
The Stain Glass Windows were cool though!

Geoff & Greg,

So sorry for the mixup!

Greg, I have used your name in vain. Geoff, I attributed your wisdom and piercing insight to your brother. Painful, I know.

Blame it on Ed for making my head spin all morning with his crazy-speak.

Ed,

If you take away the video communicator—-in other words if you do it like Dave Ferguson at Community Christian or Knute Larson at The Chapel, with live communicators--how much does that change your feelings about the idea?

Gentlemen,

I have enjoyed the healthy discussions being had here. I have a question. Are any of you familiar with a multi-site model where the lead pastor is not the primary teacher/ preacher at any of the sites? He might serve more in a visionary/ starter/ equipper role while preaching every now then for over all unity and purpose.

Geoff
We would all do well to sit for a very long time with the question "what is church?" I had a great professor in college pose the question to me "what is the "irreducible ecclesiological minimum?" It is very difficult to see church without all the trappings of staff, buildings, sermons, tech, and even large groups of people. But when we bust it down to the smallest blocks I think we would say if only 2 sailors on a submarine were Christians, they took the ordinances, exhorted each other through the scriptures, and they saw themselves as a church they would be.

My opinion is that simplifying things and moving back towards the basic building blocks will make things more reproducible, and culturally sensitive. Where bigger organizations are hard to recreate, and make it difficult to react to changes in the culture.

Hey Ed,

Thanks for the replying to my question on the other post. This is a great discussion. I would love to hear your thoughts on Rich's question about what it means for a preacher to "journey with them during the week".

If a preacher needs to journey with his congregation, then obviously the size of the congregation would be too large at some point and the same problem would exist that exists in multisite.....the teacher isn't connected personally to people in the seats.

I don't think that's a problem, because, like Rich I believe Biblical truth AND human condition are universal. Now, there are obvious cultural barriers (like language) that can't be crossed without some changes but it's up to each church to ensure they fit in their context.

Hi Ed,
What a great thread! I'm an Associate Minister (serving under the Campus Pastor) at one of Seacoast's distant campuses (Greenville, SC).

Here's a glimpse from my experience as it relates to multi-site leadership development: I came to Seacoast from 35 years in the same denominational church. It was out of frustration, and a suggestion from a GCTS professor, that I began looking to Seacoast for mentoring in ministry.

I first came to the campus church plant as an attendee/member. Over the course of about a year, I was hired to: connect new people, lead the small group ministry for our campus and eventually oversee the youth ministry...and other duties as assigned. :)

I've had every leadership opportunity you could ask for and it happened in a multi-site, video venue context! Not only have I been able to sit under some of the best communicators I know, but I've had opportunities to develop and sharpen my ministry/leadership skills in various areas. Since every layer of minister at Seacoast is seeking to work themselves out of a job by training their replacement, the leadership development soil is quite fertile.

The leadership development I'm speaking of is not one-sided. The focus can't be, "I'm here so I can be developed as a leader." The focus must be on embracing the vision of helping people become fully devoted followers of Christ, and pouring out your life for that purpose...whatever that looks like. What if developing as a leader means that I must decrease so that He can increase? That's fine with me.

Not only am I convinced that God's perfect will for my life and ministry can be realized in this context, but that the leaders over me will help me discern my own gifts and support me wisely in developing them. What more could you ask?

Thanks for hosting this discussion.

This is a comment about your current series at First Hendersonville. I'm not sure if this is the right place to leave it.

Thank you so much for your service at the church. I know how busy you are without this added responsibility. Every message has been awesome. Last Sunday, you stressed the need for believers to be gentle and respectful toward unbelievers. My problem is the opposite. I need more boldness to give an account of "the hope that is within me." I'm building bridges to people, but not crossing those bridges.

I recently heard that if we don't answer objections, non-Christians will think either that we don't have answers or that we lack the courage to answer. In my case, it's the latter. It's fear of being labeled arrogant and intolerant: one of the worst labels in my world. I teach English at a community college.

Last Sunday, my husband and I were talking after your message, and we surmised that even though believers are sometimes meanspirited and obnoxious to unbelievers en masse or, at least to groups of unbelievers (like gays), very few are actually sharing their faith with individuals at all. What do you think?

Blessings,
Cindy Chanin

Late, as usual, to a wonderful conversation.

Aaron Coe, our church uses multi-site with teaching pastors. Highview in Louisville is another.

We initially began multi-site due to the space limitations. Today, I preach 4 times on the weekend at the Norfolk campus. We have teaching pastors at our Hispanic fellowship, Chesapeake fellowship, and Williamsburg fellowship.

Our desire is to advance God's fame without building a multi-million dollar campus at a new location. So, we're investing in a multi-site approach. We've found that this approach also helps us invest in contextual strategy for each region we move toward on mission. In the process, our biggest question is how we are developing missionary followers of Christ. One measure of growing missionary followers of Christ is their sense a calling for a particular community in our region. We develop their vision so that they can move into that community on mission.

Our "attractional" DNA is being altered by the multi-site approach (without video venue). Rather than reproducing our church DNA at each multi-site location, we encourage / demand the individual fellowships to discern the strategy to connect with the community that God has given them to reach for His honor.

The continuous challenge that I face as pastor with the multi-site approach is two-fold: 1) How can I insure that we are equipping and sending followers of Christ who are missionaries, and 2) when / if a multi-site fellowship should become an autonomous-in-budget-polity family of faith.

We don't have all the answers, but here's what we're trying to accomplish with the various imperfections and weaknesses inherent. Ultimately, we are seeking to advance God's fame in our region by moving beyond the 200 year old attractional model our church has embraced. The multi-site approach has been one answer to that movement.

Sorry for the ramblin' road.

Eric

Hey guys- Good discussion- I'm pretty sure God uses all different kinds of models. My question has been and remains, what do our various models form, long term, in the spiritual health of communities and individuals? I have a lot of suspicions that long term for the church in America (and elsewhere, apparently) the Video Venue thing is going to prove to be a model that God uses, but one which ultimately has more unintended consequences than we care to admit. I just think we can do better- my thoughts on video venues are here

So yeah, as was said, we're going "multi-site", but...

We're not doing video venues. We've outgrown three pub spaces now, and have replanted a second worship gathering back into one of our previous venues. We have a primary teaching elder at both of our worship gatherings, with the rest of the elders rotating between them.

Our goal from the beginning has been to grow and to plant churches- but some of our values conflict. One thing we as a community enjoy and are unwilling to part with is significant interaction in our worship gatherings... but we've found that using a smaller church, organic model without the support ($$$) of a sending church or organization, in order for us to effectively plant churches around Portland, we'd have to grow to a size that would start to hinder that interaction... so, the solution has been to grow, start another worship gathering in another space and continue to grow, while giving people the opportunity to (by starting a new gathering) get back to that place of smaller, more intimate, interactive Evergreen we love.

My hope would be to do this two more times in the next couple of years, maybe in one more pub space and then hopefully in a building that someone gives us (anyone know of any possibilities for a building here in Portland? Just thought I'd ask :)) and then use those four "sites" as a base to start launching out church plants all over Portland.

My hope would be 20 churches of 100-150 all over PDX, all growing, then planting, maybe using the model we're developing.
This to me is vastly different than a church in say, Texas, planting a video venue in, say, Miami. :)

To me, the choice to either find a location where we can fit more and more people into a room to hear me teach, or move to Video Venues (for the same reason) or to allow other people in our community to exercise their teaching gifts on a level of exposure equal to myself is a choice which impacts not just the spiritual formation of our community, but my own as well.

The question isn't just what kind of community will we be, but what kind of leader will I be?

Maybe for others that feels like a false choice. Maybe they can move their teaching onto countless video screens with no detrimental impact to their souls.... and I say that honestly. They have their own walk with Jesus and I'm not judging their hearts in the directions they are taking their communities (okay- I'm trying not to).

But for me?
The choice to allow parts of our community to move to a different space, to sit primarily under the pastoral care and teaching of different elders, not to remind them in real and tangible ways constantly of my role in the community...
It feels like something that Jesus is working out in me.

And in amongst the insecurity and anxiety I realize that again, as when we planted Evergreen four years ago, this is is a step of faith (I generally avoid that phrase, as abused as it has been in evangelicalism)- a move into something that we feel God pushing us towards, something whose end we can't see, something that God probably intends to use in ways we can only guess at.

Ed,

I really appreciated your comment which said...

"I am pro-multi-site and pro-mega when it is about reaching people for Jesus and changing the world. And, I have seen both mega and multi-site churches do that".

Maybe we should be asking the question:

In light of our deep desire to reach more people for Jesus, what are the advantages and disadvantages of Multi-Site?

Aaron,

I think Heartland (where Mike Breaux has just gone to) has the lead pastor who is not the main preacher. They used videos from Willow for years until Mike Breaux came along.

Hey Ed,

I have read your book Breaking the Missional Code. I believe in many of the principles you laid out in the book and have employeed many of them at the Campus I lead. I am a Campus Pastor for Celebration Church in Jacksonville, FL. I would love to personally host you to come visit and spend some time to see what we are doing and how we are reaching and making disciples of Jesus Christ. I would welcome any question you have regarding the multi-site model from an up close perspective. So give me a shout if you want to come hang in the sun in J-ville!

Ed,

I am new to your site. Thank you for the discussion on multi-campus churches. I serve as the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church Jackson, Miss. We are a downtown church. A year and a half ago we launched a campus that is essentially an upper middle class suburban campus. We are now in the process of launching an inner-city campus in which most of those who come will be Africa-American (that's who lives in the community). We have hired an African-American Campus Pastor to help us reach this segment of our city that we have not traditionally reached.

Regarding the three issues you raised in your article, it seems these issues come into play if two factors are involved: (1) the new campus has thousands of members, and (2) the sermon at the new campus is presented via video. From the little research I have done, the overwhelming majority of new campuses do not have thousands of members and 60% of new campuses are using live speakers (cannot recall where I heard this figure). Our experience regarding the issues you raised has been as follows:

1. Pastoral Responsibility. It is much easier for someone who is hurting or suffering to slip through the cracks at a campus with thousands of members (like our Downtown Campus). A person is more likely to get continuous, individual attention in a smaller congregation. For example, at the first church I served years ago we had 150 active members and I knew everyone and all of their troubles. At our downtown campus where I now serve that is an impossibility. At our new suburban campus, our Campus Pastor is far more aware of the hurts of our members there than I am of the members downtown.


2. Christian Community. In our case, where the new campus is much smaller than the main campus, Christian community is more easily developed at the new campus. First, there are fewer people to engage in community. Second, they all live in the same community. Third, the young people attend the same schools. Fourth, they are all of the same socio-economic level which makes community much easier. Fifth, it is easier to get to know people when you see all of them each week in the same service. Sixth, it is easier to pariticipate in social events and thus develop relationships because the drive is not very far and the members know where everything is (neighborhoods, restaurants, parks, etc.).

3 Reproducing New Teachers. This would be a greater concern if we were using the video sermon. However, our Campus Pastor preaches live each week in the suburban campus, we have pastors who preach at our alternative worship venue at the downtown campus, and our Campus Pastor for the new inner-city campus will be preaching live. For us, the standard for pastoring is not "the ability to keep 5,000 people on the edge of their seats for 45 minutes." So in reality, we are able to develop MORE teachers/preachers than a one-campus church.

Just a few thoughts on this very interesting discussion.

I really appreciate the dialogue on this important subject. I am a campus pastor of a 4 campus multi-site church in Pensacola, FL where I pastor our North Campus. There are many different multi-site strategies and I have seen and studied most. Our strategy is that of having live teaching done in the various campuses by the campus pastor, we remain one church through our vision, dna, and leadership rather than a single person teaching at all the different campuses. We have seen amazing results with this new move, not just numerically but qualitative health and growth. This strategy has only strengthened our ability to build community, develop new leaders, discipleship, and sending believers. I do fully believe that the multi-site church is not going anywhere and I do believe this approach will spread throughout the world. , more than that the heart of the multi-site church is instead of building bigger boxes (attraction) and going. It is true that larger churches generally do provide more "goods and services", and those resources are given to smaller communities through the multi-site church. However this move for us has forced our church (around 1,000) people to stretch our faith, and develop new avenues for emerging leaders, and create deeper community all for the sake of people who we "go to them" rather than to expect them to "come and see" this move has been the most productive and the most challenging thing we have ever done the results have superceding any and all of our expectations.

That's my two cents...I love the dialogue.

I'm a seminary student attending a multi-site church in Florida that I would say is "attractional". Our teaching is presented by video at satellite campuses. My family has been part of the church for about two years. I have to say, I've been torn about both the multi-site and attractional features of the church. On one hand, our church is reaching a lot of unchurched people in the area. On the other hand, we seem to get lost in the crowd, and it took us some time to actually meet some people at the church. We really didn't know anyone until we started serving on ministry teams.

I don't have any major problems with multi-site. We are able to be part of a large church and take part in some amazing minstries and outreaches while still meeting with a smaller group on the weekend for corporate worship. However, I do sometimes feel like part of a "Wal-mart" church sucking up all of the "customers" from smaller churches.

The attractional style of church is what I have had more difficulty with. It seems like so many people come for the show, but so few take the next steps towards spiritual maturity. It's easy to come and see the rock band and the celebrity preacher while someone plays with your kids. It's harder to commit to a ministry, small group, or even the mid-week teaching. I lead a small group, and it is not a "show" - it's just regular people learning about Jesus and sharing life.

So I would ask (I admit I haven't read all the comments yet, so forgive me if it is already here somewhere), how does an attractional church move people towards spiritual maturity?

By the way - my heart is in building up the church and not criticizing it. I see God using many types of churches and I think they all have their place, but they should all be able to integrate new believers into the church and help them mature in Christlikeness.

Peace,
Mark

Geoff and all,

One more multi-site comment from me and then I will let Geoff comment...

As we close the discussion, let me say that I thought this was a great discussion-- the kind of talk that Christians should have. Geoff, you were great. This is the kind of dialogue that the internet should foster, but mostly does not.

Now, on to my thoughts and then I will let Geoff have the last word.

First, contrary to some missional types, I don’t think that all attractional ministry is bad—- it depends on what the “attraction” is. If the attraction is a well known speaker setting up a new site, I think that (by nature) is a church designed to reach Christians. (Lost people don’t know well known preachers.) And, I have seen that kind of mult-site approach become a growing part of the movement as multi-site has become in vogue. And, from those same contexts, I have heard some of those type pastors speak against those who would plant a church—- as if they were stealing people from their kingdom.

Now, to be sure I do not imply something I do not mean, I am not saying that well known pastors can’t do multi-site in an evangelistic way. I think they can—- if they want it to be. The motivation and the application will be different when they do (and I have seen some do so—- Joel Hunter comes to mind and he and I will be teaching together this summer on the very topic). And, Craig Groeschel and I talked about this a bit in a podcast here.

If a new site is created to reach the lost, create new opportunities for seeing gospel transformation and ministry, than I like it. And, to be fair, I was trying to be provocative in my article because, well, Outreach Magazine is always a “love fest” for all things innovative. It appears I succeeded in being provocative and, Geoff, you have helped me also be clearer.

Done well, multi-site can and does work. And, I should have included that sentence in the article. Sorry. I wrote about the downsides of multi-site, particularly video sites, and the challenges they pose.

I think Geoff would agree with me (but I will let him speak for himself) that these are challenges that Seacoast and other mutli-site churches work to overcome: raising up new communicators, providing pastoral care, and reaching the truly unchurched.

But, Geoff says they overcome those challenges. I think they overcome them because multiplication and ministry is their passion. But, I think that for some multi-site churches, that gets lost. I can name names, but I think that would be counter-productive. But, that is my concern.

Some do well; some of the most prominent ones do not. Now, I believe you, Geoff, that Seacoast and many other multi-site churches do well at the things I critiqued. But, I ask you, do you think that many do not? And, for that matter, do you do well at them because you know you have to give them extra attention? In other words, are my questions one that you ask and address, or are they just all wrong?

Second, I would say that if you want to go multi-site, you should consider three things:

1. Learn from those that are seeking to engage their contexts and plant sites that do mission and ministry in their setting. And, Geoff, I think your book is a good example of that.

2. Be passionate about church planting. (Geoff, I know you guys are with me on this because of your involvement in ARC.) If you can only start new things when you are the pastor of the new thing, your agenda is driven by something other than multiplication. Do both and like my friends Jon and Dave Ferguson, Mark Driscall, and Darrin Patrick (among many others)

3. Make sure the reason you do it is driven by your mission and not anything else.

Geoff... last word to you, my friend. And, let me thank you again for your gracious and thoughtful letter. And, even more, helping “iron sharpen iron” in my own understanding of multi-site.

First I want to thank Ed for hosting this discussion. I have mostly given up on blog discussions because they usually devolve into name calling and silly arguments (and that's just on my end), but this has been fun.

To my old nemesis Bob Hyatt, thanks for dropping by. If you check out Bob's link on video venues you'll see that we couldn't disagree more about methods, but I love what he's doing at Evergreen. Between the attractional approach of John Bishop and the missional ministry of Bob Hyatt the heathens in Portland don't stand a chance.

To everyone else who commented, its amazing to hear what God is doing around the country through multi-site churches, and its refreshing to know that no two ministries are alike. (If you've seen one multi-site church, you've seen one multi-site church.) And its very cool to see people seriously struggling with the implications of what we do today on the church tomorrow. Personally I don't think I'll recognize the attractional organic missional church my kids will create. ("Sermons? We don't need sermons where we're going McFly")

Ed, you ask about these three challenges in a multi-site context; "raising up new communicators, providing pastoral care, and reaching the truly unchurched." You assert that some high-profile multi-site churches do not do well in these three areas and if Seacoast struggles. I don't know which high-profile churches you are referring to, the ones I get the chance to hang with seem to do a good job in at least two of the three. (You can can probably figure out which one they don't seem to do a great job of) Let me break down the three for Seacoast:
1. Raising up new communicators: As I said earlier we currently have a teaching team of five main communicators. We create all our messages in a team-based atmosphere which includes younger communicators who are not currently used on the weekends. We have a mentoring group for emerging teachers to hone their skills. We encourage our campus pastors to teach occasionally on the weekends and as often as possible in other settings including a 1st Wednesday service every month. We are doing more to raise up new communicators than most churches I've been around.

Frankly, however, I worry about churches who only have one weekend teacher. Whether they use video teaching or not I think that is an unhealthy situation that does not serve the church well. Of course I'm a teaching pastor, so I'm very biased there.

2. Providing pastoral care: I think that one of the prime reasons to consider multi-site is improved pastoral care. Sorry Ed, I think you're all wet on this one. (In this heat that's not necessarily a bad thing)

3. Reaching the truly unchurched: This is a major challenge for us. We don't card people at the door, so it is difficult to know who is truly unchurched and who is church hopping. We usually find out fairly quickly, however, because they soon hop away to a better show. I think this is a major challenge for all church models rather they are uni-site, multi-site, attractional or missional. (If there is a clear difference, I'm not sure there is. But that is another discussion) I haven't yet visited a church made up entirely of formerly unchurched people. This is something we all need to continually struggle with and try to figure out.

Thanks again for the forum, Ed, this has been fun.

Just a quick comment... whilst I don't think Preaching, teaching etc etc. are the be all and end all... in fact we don't don't do any of those things in the traditional sense... As a communicator myself I have serious doubts/concerns about video preaching... 1) it feels personally disconnected (like the difference between driving a real car and playing a video driving game) - it is done without any contact or participation for me (it makes me feel more like an audience member than a member of a congregation/community)... 2) It is done from outside the community, so it can't help but be outside culture and context... not only that but outside of story - how can the Preacher engage with the stories and story of the community - what's been happening in peoples lives, what has been happening in the service up to that point etc. and therefore 3) it is to some extent separate from what God is doing in that place at that time (unless God is restricted to working uniformly across the various campuses?)

In all my years of preaching I have never spent anywhere like "10, 20 or 30 hours a week preparing a sermon" TBH I would worry about anyone spending that amount of time... what I have done on many occasions is stick the sermon I have prepared in my back pocket and preach extemporaneously because God has led me in a different direction at that point.

I'll be honest my gut feeling is that video Preaching seems less about removing the need for preparation from "campus pastors" and more about keeping central control of the message!

Of the many multi-site churches mentioned in this thread, I would be interested in hearing about what form of church polity they use.

Are they predomintantly congregational or pastor ruled?

I'm a bit late in the game here, but after reading portions of this discussion (admittedly, struggling to stay focused on a blog comment section for more than 5 minutes)... my response to all this would be, great discussion... but, in the end... just a discussion.

Here's the reality. Each of us are doing whatever we can to take the gospel to people who don't know Christ. For some that's church planting, for some that's multi-site, for some that's attractional, for some that's missional. It mostly has to do with the way we are wired. And it's always easier to think we have a better way, when in reality all we have is a DIFFERENT way.

I currently pastor at Seacoast. This summer I am starting a new church. Seacoast is sending me out. That's right... Seacoast - The mighty "multi-site" church is planting a new "full-scale" church! Whatever gets it done. If God's put it on heart to plant - then PLANT! If God's put it on a heart to be a campus pastor - then do it with all your might! But, let us never think we carry the ONLY answer to bringing people to Christ...

God uses us all in different ways and I believe our focus should the same as Paul in 2 Corinthians 10:13 – “…We will boast only about what has happened within the boundaries of the work God has given us…” May you worry less about what others are doing and focus more on the work God has given you!

This is a fantastic discussion. I thought I might throw in our experience as it relates to multi-site. We were one of the churches mentioned the book.

First, it's difficult to say multi-site is good or bad. It's a tool. Tools are not good or bad. It's how they are used. Hammer- bad if you hit someone on the head with it - good if you build a house with it.

Go further with it - video venue or live teaching. We have have 3 "main" services with live teaching on our original campus. We also have one video venue service on the main campus which has a different style than the other 3 services. We have 2 campuses, one 40 miles away (I was the first campus pastor there) and a new one, 25 miles away (where I am currently campus pastor). Both of these use video teaching. (These campus also have distinct names - we feel it helps them have an identity separate from the main campus)

However, we do have one campus we call CityChurch just 3 miles from the main campus. It is geared for those who might not feel comfortable on our main campus. The campus pastor there does the teaching. Why? Because it is the most effective way to reach our target in that area.

We also have a partner ministry in Gary, IN called the Revolution reaching the urban community there. The campus pastor does all the teaching there, also. To be honest, doing the video there in that community would not work at all.

We're a mixed bag. So, then, how do we determine which campuses are video and which are live speakers? We do whatever helps us accomplish our mission in that community. If video helps us to that, we do it. If having the campus pastor speak each week helps us make fully committed disciples, then we do that.

Again, these are tools.

Ed,

Just to clear up an assumption that was made in your original article. "McChurch: I'm lovin' it" was an article title used by Christianity Today in response to a blog entry I wrote back in August of 2007. I made a comparison In my blog of my church plant to that of a Chick-fil-a "franchise", not McDonalds. You can read my response and thoughts to that discussion here: http://www.typepad.com/t/app/weblog/post?__mode=edit_entry&id=45226052&blog_id=1364746

For me, as a raving Chick-fil-a fan, I'm quite offended with the McChurch comparison. :>) Really...who likes McDonalds!? Parents go there because their kids drag them there. Nobody goes there because of the food or the environment do they?? If I'm going to be slammed, I just want to make sure the analogy is correct. ;>)

Just trying to clear up the confusion.

Enjoying the conversation fellas. Good stuff!

Eddie Johnson
Cumberland Church
Franklin, TN

Eddie,

Good to have you here on the blog. I actually tried to avoid mentioning you, because I thought the CT blog article implied some things in the title that I did not think represented your original blog. In other words, I thought it spun your ideas in a way you would not have intended.

Oh, and I agree. Chik-fil-a is much better. And, the owners are big supporters of church planting. Eat more chicken!

But, after the CT article/blog came out, I had more than one person cite it approvingly-- calling themselves McChurch franchises. Hence, the genesis of my article (and, might I add, my discomfort).

I still struggle with the idea of a franchise, but you probably read that already!

Thanks for dropping by and welcome to Nashville.

Ed Stetzer

To use the words of the immortal Allen Iverson
"what are we talking about here? practice?"

Both letters and articles have valid points (and a side note, how encouraging to see 2 emerging leaders disagree tastefully, biblically, and openly..cheers).

Having been apart of several church's that are either church planting, or multi-siting there are several things I've noticed that touch on some things you all have discussed above. (Ill try to be short)

Multi-site video: First off the theory of the video service has baffled me. Why would I need to come to church to watch t.v.? I could stay at home and have Joel Olsteen smile at me all morning, or Crefflo Dollar tell me how much money I deserve being a child of God. The personal touch is not there, and it makes church really comfortable for the church goer. It's low risk ministry from my angle. Also there's a bit of an ego trip displayed on the pastor's part. "ONLY I CAN DELIVER THIS MESSAGE". I get the point on the campus pastor get's to develope disciples, and leaders. But does that mean the Lead pastor is not? Or that He's the only one capable of doing both?

I think of Jesus. He equipped his disciples to "DO" ministry. He also knew the art of "being there".

Now multi-site with the intent of what I call CITY DOMINATION is really what we need. I think the multi site get's lost:
1. the number of church's it can multi site
2. the number of people
3. the "leadership" mantra.

I have a fear (and again not saying any church in the above mentioned article is doing this) but i have a fear we are replacing a passion for souls, with leadership programs.

We raising leaders to lead causes and church initiatives, but do we really care about the person. the soul?

I've watched (and worked for) leadership intensive multi site church's that "quality care". As long as your a quality leader, we care. Once you stop leading (volunteering, small group leading, etc) your expendable.

My thoughts. We need to GET SMALLER...TO BE BIGGER.....
but that's a whole different post....

Really enjoyed EVERYONE'S INSIGHT, and Ed, for opening this up..

be blessed,