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.
Posted on June 30, 2008 at 7:01 PM ~ 28 Comments
Tagged with: church planting, malphurs, multisite
Subscribe via RSS or Follow us on Twitter
Share This Post
Dr. Malphurs, I appreciate your time this morning.
"In a real sense this is church franchising" As a baptist, this statement really does bother me.
I believe we are examining multi-site strategies from a practical standpoint, but ignoring polity issues.
How would you describe the church polity of multi-site churches? Episcopal, Presbyterian, or congregational?
Dr. Malphurs,
I share your desire for church planting to continue unencumbered in North America, but I simply have less concern that multi-site puts this in jeopardy in any way.
In addition to the churches you listed, through our interviews here at LifeWay Research we have run across many multi-site churches who do both. Rivertree Christian Church and Harvest Bible Church are two more examples of churches who are doing both multi-site and church planting with gusto.
While many multi-site churches do replicate the model and the target audience of their original campus, there are multi-site churches who intentionally target different people.
McLean Bible Church has an intentional strategy that takes into account the life stage of those in each locations (young single adults in one and young families in another).
In a sense the multi-site approach is church franchising, but I don't see it as a problem if the motives are right. In terms of polity, I think these churches tend to be all over the map. Personally, my theology or ecclesiology is that Scripture doesn't condone or endorse a paticular polity-that churches are free to choose the polity that works best for them-thus, again, it's not a huge issue.
Dr. Malphurs, you are probably right about the different types of polity since a wide variety of denominational and non-denominational churches are trying this model.
Ed, I have asked you this before, but shouldn't the polity issues be asked by baptists before starting more baptist multi-sites? Dr. Malphurs alludes to multi-sites in the New Testament, but the argument has been made before using the same/similar passages for Episcopal and even Presbyterian forms of church government.
The polity is just a major stumbling block for me. I realize more and more baptists (especially reformed) tend to move toward elder rule. I guess the polity issue could be answered that way.
The senior pastor in a multi-site still works like a bishop with the campus pastors. I don't know why, but that strikes me as an odd approach for baptists.
I have quite a number of questions and concerns for this model of church growth. Consider for instance the recent multi-site launch of a popular church in a Dallas suburb...The launch cost millions of dollars and to what end? That we might seed a second location for a mega church? For the same multiple millions of dollars churches could have been planted all over the United States. How many churches can you plant with over 20 million dollars???
I am not a "hater" of mega churches but I think some are starting to believe they are the best model for ministry and I simply do not believe that to be the case. Big buildings and the creation of a poor man's country club are poor substitutes for alternative uses of such large sums of money.
Just my two cents. If people are being reached with the Gospel I am not going to fight any model and I will pray for them! I just raise the question...Is the multi-site model the most effective use of Kingdom money?
James Heffington Jr
The problem we have with our smaller churches is viability. And far too many church plants don't make it like some of the larger sites described above. So there are some advantages to being large. However, we need a plethora of churches of all sizes (it takes all kinds of churches to reach all kinds of people), and if we invested that much money in church plants a larger number would likely make it. Again, my point is we need to be doing both!
Arnold,
Ecclesiology is an important issue for me as well. However, being multi-site does not preclude being congregational, it just makes it harder.
Ed,
Do you have an example of a congregational multi-site? I would actually be very interested in how it could work properly. If possible, could you provide a few baptist examples?
However, it is very hard for me to believe that the local church (campus church) is truly independent and not subject to outside authority.
From a baptist perspective, I wonder how multi-sites pull this off. If I were non-denom, it wouldn't even be an issue.
I can only speak from personal experience.
The pastors I know who have gone multi-site OVER church planting have done so because they wanted to keep control AND they did not want to release any of THEIR people.
Again, that is just my experience and not intended to define all those who chose MS over planting.
Dr Malphurs,
I think it would be interesting to really see an indepth study as to why so many plants fail. I would suspect one primary reason is inadequate funding for ministry and leadership.
I am going to challenge you with the idea that we really don't need both types of new churches. I think multi-site churches are a drain on potential church planting dollars. "Need" is a very big word in this context. Why would we need multi-site churches over the hundreds of new churches that could be planted in the place of just one such site?
James Heffington
I like the both/and approach. I like the multi-site idea as it builds on a reputation (hopefully a good one) that can give you a great kick start. But...the need for fresh models, approaches, flavors is essential as we keep changing as a culture.
I do like what you and Groeschel talked about on the Exponential podcast back in April...the leader is what makes the difference. Some leaders have the gifting and creativity and drive to plant on their own and should be released to do so. Other leaders need some of the support a multi-site setting provides and should be used in that way.
As a church planter I share Ddr. Malphurs concern about pastors focusing on going multi-site to the expense of church planting. I have honestly never liked the idea of multi-site, in truth it seems like we are trying to appeal more to a the consumer mentality of people rather that the missional purpose of God. I don't mean that to be harsh but it's a thought I have wrestled with ever since I first heard of multi-site mega churches.
I would love to hear some statistics on how many people come to Christ through opening a new site vv. people coming to Christ through church plants (to be fair, make the resource allocation equal).
Chris
James,
Churches in general spend a lot of kingdom money on buildings. Most successful church plants will eventually spend significant dollars on land and facilities, as well.
Huge capital expenditures are not required of multi-site. In fact, several multi-site churches were actually motivated to go multi-site to avoid building a huge building at their original location. Several multi-sites have chosen a model that requires less than $200,000 a year to start a site.
Some located in areas with expensive real estate have no plans to purchase property for their sites. They will continue to rent a facility in a great location indefinitely.
Also, don't let one $20 million example distract you from the fact that most new sites of multi-site churces do not launch as large churches. They are often mid-size or even small.
I'm not convinced that church plants fail because of a lack of finances. I would attribute it more to poor leadership. It may be that the lead pastor isn't a church planter (a "wiring" issue) or doesn't have a gift of leadership, or simply doesn't know what he's doing. In addition, he may not know how to go about planting a church. If the issue is funding, he may not know how to raise funds. I would like to see the larger multi-sites get into funding some of the smaller church plants.
Aubrey Malphurs
In a recent conversation with a Lake Pointe staffer I got the impression that a major reason for multi-site franchising was control.
I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, even though it may seem so. I can understand concerns of setting up a daughter church and then having it deviate from the values of the mother church or crumble from poor leadership, etc.
As a church planter I have wondered about the difference between these two things.
I wonder when a church's sanctuary begins to reach capacity, should that church (a) go to another service, (b) plant a church, (c) build another building, or (d) add a campus.
Franchising makes particular sense if you feel you have a particular commodity or type of church you're promoting (e.g., Reformed & Southern Baptist in our case).
But, as one who has taught preaching in a seminary I wonder why not just pick the best dozen or so SBC preachers and feed those sermons into the sanctuaries each Sunday morning.
I'm not being facetious, but with modern technology, I can see how that could happen.
RC Sproul is "teaching" in one of our adult Sunday school classes at the moment. What if we could have John Piper or Adrian Rogers or Chuck Swindoll preaching in the vast majority of our churches on Sunday morning? What would be the implications?
P.S. Thanks for your time, Dr. Malphurs.
Gunny-
Your question about what a church should do when the sanctuary fills is a key one. My view with exceptions is that if it doesn't go to another service, chances are it will plateau and begin to die. Church planting and going multi-site are viable options but are only temporary. A relocation is a major deal and should be pursued only after you've exhausted other possibilities such as multiple services. However, you can only multiply so many services before the lead preacher and worship people die of exhaustion.
Aubrey
I am no expert, but I have had several conversations with people regarding this topic so I thought I would throw my 1 or 2 cents in. First, I know there are many different types of multi-sites, so I hope I don't paint with too broad of a brush. Second, I am a member of a multi-site, but I have some concerns from a practical standpoint.
From my vantage point, it seems like most multi-sites are centered on the teaching of a really good preacher. My concern is for what happens when the preacher retires or passes on. I am sure the same issue is at hand for any church with a popular pastor, but it seems like multi-site multiplies the effect.
I can see the benefit of more people hearing a great preacher, but I have been thinking lately that maybe the church(universal)would be better off if such preachers invested in younger pastors who could take up the cause in other areas.
I guess I am wondering if the church would not be better off investing its legacy in developing people rather than developing their brand (for lack of a better term).
My question for Dr. Malphurs is; What difficulties do you see multi-sites having when they are forced with a leadership change? Would these difficulties be unique to multi-sites? Thanks!
I just got off the phone with James MacDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel. They are a church planting church which has several sites. I found his explanation intriguing.
Basically, they plant churches because that is their mission. They created sites because planting did not solve their space problem at the mother church.
There are some who plant sites as almost a church planting strategy, but Harvest separates their purposes.
On another note, I consult with both the Assemblies of God and Evangelical Free Church. They see multi-site as a church planting strategy, right along side with planting autonomous churches.
When I spoke at last year's Assemblies of God national church planting meeting, the other keynote was Dan Betzer, pastor of a well known Assemblies of God multi-site church. Both planting churches and planting sites were held up as appropriate, and, in some ways, parallel.
Ed,
As you know we launch Bridge Church in January 2007 and now Bridge is looking at launching it's first daughter church in fall of 2009. Bridge i seast of Cleveland and the daughter launch will talke place in Ashtabula. Since you were close to that area (Erie), what are your thoughts on multi-site in that region of Ohio vs. planting in th earea?
Jeff
I think it is two different things and support the both/and approach. Liked what you wrote Aubrey - the real question is this - where are we going to invest? If I have to choose between starting a church and going multi-site, where am I going to put my bucks? What determines that? Another question I have to ask is what do I believe about the church? Is it more powerful to have a model in many locations reaching a similar target - or is it more impactful to plant multiple kinds of churches for multiple kinds of people in a given city or community? Its back to the old question people had to ask before multi-site, how big do I have to be before I plant a church? When do I stop spending it on me and spend it outside of me?
Bill-
I would love to see some of these pastors invest their lives in and cultivate younger pastors.
Succession of pastors is a much bigger issue in the church today than before. My experience is that many multi-site churches are large and don't find it difficult to locate a new pastor. Some also have a teaching, preaching team in place so that more than one person is in the pulpit. The senior pastor could groom one of these individuals. Thus multi-sites might just find it easier to locate a new pastor.
Bob-
If a church is having a space or location problem, then multi-site offers a solution as Ed pointed out above. I don't think church planting solves the space problem like multi-site. If I had the bucks, I would invest in both. I want to reach people a lot like me (multi-site), while at the same time reach people who're different from me (church planting). It would be interesting if we asked our multi-site churches to plant churches.
Bob
Thank you for your comments. We are in the beginning stage of doing our exploration in the Ashtabula community as well as another area east of Cleveland. There is no church doing the satellite model in the Cleveland area, which makes me think that it may be accepted or it might not be accepted. To be honest, we will probably go with what I feel we are best equipped at doing, which is planting a new church.
On the money side - it seems that the dollars would be pretty much the same in a plant or satellite. you have to have a pastor at each place, whether it is the planter or campus pastor, plus equipments costs and rental. Where would the big dollar difference be if there is any?
Jeff
I am convinced that a multi-site/church planting hybrid has the potential to be wildly effective.
Why not start out mulit-site with the intention of the site becoming an autonomous church? It works a bit like a strawberry plant which sends out runners that eventually become its own plant. We are attempting this in South Dakota.
The advantages are that it is low cost, low risk. It doesn't require a "10" church planter. The sites share resources. The planter is able to focus on the lost because he doesn't need to worry about having a ton of big-givers right in the church right away.
I don't see much downside.
I agree that both multi-site and church planting is needed, and the more types out there the better. The more exclusive our (Christian's) methods become, the more exclusive the audience will become. (I attend a multi-site church and also hope to be a church planter.)
An issue I see with either model is that so many churches seem to be consumed with creating the right model church more than the right model Christians. I personally feel there is a strong lack of true discipleship in our churches, and that means that many Christians are not experiencing the true freedom found in Jesus Christ! Plus, many church planters are trying to compete with mega-multi-churches and just simply don't have the resources, so the plant fails because they can't build momentum, but the root cause is likely that they had unrealistic expectations and possibly the wrong focus.
I would really like to see more of a reverse engineering of the planting process - rather than start with a church model and try to drag the people in and "assimilate" them, start with the people/culture in an area and build a contextual church in it's mist.
Mark
Our planting efforts have been personally affected by the emerging multi-site/church planting options. We were 5 months from launch, had about 35 people on the core tea and were finding favor in the community.
Two things occurred at that time: 1) Our mother church was exploding at the seams and was offered a building in our target area for a video venue, and 2) our a29 assessment recommended a residency program prior to planting. We backed out of the church plant, aligned our core team to the video venue, entered a residency program and our mother church went multi-site.
This was a huge transition for me and my family, but it was sanctifying, open to God's new revelation and under the authority of wise counsel and our local church.
The mother church added the video venue in an attempt to ease overcrowding (we were at 6 services already) and they are still committed to church planting.
At a critical time in the discussion, we visited with Driscoll while he was in town and he suggested that we needed to do three things simultaneously:
1) plant churches
2) go multi-site
3) find a larger main site.
He also said that if you have a guy who is gifted, called and ready to plant then you need to plant him. It is good stewardship of his gifts and obedience to God's calling to plant him.
They also found that their multi-sites did not do much to alleviate crowding at the main site, but that they developed their own attendance patterns. So it may not alleviate overcrowding as much as we think. This is probably dependent on distance from the main campus and local cultures.
For us, we are now in Austin and will be using a missional, multi-campus, teaching team approach with campus pastors who teach at their campus 60-80% of the time and we rotate those teachers through the multiple campuses. This allows us to spread the teaching gifts around, have a primary pastor for each campus and allow each campus to have an appropriate expression for its location. This approach has many other benefits as well.
One reason we are doing this is the growing balkanization of our communities. If you are interested in this idea, check out a blog posts on it called 'The Big Sort'.
http://undergraceinaustin.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/the-big-sort/
Thanks Aubrey and Ed for the discussion.
Dr .Malphurs and Ed Stetzer
Wow,
What a great discussion on the issue I am faced with as a church planter in Toledo, OH. I truly believe that approaching this with a both/and attitude is the best way. I am attending a multi site church, since we are not to the point of conducting our own services, and this multi site church has just opened up to being a church that is both/and. (launching more multi sites and church planting) I’m excited about this for two reasons. One, I’ve seen the results that the multi site approach has brought to this church, several hundred people coming to Christ in the first few months of opening one of their new campuses. Two, I’m equally excited because the size of this church gives them the opportunity to raise the needed capital to also plant antonymous churches as well.
One area of concern I’ve had for years is this: when we come to a place that we think we’ve got it all figured out we are sliding the lid on our coffin. The approach to sharing the Gospel is always changing, the Gospel will never change. I hope we can always keep that in mind as we go out to make disciples in all the lands.
Rob Rhinier
I missed a letter when I entered my URL it's www.momentumtoledo.com