Yesterday, I weighed in on multi-site (see the comments in yesterday's post).
For background, I have written about it in an intentionally provocative post "Questions for McChurch" and then dialogued more about it in a follow-up post here.
Everyone's talking about multi-site churches these days. There are books, seminars, and today we have several thousand multi-site churches in North America. Some of you read my series of posts on the subject last year. Well, last week 9 Marks released it's May/June eJournal.
It's good to see 9 Marks putting out an eJournal that doesn't just criticize mulit-site churches, but also includes a defense of them from men like J.D. Grear, Matt Chandler and Gregg Allison. The whole journal can be downloaded here, and I encourage you to check it out. I won't break down everything said in every article, but I will point out a few of the things that caught my attention.
In the 9 Marks eJournal the most consistent criticism of multi-site churches seems to focus on the issue of the church being an "assembly."
The Greek word ecclesia most often translated as "church" means assembly or gathering. The oft heard mantra "one church many locations" is a contradiction in terms. An un-gathered "church" cannot know one another, love another or bear one another's burdens in the same way a single assembly can. -Thomas White, 9 Reasons I Don't Like Multi-Site Churches
The word ekklesia denotes a literal assembly. Therefore, it should not be used to designate a body of Christians who are not characterized by literally assembling together in the same place. -Grant Gaines, Exegetical Critique of Multi-Site: Disassembling the Church?
I have heard this complaint before, and always wonder if such dissenters are actually arguing that a local church must gather the whole body together (in one place at the same time for worship) in order to function biblically as a church. If so, would the argument against multi-site churches equally apply to a church with multiple services in one location? According to Jonathan Leeman: absolutely.
Both the multi-site and multi-service church models remove "the gathering" from the necessary ingredients of what constitutes a particular church, since neither model requires all the members of a church to gather together in order for them to be a church. Instead, both models equate the local church with its leadership and its corporate structure, since it's the leadership and corporate structure that are the only things that the separate assemblies uniquely hold in common. Leadership is the church. Neither the multi-site church nor the multi-service church is a church. -Jonathan Leeman, Theological Critique of MultiSite: Leadership Is the Church
Some argue that since a local church is by definition an assembly, a multi-site strategy fundamentally skews the nature of a local church. The essence of a New Testament local church, however, is not "assembly" but "covenant body." If the local church is essentially an assembly, then it only exists when it assembles and only when all the members are present. "Assembly" is a much-needed function, but "covenant" is the essence.
J.D.'s article is a thoughtful, reasonable and biblical defense of a multi-site church. (For full disclosure, I have preached at the church J.D. serves and greatly appreciate his church.) Gregg R Allison also offers a Theological Defense of Multi-Site using a four-fold grid (biblical, theological, historical, and missional) to evaluate this popular trend. This is also very good and worth a read.
Much of the criticisms in the other articles assume too much about churches (if we're allowed to call them that) that have gone multi-site, but some legitimate concerns are raised. For example, what about pastoral care? Jeffrey Riddle raises this issue in his article, Richard Baxter and the Multi-Site Movement.
The response from responsible multi-site churches is that the pastoral team at each campus/site is responsible to provide the full range of pastoral care for its campus/site.
For example, at Mars Hill Church in Seattle,
Each campus must have its own paid staff appropriate for a church its size such as a campus administrator and children's leader, along with some unpaid elders and deacons to administer such things as premarital counseling, small groups, membership. For this to happen each campus must have its own budget that the campus pastor and other elders spend as they see fit, within certain established guidelines for all campuses...." (Vintage Church, 253).
Another common question and/or criticism is, "Why not just plant churches?" This is a concern I have, for I believe some churches have opted to go multi-site instead in place of planting. But this is not always the case. In fact J.D. argues that going multi-site is helping his church to develop church plants and planters.
The multi-site strategy does not preclude church planting. Rather, it fosters it! Not every church planter is equipped to be a senior teaching pastor. Campus pastors need to be men who are gifted leaders and good communicators, but not necessarily preachers. Many guys who are great leaders and pastors do not enjoy doing what I do each week, spending 20+ hours preparing messages and deciphering vision. As campus pastors they exercise leadership within their gifts in a way that they could not as church planters. Many of those not gifted to be the senior leader or primary teaching pastor would still make ideal campus pastors.
As you plant new campuses, you will notice some who begin to demonstrate the gift set to lead independent churches. This seems to be how the Jerusalem church operated. They noticed leaders emerging in the ministry who had the capacity to plant churches and they sent them out.
Finally, it has been our experience that multiple campuses provide a leadership pipeline for developing church planters. It provides a place to hone the skills necessary for teaching and leadership. The multi-site strategy is integral to our church planting strategy.
Thus, we have found that the multi-site strategy does not in any way eclipse church planting. In fact, it provides an opportunity to determine who has the right gift set to plant and pastor. As it stands now, new churches fail more than half the time. Wouldn't it be helpful to have an in-between stage in which leadership abilities can be tested?
And some ask whether or not this can be done while maintaining a congregational church polity. Greg Gilbert points out in his article, What Is this Thing, Anyway? A Multi-Site Taxonomy, there are different models of multi-site churches. Of course, some are less biblical and healthy than others, and Gilbert's piece is helpful in thinking through some difficulties for those who maintain a congregational polity.
This past November I heard of a multi-site church that seemed to avoid most of the aspects of multi-site churches that have been troubling to me. This church, Highview Baptist in Louisville, Kentucky, is one church that meets in six locations. Each of the six campuses has a pastor that teaches his flock, but there is one senior pastor, a single deacon body, and a single budget. However, the whole church also assembles in one location quarterly for services that include baptisms, the Lord's Supper, and the conducting of the congregation's business (accepting new members, discipline of members, voting on matters of official business).
I asked the person describing this church why the six congregations do not simply avoid the inconvenience of the quarterly meeting and become independent churches. His reply was that the six pastors do not want independence and the accompanying isolation. They enjoyed being part of a larger body and sharing each others' joys and sorrows as one body.
Like most church models, multi-site churches can be healthy or unhealthy. On the one hand we need to carefully think through the biblical and practical issues related to this approach and not just jump on what, for many, is a new trend. As Matt Chandler confesses in his short piece,
...after studying the issue, we decided to go multi-site. Yet we still have some serious concerns and questions about the multi-site idea even as we participate in it. The problem that haunts us is a simple one. Where does this idea lead? Where does this end? Twenty years from now are there fifteen preachers in the United States?
On the other hand critics need to do a better job at interacting with multi-site models and not assume that all function in the same way. The multi-site phenomenon often grows out of a good problem - a rapidly growing church! I appreciate J.D.'s words,
The multi-site model is messy. As with all large churches, it is easier for important things (like people!) to fall through the cracks in multi-site churches than it is in a single-campus, smaller church. Growth from evangelism always invites chaos and disorder into the church. But it is a wonderful and welcome problem.
If you are interested in more information, I have addressed this issue before at the blog and you might want to read part 1 and part 2 of my dialogue with Geoff Surratt.
And, one more thought just for fun. I had to chuckle at the book review of Multisite Churches: Guidance for the Movements Next Generation by Scott McConnell (a LifeWay Research book). I love a review that begins with, "Me reviewing this book is like a PETA employee reviewing a hunting manual... I don't think churches should be multi-site... Strictly speaking, I don't think that multi-site churches even exist." Only at 9Marks. ;-) (Though you gotta' appreciate the disclosure.) But, in that spirit, I will write my review of Finney's Systematic Theology tomorrow.
Scott McConnell has been researching the beliefs, behaviors, needs and preferences of church leaders, laity, and the unchurched for over 12 years. He is the Associate Director of LifeWay Research and has written the new book, Multi-Site Churches: Guidance for the Movement's Next Generation. It seems like everyone is going mulit-site these days. But is it for everyone? Can any church go multi-site? Should every church set up multiple campuses? Check out this interview with Scott as he addresses these questions and much more. Then jump into the comments and ask questions. Scott will be around today interacting with the readers.
World Magazine reports on the dialogue that Geoff Surratt and I started here at the blog. Both Geoff and I had a follow-up interview with the reporter, Mark Bergin.
Here are some excerpts, mainly focusing on my comments and Geoff's comments. Since the article is for subscribers, I am guessing they would not want me to duplicate the whole thing... but since they draw from our conversation here, it seems OK to cite those parts of the article.
The subtitle is a bit sensational ("mania," etc.) but the article is relatively "pro" when it examines multi-site.
Here are some excerpts:
Out of one, many
Multi-site churches are growing, spreading across cultures, and redefining the concept of gathered worship, for better and for worse. From high-tech to low-frills, unanswered questions and unproven strategies of NextGen churches have yet to slow the mania
...A LifeWay Research survey last year found that 16 percent of Protestant churches in the United States are considering adding at least one campus within the next two years. Other LifeWay findings are due out next spring with the publishing of Scott McConnell's Multi-Site Churches: Guidance for the Movement's Next Generation.
Ed Stetzer, an experienced church planter and president of LifeWay Research, hopes its data will help protect against what he sees as common pitfalls of the movement: "Here's my main concern: Now that multi-site has become the next big thing, will people take the time to do it well or will they simply set up theaters with videos? Often what multi-site becomes is one prominent pastor projecting his image into another town without a missiological or evangelistic strategy accompanying it."
As interim pastor of the multi-site First Baptist Church in Hendersonville, Tenn., Stetzer does not oppose using multiple venues. But in "Questions for McChurch," a recent magazine column for Outreach, he outlines several potential negatives of the model: diminished pastoral care, the discouraging of church community, and fewer pulpits to develop young leaders.
Geoff Surratt, co-author of The Multi-Site Church Revolution (Zondervan, 2006), takes issue with Stetzer's criticisms. He says the multi-site model fosters greater pastoral care, deeper community, and more opportunities for young leaders to develop as preachers and teachers. He says that at Seacoast Church, where he serves as pastor of ministries, the congregation's 13 sites in the Carolinas and Georgia have helped section a large church of 10,000 people into smaller, more manageable blocs. Campus pastors direct the individual mission- and community-building at the various satellites...
Critics of multi-site expansion are apt to interpret the morphing of a campus pastor into a church planter as evidence that starting new churches is a more noble and significant enterprise than starting new campuses. Trouble is, that charge fails to recognize that many of the most committed church-planting churches in the country are also knee deep in multi-site ministry. Seacoast co-founded the Association of Related Churches, which has planted 60 new congregations since its inception in 2001.
According to a recent Outreach magazine report, the top two church-planting churches in the country are Redeemer Presbyterian (part of the Presbyterian Church in America denomination), which holds services at four sites in Manhattan and has planted more than 100 churches, and Mars Hill Church, which operates 16 services at seven locations in and around Seattle.
Stetzer celebrates such examples of internal and external replication: "I'm not a theologically driven critic of multi-site. I'm a critic of it done poorly. If you don't think this through and you don't have the right motives, you end up with a baby that grows up to be pretty ugly..."
Other congregations, such as LifeChurch.tv out of Edmond, Okla., have embraced church online without reservation...
Stetzer believes such online outreach is a valid tool, provided it serves people who cannot physically attend church or offers an aid for people to connect and move into physical community. "The problem is when people equate it to church with online baptisms and that kind of stuff," he said. "You have to assemble, and that requires feet, not electrons."
By and large a good story. I would like to have explored some of the ecclesiological issues of why churches should "assemble" and not just meet on-line, but such is life when it comes to word counts.
One small mistake, the church I serve is not multi-site, it is multi-venue.
And, I would also add that this paragraph only tells part of the story:
Critics of multi-site expansion are apt to interpret the morphing of a campus pastor into a church planter as evidence that starting new churches is a more noble and significant enterprise than starting new campuses. Trouble is, that charge fails to recognize that many of the most committed church-planting churches in the country are also knee deep in multi-site ministry. Seacoast co-founded the Association of Related Churches, which has planted 60 new congregations since its inception in 2001.
Though the writer is correct with his examples (and I know and appreciate ARC and the churches he cites), I think it would also be helpful to point out that many of the most well known multi-site churches have no church planting strategy involvement at all.
It is good point out that the leading church planting churches in American are multi-site (and for the record, I made that list of leading church planting churches to which the writer refers-- and reported that they were multi-site), but I think that the fact that some of the best church planting churches are multi-site does not mean that most multi-site churches are deeply involved in church planting... I wish they were! (You might want to take a look at Aubrey Malphurs comments on that very issue here.)
And, finally, I wish they would have pointed out the great dialogue that Geoff and I had about it here at the blog. You can find that here. Conflict makes a good story, but I don't feel much conflict with Geoff!
By the way, Geoff will be contributing to the book LifeWay Research is publishing on multi-site (along with several other current practitioners).
All in all, a good article... though, as I have written before when the USAToday and AP did the same thing, I find it odd that people use my blog as a source for news.
Dr. Malphurs is the Senior Professor of Pastoral Ministries at Dallas Theological Seminary and a visionary with a deep desire to influence a new generation of leaders through his classroom, pulpit, consulting, and writing ministries. He is involved in a number of ministries ranging from church planting and growth to leadership development. He has pastored three churches and is the author of numerous books and articles on leadership and church ministry. Currently he is the president of the Malphurs Group and is a trainer and consultant to churches, denominations, and ministry organizations throughout North America and Europe. His research and teaching interests include church planting, church growth, and leadership development.
Aubry recently entered the dialog on multi-site churches and church planting with a helpful article worth digesting and discussing...
MULTI-SITE VERSUS CHURCH PLANTING?
(June 6, 2008) There's a new person on the block. A new kid has moved into the ministry neighborhood. It's the church multi-site movement. However, I must use the term new carefully as there likely was a multi-site movement in the first century church. An example would be the church at Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 1:2 Paul writes to the church at Corinth. Then he mentions a house church that likely was located in or near Corinth (1 Cor. 16:19-20). It would seem that in the first century there was a city church (1 Cor. 1:2) that was made up of a number of house churches as in chapter 16.
What is a Multi-site Church?
The simple definition is that a multi-site church is the same church that meets in more than one location. It could meet in several places on the same campus, another location in the same town or state, or even in another country. For example, Ed Young who pastors Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, also has established two other downtown campuses in Dallas and a third in Miami, Florida. While Ed usually preaches at the Grapevine campus, the service is sent by video to the other locations as well. And what takes place at Grapevine-the programming in particular-also takes place at the other campuses. In a real sense this is church franchising, and I don't mean this in a negative way. Initially these were begun to relieve some of the mega-churches of land and facilities problems. They needed more room to expand their ministries. And what began as a solution to a land problem has become a major movement.
What is a Church Plant?
A church plant is similar to and different from a multi-site church. Like a multi-site church, they may be started by a sponsoring church. However, a difference is that unlike the multi-site church they may not be at all like the sponsoring church. Thus you are not franchising a particular style of church ministry. Another observation with exceptions is that multi-site churches consist of more of the same kinds of people. For example, a predominantly boomer church will attract boomers at its other locations. What appeals to them at one site appeals at the other.Whereas, a church plant will often attract those who are different from the people that attend the sponsoring church. They are usually a younger crowd. Perhaps the difference might be summed up this way. Starbucks would represent a multi-site approach. Whereas, Aubrey's coffee shop would be indicative of a church planting approach. If you like Starbucks coffee, then go to Starbucks. But if you want something different - that's unique - then visit Aubrey's Exotic Coffee Shop.
My Concern
While I'm all for multi-site churches as I attend one (Lake Pointe Church in Rockwall, Texas), I'm concerned that they not replace church planting. While I have no research to support my view, it would appear that a number of pastors are opting for a multi-site approach over church planting. The problem with this is that most churches best reach a younger population not through a multi-site location but by planting churches. Many of today's youth react negatively to the predominantly boomer, multi-site churches. They want to meet in smaller more intimate groups as seen in a growing number of house church plants. They want to belong before they believe. They want to check things out to see if church people are authentic: "If what you think you see (Jesus) is really what you get."
My Appeal
Instead of supporting one approach to ministry, lets do both. Let's embrace both the multi-site approach and church planting. That way we can continue to reach those who've been blessed by what many of today's churches are doing and reach out to tomorrow's generations as well. It shouldn't be as in the title to this article - "Multi-site Versus Church Planting." One must not exclude the other. Both are necessary to reach our lost and dying world.
When I did a church planting research project for Leadership Network (download it here), we did find that in some cases, churches that were once strong in church planting had moved away from such and were now focused on multi-site. On the other hand, we found some doing both (like Seacoast in Charleston, Community Christian in Naperville, and Mars Hill in Seattle, to name few).
So, let me ask, why do you think this is happening? The pastors I talked to (who had moved from church planting to multi-site) told me it produced a higher success rate when you started a site rather than a church planting.
Your thoughts?
And, feel free to post questions to Aubrey as he will be around the blog today.
Tomorrow, Aubrey Malphurs will come by the blog and talk about the impact of multi-site on church planting. He has some concerns he wrote in a recent article. I will post the article and we will start the discussion at 10a.m. Eastern. If you are interested in multi-site ministry, be sure to read the last two discussions with Geoff Surratt, multi-site author and pastor, here and here.
Geoff Surratt, who co-wrote The Muiltisite Church Revolution, wrote me a gracious letter in response to the article, kindly differing with some of my conclusions. I asked and received his permission to post it here. Geoff has also agreed to dialog a bit in the comment thread below.
Here is his letter:
Dear Dr. Stetzer,
I finally got a chance to read your column in the May/June edition of Outreach (I had lost my copy) and wanted to give you some feedback. I am a coauthor of The Multi-site Church Revolution (along with Dr. Warren Bird and Greg Ligon) and the Pastor of Ministries at Seacoast Church, a multi-site church based in Charleston, South Carolina. We met very briefly at a conference in Florida and I have enjoyed your writing for some time. Breaking the Missional Code is a must read for all of our campus pastors.
While I understand that your role in this column is to take the contrarian role, there were several of your arguments that I struggled with. The first was the statement, "Consider the fact that there are few multi-site churches in Europe. Will a great speaker and powerful music appeal to a truly post-Christian culture?" Here are my challenges:
1. You seem to indicate that if European's aren't embracing a multi-site model we should be wary of using it in the US. When Seacoast first began exploring multi-site in 2002 we could find very few models in North America; six year later there are thousands of multi-site churches across America. It is possible that this is a model that will move from the US to Europe and in five years there may be multi-site churches all over Europe.
2. When I had the opportunity to spend some time at Leadership Network's first European Church Planters Leadership Community last spring it seemed that the most successful church planting models all utilized some form of mid-size groups or clusters. Several clusters of small groups would fall under the umbrella of one church. When one church lost their building for two years they continued to grow as they added clusters across the region. When these churches spoke of church planting, what they were actually doing was planting new clusters under the umbrella of one church. This sounds like multi-site done at a micro level and one with huge implications for all multi-site churches reaching out in a post-modern world.
3. The second part of your statement seems to be questioning the whole attractional model rather than multi-site. I don't believe that multi-site and attractional are necessarily synonymous. Bob Hyatt at Evergreen Community in Portland, Oregon is outspoken in his opposition to the attractional model AND he is going multi-site.
4. As to the appeal of the attractional model in post-modern Europe, I have no idea if it works. I do know that when I visited London last fall Hillsongs London located in the trendy West End was packed with over 1000 20-somethings at their brand new 12:45 service and that their Paris campus was experiencing exploding growth as well. No one is more committed to the attractional model than Hillsongs and I would think that London and Paris are at the epicenter of the post-modernism.
My next challenge was this assertion: "Despite a church's best intentions at new sites, sometimes certain pastoral duties get lost...I know that those duties are supposed to be the job of the campus pastor, but we also know it often does not happen-people come for the show and don't connect with the community."
1. I'm curious to know what your evidence is for this statement; how do we know that pastoral care is not happening in multi-site churches? I would argue that pastoral care is a higher value at our campuses than at a traditional church. Our campus pastors do not spend hours writing weekly homilies to be delivered for 30 minutes on a Sunday and instead focus all of their attention on seeing that the sick are prayed for, watching over the flock, and breaking bread with the beloved.
2. Later in the same paragraph you say, "I hope it keeps you up at night, wrestling with ways to build community in a system that can so easily discourage it." I don't understand how opening multiple, smaller locations with more localized pastoral oversight discourages building community.
3. The statement "come for the show" again seems to be aimed at the attractional model rather than multi-site. Multi-site churches who use video teaching may be categorized as attractional, but I have some questions about that generalization as well. I'll save that for another time as this email is turning into an epistle.
My final challenge is with this statement: "Perhaps my biggest concern with the multi-site paradigm is that it may inadvertently lead to a diminished pool of biblical leaders."
1. I assume you are equating multi-site with video teaching. While many of the prominent multi-site churches use video teaching there also many multi-site churches who use in-person teaching.
2. We have seen the exact opposite effect since we have opened multiple campuses; rather than a diminished pool of biblical leaders we now have an ocean of biblical leaders. Every site we open creates multiple opportunities for emerging leaders to step up to the plate. I had lunch today with a young man at one of our sites who has been on our youth staff for several years, but now feels a desire to move into a larger role. In a traditional church he would have to leave and plant a church because there would be few if any other opportunities for leadership within our church. Because we are a large, multi-site church we were able to look at a wide range of leadership opportunities from department leader to campus pastor to church planter. He is a biblical leader that is being groomed for big things down the road rather than put out on his own to sink or swim.
3. We have many biblical leaders who do not have the gift of teaching. It is surprising to me that somehow biblical leadership and the ability to stand up and talk for 30 minutes on a Sunday somehow have become equated. It is also surprising that a 30 minute homily is seen as the primary tool to speak into the lives of a congregation. In our campuses our campus pastors lead and teach in dozens of ways every day; the only thing they don't do is teach for 30 minutes most Sundays.
4. We have also found multi-site to be a great way to prepare church planters. Naeem Fazal, who now pastors Mosaic Church in Charlotte, was our first campus pastor. It was a great leadership incubator and Naeem now ministers to almost 1000 20-somethings every weekend. He is one of many biblical leaders who we have had the opportunity to develop through the multi-site ministry.
I apologize for the length of this email but I wanted to share my viewpoint from the frontlines of the multi-site revolution. (Cheap plug for the book) Thanks for lending an ear.
Geoff Surratt | Seacoast Church
Pastor of Ministries
w. www.seacoast.org
b. www.geoffsurratt.com
Here is my response to Geoff to kick off the discussion.
As you could tell, Geoff, I mainly wrote about the challenges of multi-site, and I think that in many high profile multi-site churches, I would stand by them. But, I would say that Seacoast, along with North Coast and others, is trying a different way. Do you think you have been able to overcome the challenges inherent in the system?
Or, let me put it this way, at the end of my article I said,
I am not anti-multi-site, but I am anti-consumerism. Church is not about being the best purveyor of religious "goods and services." 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 multi-site, make sure you stay focused on the mission and its multiplication.
Below is an article I wrote for Outreach Magazine. Outreach has asked me to present an "opinionated" voice in my column-- to bring, I hope, a thoughtful and probing approach to the issues addressed. (This month, my subtly-titled article is called "Jerk Free Evangelism.")
I think that every movement needs thoughtful reflection. So, I listed some of my questions in the article (which you can see below). Now, to be transparent, I preach at a multi-venue church every week, so I would not consider myself "anti-," but I do like to think through the consequences, intended and unintended, of new approaches to church. You can see my thoughts below. Feel free to comment... I would like to hear your thoughts.
Geoff Surratt, who co-wrote The Muiltisite Church Revolution, wrote me a great letter in response to the article, kindly differing with some of my conclusions. If you come to the blog Friday, I will post that letter and Geoff and I will dialogue a bit about it here at the blog.
Questions for McChurch
The multi-site argument goes something like this:
If I open a new coffee shop on your side of town, it may take years before people figure out I'm there. Even then, they may never check out my lattes because they already get their coffee at a place called Buckstops.
On the other hand, if Buckstops opens a new shop, almost immediately hundreds of people will become regulars. Why? They already know the Buckstops brand.
Many congregations are moving to a multi-site strategy for this exact reason: a church plant may take years to get a footing, but an extension site of an established church will grow immediately. Instead of starting with 20 attendees, they may start with hundreds. (When Andy Stanley started the Browns Bridge Campus of North Point, thousands showed up the first day!)
Limitations to the Attractional Model
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 multisite ministry also has some dangers.
In an increasingly unchurched culture, even the best worship and highest quality projection can lose its attraction. For example, there are few multi-site churches in Europe. Will a great speaker and powerful music appeal to a truly post-Christian culture? For some, maybe. But the popularity of YouTube and proliferation of amateur podcasts show a whole generation emerging that is less concerned with polish and more concerned with authenticity and accessibility.
I'm not suggesting we employ a strategy like the one I recently saw on a sign outside a church: "No coffee. No doughnuts. Just the Bible. Come and get it." I'm enthused about new methods and technologies to reach people for Jesus.
But as we rush into multi-site, we should pause long enough to consider at least these three things --
Although I have recently shared that I have joined the faculty at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, I am still pleased to be teaching a few places in the next year or so, including Reformed, Biblical, and Southeastern seminaries.
It was recently announced that I will be co-teaching my class at Reformed with Joel Hunter.
Joel is quite a legend and has riled up much of the evangelical world. He was offered the leadership of the Christian Coalition, announced his plan to broaden the agenda of the organization, and then the Coalition and he parted ways while he was still "president elect." The New York Times version is here.
"I wanted to expand the issues from only moral ones -- such as opposing abortion and redefining marriage -- to include compassion issues such as poverty, justice, and creation care," Hunter said in a statement. "We need to care as much for the vulnerable outside the womb as inside the womb."
However, conservative politics (of the new or old kinds) will not be the focus of our class. We will focus on the gospel, the mission, and the church. Since Joel has been all over the news, many people might not know that he is a pastor in Central Florida with a thriving church called Northland.
And, the book he is requiring for the class is Church Distributed, his manifesto of sorts. You can read the book online here. In it, he explains:
So what is the distributed church, anyway?...
In the present model of the church, the local church tends to be isolated and preoccupied with its own world. It appears to be, and often is, self-centered. Our triune God, by His very nature, models relationship-centeredness. God in Christ came out of His self-sufficiency to identify with those radically different from Himself, and His church is called to be like Him. The church that is distributed values ministry beyond its walls more than ministry inside them because it focuses on those not yet included. It reaches through relationships it has within its congregation to identify with others. Intentional distribution of the church with a goal of ultimate connection through relationship reflects God's image.
Christian, wake up: YOU ARE A MINISTER OF THE CHURCH. You don't need to know more; you don't need to have a church program commission you--although both can be useful. But you need to understand that in this definition of the church that you are a minister of the church and you can further ministry by connecting with other believers who are different from yourself.
It should be a great class. You can download the syllabus here.
LifeWay Research is launching a multi-phase research project to help churches who are interested in transitioning into multi-site ministry by learning from those churches who have already become multi-site.
If your church is a multi-site church and you are willing to share from your experiences take a few minutes to fill out this short survey.
It was recently announced that I will be co-teaching my class at Reformed with 
