Multi-Site Church Critique and Misperceptions

Of course we're excited about the thousands of multi-site churches around the United States and Canada. And we're not unaware of the blog buzz that is surfacing with thoughtful critique about multi-sites: Out of Ur's post, Burned by Branding has sparked other posts like Niche vs Starbucks - Local Church vs The Church™ Brand and mult-site corporations [ht: Scott Reavely] and this: Multi-Site Churches: Good Economy or Big Ego?

Earlier, a future church planter was quoted as being against multi-site churches:

... I agree with everything you said, but have a slightly stronger stance against multi-site. It seems to be sweeping the country these days, and as someone who would like to plant a church (a real church) someday, I find the idea of being a non-preaching “campus” pastor who supports a one-size-fits-all model extremely distasteful. What is incarnational about a video feed? [update: read the full context at conversations with a future church planter to better understand his thought process in wrestling with differing ideas and strategies]

To which Shawn Wood retorted with Multi-site misperceptions part 1:

Every multi-site church that I know loves, respects and helps church planters anyway that we can. We put a great deal of resources, give away anything we create (Seacoastallaccess.org and lifechurch's open site) and want to help churches plant anyway we can.

and Multi-site misperceptions part 2:

We are not starbucks. If any of the people who have misperceptions about multi-site would ever actually visit one they would be able to speak intelligently. We have regional flavor, different personalities in our campus pastors and overall each campus cares deeply about their communities and seeks to reach them.

From all the stories I've heard about multi-site churches and talking with multi-site church pastors, it's all about helping people meet Jesus and not about the branding. And not all churches have to be multi-site; we're just noticing that a growing number of churches are doing this. It's okay if your church decides that multi-site isn't for you, and your church adds another service time or starts a new church plant. Jeff Leake gives a great overview of 3 different ways to serve more people: multi-service, multi-site, or multi-church.

This recent article also helps to clear the air: 5 Things Every Pastor Should Know About the Multi-Site Church (published in Outreach Magazine, mirrored at daveferguson and Run with God)

1. Multi-site is about quality, not quantity.


2. Any size church can consider going multi-site.


3. The multi-site approach demonstrates good stewardship of our resources.


4. Multi-site is today’s most powerful method of church expansion.


5. In the next 10 years, the multi-site church will gain more influence than the large church.

The Multi-Site Church Revolution is the only book we know of that describes this trend/ movement/ revolution. These related links give an inside look:

• Listen to this 4-minute interview (mp3) with Greg Ligon
  
• Download a sample chapter (free)
  
• The Coming Multi-Site Church Revolution (article in Outreach Magazine Sept/Oct '05 issue)
  
• Buy the book from amazon.com, christianbook.com (CBD), or Zondervan
  

Let's keep the conversation open so we can learn what works (and doesn't) for the community you're serving and reaching. Add your comment here, and we can even invite the book's author(s) to stop by for a chat.

Comments

[Bill Kinnon]

"If any of the people who have misperceptions about multi-site would ever actually visit one they would be able to speak intelligently."

Now that's a conversation stopper. Those of us who have concerns (labelled "misconceptions") about multi-site churches have never been to one? Good grief. I've been many times. My son attends one here in Toronto. And I have great concerns about the concept and the execution.

[Geoff Surratt]

A couple of thoughts. First, I think the phrase quoted above, "If any of the people who have misperceptions about multi-site would ever actually visit one they would be able to speak intelligently." may have come from frustration of some who have attacked the concept of multi-site without having experienced it. I agree that responding with words like "misperceptions" and "speak intelligently" does nothing to further the conversation.

I would like to hear your concerns about the concept and execution; there is a chance we may share the same apprehensions. There are some pretty interesting things going on right now under the flag of "multi-site", not all of it is positive. Let's talk about it.

[eric]

It is my blog that Shawn decided to label a multi-site hating blog. My friend and I were simply wrestling with the issue of sorting through different approaches to ministry as he prepares to begin his ministry.

Let me say that Shawn jumped to a conclusion that was unwarranted. He took one part of a conversation and drew many conclusions about it. He simply read part 3 of a 10 part conversation. He failed to see that the post he read was part of a developing conversation that had growth and discovery to it.

I believe Shawn's "passion" led to blindness to what was being said as a result of his participation in a multi-site church. He took the conversation out of context and recklessly mischaracterized it.

I offered to continue the conversation with him as part of it.

The quote you offer is only one part of a growing conversation. I guess it was too much to ask for my friend's statement to be taken in the context of someone wrestling to find his place in ministry.

I, for one, believe that multi-site can be a good thing. I also believe that most people have the best of intentions when using it.