|
Friday July 18, 2008 ~ 4 Comments
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 ...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. 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.
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. Posted on July 18, 2008 at 8:40 PM ~ 4 Comments Tagged with: Geoff Surratt, Multi-site 4 CommentsComment PolicyComments are welcome on discussion posts. Comments are not moderated but do require a keyword to avoid spam. If this is your first time commenting, please review the comment policy. Leave a comment |




































Your bottom line in the McChurch discussion is key, "I think I will love it more if reproduction is the goal--reproducing believers, ministries, groups and churches."
It is clear that the multi-site model is reaching more people, but are these people becoming disciples? Are these disciples in turn leading others to Christ or are many still babes in the faith? My concern about multi-site ministries is we are not doing discipleship well. I was approached by a multi-site church to come on staff and address this problem. This church is very successful in reaching people, but they also acknowledge that their congregation is shallow in spiritual maturity. I did not take advantage of this opportunity since the leadership expected one staff member to carry this burden instead of the whole ministry moving forward with this vision.
Multi-site ministry is an awesome way to reach people for Christ, but let us focus on making them true disciples who can in turn make disciples themselves. This takes time and too many ministries focus on the high-profile, multi-site paradigm at the expense of discipleship. Focusing on both will produce mature Christians, but the popular multi-site church may grow at a slower rate as resources are diverted to discipleship.
- Greg from Faith First Fitness
Some of the above cited discussion seems to be stating the same thing. Multi-site churches are not entirely a bad thing if they carry with them a missiological aspect. I am literally posting this comment in the shadow of one of the largest churches in North Texas which recently became a mutli-site church and I must say that the topic is well worth some serious discussion.
I wonder if any of these multi-site churches have considered taking it a bit more in a missiological direction where in they 'plant' an extension site and once that church has reached a self sustaining size they are given the option to become and independant church separate form the mother church. That rational would in my estimation take away some of the glare that radiates from a "Churchbucks" on every corner.
Mark Driscoll offered some interesting comments to the topic in Jan 06. While I do not agree with all of his assertions (e.g. Subsequently, the alternative to an impersonal church with a gifted preacher is a personable church with a less gifted preacher.) I do believe his opinion is worth noting.
As far as I am concerned the objective should be the planting of as many biblically sound; culturally relevant churches as possible. The multi-site approach seems to be a valid consideration but many issues need to be examined.
I have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea that exporting an "amazingly gifted" speaker to multiple venues is a wonderful idea.
I agree that by making one guy the focus of so many different churches, you're keeping less developed teachers from gaining experience.
It highlights, for me, our obsession with anonymity and famous teachers, rather than with a teacher who speaks into my life, specifically (maybe like a discipler or something).
Also, it reinforces the idea that it's all about a show and some nicely packaged and delivered content from a small group of professionals. I believe church is to be a participation of various members of the body using their gifts to edify the body - not one person expositing content anonymously in RGB.
This is an intriguing conversation. Most of the activity seems to be in cities and metro areas though. Church planting seems to be pretty hard in rural areas. How about multi-site churches?
A few years back Leith Anderson brought up the idea of "walmart" churches. I know Walmart is somewhat controversial when you talk about long owned, local shops closing. But their success seems pretty consistent. Could multi-site be a way to serve unreached rural areas?