;)
Multi-Site Churches – A Review
Posted by Guest Author in IMPACT Features
Multi-Site Churches. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group, 2009. 243 pp.
In the culture that is called Christianity today, fads come and go. Understanding the fads that shape how our churches exist in that culture is often a huge challenge for leaders in every setting. In an attempt to provide guidance for those considering one of those fads, Scott McConnell has given a guide about multi-site churches.
This book is an easy flowing and readable book. It is arranged in such a way that the reader can get to know the personalities McConnell interviewed through sidebars interjected throughout. Tables in the back give particulars about the various ministries including web addresses.
It must be noted, however, that this is not a theological book. Nor is it a book to influence positively those that would disagree with a multi-site church model. This work is to help those who have already decided, or are close to deciding, to move into the realm of multi-site churches.
This book is more akin to a business or marketing guide. In fact, it could be easily titled Multi-Site Coffee Shops and still use the outline of the book. The foreword by Ed Stetzer even used a similar analogy to introduce Multi-Site Churches. This is the strength of the book.
Even so, because it is a book about churches and how those churches can be more effective there is some attempt at establishing some theological grounds for this church model. Biblical referencing was weak when used and often twisted to fit the model. Instead of making the biblical data fit the model, the model should have been presented as another way to move forward in the great commission. This is the weakness of the book.
Multi-Site Churches is a well written book. It is for people involved in, considering, or expanding multi-site as a model for ministry. I do not recommend it for leaders who wish to continue in single-site ministry. As McConnell stated in his epilogue, “In the end multi-site is a tool.” The reader must choose the right tool.
***
This book review is provided as part of an agreement with Broadman & Holman Publishing Group. Our guest reviewer is Scott Hart, the pastor of Sulphur Baptist Church, in Sulphur, Kentucky. He also maintains secular employment in the health care field in nearby Louisville, Kentucky where he and his family reside.
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
There is a reason that the biblical foundation for this method is weak.
There is none.
IMHO this methodology in some circles borders close to being like a cult: the charismatic personality of the senior pastor who cannot contain his speaking presence in one building, and who wants to share his wisdom in multiple buildings. Not content to just be on television (a multiplicity of buildings), screens are built in multiple locations, sometimes in locations in other communities and towns away from the primary site. No consideration is given by these folks to the potential of training and disciplining believers into going out by multiplication in founding stand alone churches in communities that are in need. IMHO it is a faddish tool that is a farce – and well written books do not gloss that fact over – it merely is an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. Pretty.
Rob
IMHO multi-sites are about CONTROL. I heard one megachurch pastor say they were going to multi-sites rather than planting new standalone churches because they could “control” the multi-sites better. Empire building at its best.
Les
I have to admit that I fail to see any compelling reason for adopting this model. There may be some respectable people at the center of this type of model, but I think they are misguided.
In reviewing the book, I endeavored to keep my personal opinions out. I wanted to convey impartiality. Admittedly, this was difficult as I too do not see this model to be correct. It may be effective, as I have witnessed in my own city, but effective and correct are not synonymous terms. For me, the glaring weakness of lack of supporting biblical data was the key. With so much evidence from Paul’s letters and Luke’s accounts in Acts to show how God worked in the first churches it is difficult at best to reconcile multi-site models with the biblical record despite the apparent effectiveness.
This book had more in common with several business text books I have on my shelf than with the plan clearly seen in the Bible.
Just curious, what were the scripture references they used. It is kind of difficult for someone (like me) to make a judgment on their use of the scriptures without knowing what they’ve said to support their method of thinking.
Does the book offer any other models of multi-site churches without using television cameras and projection screens? What I mean is, do they have any churches that may have multiple sites and multiple pastors with some autonomy, but they consider themselves to be one unified body?
Part of my asking this relates to inter-church ministry and partnership. I’d like for more SBC churches in the same city to be so unified that people on the outside would wonder if we weren’t just different sites of the same local body. Again, this has more to do with unity and cooperation than with neo-colonialism within the church, which seems to be the overwhelming view of the commentators thus far.
I’m not for or against multi-site churches just yet. I may be leaning more towards the traditional model, but I’d like more facts before I condone it or condemn it.
Brother Les,
I think you are right that generally Multi-site church modeling is typically about control. As Andrew brought forward, there may be some innocent ideas concerning multi-site church planting,…but at the end of the day, the planters must be intentional to model the New Testament testimony of what God forms at the local level.
Multi-site is a pragmatic, business like approach to efficiencies in costs, etc. and a platform in some cases for accumulating money and momentum to support the system. All in all it becomes a brand and a well designed marketing scheme that is sometimes done with the best of intentions.
Pastor/Teachers that understand and disciple others in the church must be intentional and deliberate to follow the Apostles lead in matters of church planting though. It is important that men lead the church be intentional to have each member in the local congregation depend on each other at the local level for edification. Large screens, custodial pastors, and technology do not mature the church and teach her how to love one another. The proximity and breadth of leaders in the church does. The fundamental of maturing the body is Christ at work in the lives of those that are committed to one another in the local setting, day to day.
1 Timothy 4:13-16 Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching. (14) Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery. (15) Take pains with these things; be absorbed in them, so that your progress will be evident to all. (16) Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.
There is an intimacy that our Lord provides for ministry….and delivery and supply of the data via electronics of a single Pastor is not one of them. Paul intimated this to the Roman church, seeing himself as one in need of edification.….being among them.
Romans 1:11-12 For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established; (12) that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other’s faith, both yours and mine.
Scott, thank you for this review.
Blessings,
Chris
There is a church in Houston called Second Baptist – http://www.second.org/visitorinformation.aspx It has five (5) “campuses” around town. Apparently, they are selective on location because many are located where population growth is the heaviest. The main campus is located in the middle of the wealthiest part of Houston, and, believe me, they have the money available at a moment’s notice to do the extravagant. One large church in the northern part of Houston experienced a split and was about to go under with $14M in debt. When Second Baptist stepped in they took it over and completely removed the debt. Now it is their North side campus with a pastor selected by the main campus.
My opinion? I have attended the North campus out of curiosity. The gospel is preached and people are saved. Everything is done with the highest quality and it is run efficiently. I do prefer a moderate size church active in soul winning and discipleship. My preference does not have any bearing whether or not the multi-location mega church is the way to go.
“Does the book offer any other models of multi-site churches without using television cameras and projection screens? What I mean is, do they have any churches that may have multiple sites and multiple pastors with some autonomy, but they consider themselves to be one unified body?”
Andrew – there are systems of polity that look like multi-site with multi-pastors with some autonomy. They are called Roman Catholic, Methodist or an assortment of others (take your pick). Whatever Southern Baptist “church” deigns to do the same should turn in their messenger credentials – they are most notably not Baptist.
Rob
Chris,
While we can hope that those who propose these things do have the best of intentions, what are exactly the intentions that you imagine are the “best” as proposed? Pragmatic formulations and business models are not exactly what I could imagine are anywhere close to “good intentions.” Maybe if one was a CEO looking at a balance sheet – maybe. But here we are talking about the church of God! How is this considered anywhere scriptural or best – and how can anyone say that they have the “best of intentions” of doing so unless the “intent” is to serve self instead of God?
Rob
Andrew et al,
In answer to your query in #5 above about the scriptures used:
p. 8 Matthew 13:1-9 (I can’t understand their application of the sower, which seems to contradict Jesus’ plain teaching.)
p. 15 Acts 2:47 is used to imply we choose tools so God can add to numbers.
p. 18 1 Samuel 16:7 and Proverbs 4:23 is used to imply permission to to whatever we want to do.
p. 25 Luke 14:28 makes it sound like Jesus’ teaching on counting costs is specific to Multi-site churches (MSC).
p. 41 Proverbs 30:8-9 is made to sound like stepping out on faith gives validity to MSC model. Anybody want to compare to WofF movement?
P. 50 Proverbs 15:22; 16:13 are used to encourage getting good group of leaders
p. 52 Proverbs 22:1 and Ecclesiastes 7:1 is used to try to establish church identity as some sort of recognizable brand name
also p. 52 1 Tim 3:15 makes the valid case for foundational beliefs
p. 53 John 17:20-23; 1 Thessalonians 4:1 also make valid case for visionary beliefs
p. 90 Exodus 18:25 is used to establish hierarchy of leadership
p. 91 Joshua 3:7 is used to make case to elevate senior pastors above congregation (place sp in heart of people)
p. 181 Acts 13:1-3 is used to say that the church at Antioch created first MSC by sending out Paul and Barnabas.
Has anyone read Gregg Allison’s article on multi-site churches?
http://www.9marks.org/CC/article/0,,PTID314526%7CCHID598014%7CCIID2474258,00.html
Whether you agree with him or not, I believe he presents a much better argument for multi-site churches than others. He also dismisses some of the weaker arguments proponents have used because they don’t accurately portray the Bible’s teaching. I haven’t read it all the way through yet, but I think we need to center our discussion on what the Bible says.
Here’s an example that I believe relates to this discussion: Many churches have multiple services on Sunday or even a Saturday night service. Is that okay because they’re not simultaneous and they take place in the same building, or is it wrong because not everyone can really fellowship and gather as a church like the multi-site churches? Are we applying a double standard here?
Brother Rob,
To elaborate…. There are men that truly believe “they” can have more of an impact by improving upon or accelerating results…. Or simply think that their way is novel and effective. So, I am not disagreeing with you….that type of thinking is assumptive and is “self motivated”. When I say the “best of intentions” ,..I mean that there are Godly men that are “untrained” (whether they have been to a seminary or not) that may work down a pragmatic path to get some desired results….and yet still love God with all they know. Unfortunately these methods are sometimes learned in a seminary or at some conference they attend during the year.
We should intentionally disciple men to lead the church; and a lot of them. That is obviously one of my main goals in the churches that we plant. If I tried to convince our men that we should set up multiple campuses and pipe our worship services into those locations…. I would no doubt see an alter call at the end of the service attended by the leadership in our church (They would be extremely puzzled at such a statement from me and would be demanding answers). Taran may get a little miffed at me…but I will stick to discipleship and watching God call a plurality of men to lead His church locally as He commands (just kidding around a little Taran).
I hope that helps to explain more about what I meant in the “best of intentions” statement.
Blessings,
Chris
Am I the only one who thinks that the multi-site model is the next logical product of the mega-church mentality? Is there that much difference between “I will tear down my church and build a bigger one” and the multi-site model? After all, the “pastor” of a 3000 member church is hardly less of a pastor than one that is beamed in over the airwaves.
Bill, I think it is and I think I can support it.
I really don’t see a whole lot of difference between having multiple sites and having multiple services at the same site. If you disagree with one you have to disagree with the other. I think there are many reasons there is so much criticism leveled at multi-site churches, but we need to evaluate the appropriateness of those criticisms.
There seems to be a growing number of supporters in “Baptistdom” for multi-site churches. Aside from Ed Stetzer and Scott McConnell, we have Rick Warren, John Piper, Gregg Allison, and others. You can’t just say that a pastor should turn in his “Baptist Card” if he thinks the multi-site model is a valid expression of a community of believers. I’ve heard people say the same thing about elder-led congregations. That only writes off the issue.
A multi-site church is not a right/wrong choice any more than a multiple-services church is. I think we’ve either experienced or been fed a poor example from non-Baptist multi-sites that have tainted our view from the start.
Brother Andrew,
I think you bring up an excellent perspective. In our current age of large concert type venues, technology tends to perpetuate such a view and it is enticing to gravitate toward a passionate expositor or a gifted deliverer of the Word of God. There is nothing wrong with these men that are passionate to deliver and preach the word, but in the excitement of their notoriety, the normal function of the church can be eclipsed.
In other words, it is just a easy to get caught up in attending a large 1000, 2000 or 3000 assembly and miss the purpose of the church whether it is multi-site or not. Real ministry is truly more intimate and is nurtured on edification (which includes person to person interaction through the gifts of the Spirit; supernaturally),…which is not the same as coming to venue to soak up a message and return home either feeling fed, or angry at the deliverer of the message. So you are right,… we must be intentional to return to the understanding of edification in the churches through relationships caste by the Holy Spirit for the building up of the Saints,…not from the perspective of a fan (sitting in the audience), but from the perspective of a member, ready and able to be a member one of another.
Blessings,
Chris
Andrew: I agree that it would be unwise to hit mega churches and/or multi site churches with a universal stamp of disapproval, but it is very difficult for me to get around the idea that we are dealing with cults of personality. We, especially in the SBC, practically canonize megachurch pastors. Bigger is better. Bigger means more successful. We want them to lead us. We want them to tell us their secrets. We may not have a pope, but we (not always with their approval) have developed many lesser popes.
I am still mulling over what I think about this issue. However, I agree with Andrew that it is complex, and we need to be careful to correctly divide the biblical issues involved before coming to conclusions. There are many different shades and colors of “multi-site,” some, no doubt, more worrisome than others. And, there are many ways in which many of us have “done church” for a long time that are just as biblically suspect as some of the “multi-site” models.
The entire 9 Marks journal, which can currently be accessed at: http://www.9marks.org/ is full of a variety of information on multi-site, both pro and con, which is worthy of reflection.
I will probably come back to write on this some more once I have had sufficient time to digest it all.
There are so many varieties of multi-site, it is hard to actually pin down one specific form. When I did the research for Franchising McChurch (review on 9marks), what I found more compelling was the means by which principles of McDonaldization (an emphasis on efficiency, calculability, predictability which leads to control) have infiltrated so many churches of all sizes. In reality, the multi-site movement is a coming of age of our modern practices and I fear that in some forms, it will lead to further disenfranchisement of young adults in the future.
Furthermore, the way in which some of the megas are aggressively pursuing struggling churches and assuming their resources (including meetings that look suspiciously like hostile take-overs) is absolutely egregious. I pray that we will wise-up quickly to the short-lived nature of this movement and continue to plant biblical churches.
Dr. Yeats,
Very good insights… and probably the same lack of education have lessened the understanding and philosophy of the Cooperative Program. The yearning for pragmatic presentation and control misunderstands the Pauline philosophy of mission.
Blessings,
Chris