Podcast Episode #105
SUBSCRIBE: iTunes • RSS • Stitcher • TuneIn Radio • Google Play
Many times when we think about multisite, we think big churches. But now smaller churches are going multisite too. In fact, multisite is becoming almost as common as multiservice. So today on the podcast, we address this growing trend and explain why all churches—both big and small—should be considering multisite as an option.
Some highlights from today’s episode include:
- Church trends are moving away from the large (1,000+) worship gathering.
- There are a number of dying churches who are willing to be acquired and become another site of an existing church.
- By retrofitting existing space instead of buying and building, the cost to go multisite can be significantly reduced.
- One major key to successful multisite expansion is to have the right leadership in place.
- There is simply not a good argument to support claims that “we don’t need another church in town.”
- Some of the greatest resistance to going multisite is often not from the community but from within the church itself.
The 6 reasons churches need to consider multisite are:
- Millennials moving away from large worship gatherings
- Governmental restrictions on building and land
- Difficulty in finding large plots of land
- Acquisition of churches
- Can take advantage of existing facilities (can be cheaper)
- Reach people main campus would never reach
Episode Sponsor
Vanderbloemen Search Group is the premier pastor search firm dedicated to helping churches and ministries build great teams. They’ve helped hundreds of churches just like yours find their church staff and are uniquely geared to help you discern who God is calling to lead your church. Find out more about Vanderbloemen Search Group by visiting WeStaffTheChurch.com.
Feedback
If you have a question you would like answered on the show, fill out the form on the podcast page here at ThomRainer.com. If we use your question, you’ll receive a free copy of Autopsy of a Deceased Church.
Why not just plant another church and let it be autonomous in a year or two? Multi site smacks of desire for control, pride and a lack of trust God can raise up leaders for another autonomous church. Some will say the multi sites run themselves…yea till they do something the home campus doesn’t approve or try selecting their own pastor or dare to call someone to preach into their lives that actually ministers to them through the week. Then we will see the control/pride sin rise to the top.
The reason many are not ‘just planting an autonomous church’ is because of the fairly high failure rate of church plants. Church plants are dependent on the personality of the church planter. If the planter leaves the plant often fails. Multi-site allows a church to reproduce itself. We started a second campus because we believed the way our church operates is pretty good and we wanted to reproduce another good campus. With so many churches in decline we simply did not want to head down that road. For those who say multi-site is about building one’s own kingdom, they have obviously not been a part of multi-site. Having driven to two campuses on Sunday mornings preaching a total of 3 times for 3 1/2 years was NOT about building my kingdom. We have called a campus pastor who preaches at our second campus and things are great. Thank you Dr. Rainer for an insightful piece.
Tom, I do not know you nor the church so I can not (at all) speak to the particulars of your situation.
I would say that I cannot grasp that you all could not train a team and shepherd a church to maturity in a few years and allow it to be autonomous? It appears just from your reply alone, that there is some fear of letting the church be the church. And even with the good intentions that I see through your reply I still see a sense of control and maybe, just maybe pride (read your reply). You however seem to have released more than is common with multi sites. You have a campus pastor who is the regular preacher. In my area this is unheard of. All multi sites here give a satlitted preaching.
I have not had hands on experience with multi site no. I have had hands on with church plants out of our church and it takes totally releasing control to God. And they are successes and on a biblical model. Just because I haven’t had hands on with multi sites does not mean what I pointed out is false.
Seems the stats are in…church plants in 2010 have s 80% survival rate. Seems the myth they fail is just that…we had one of these successes..http://www.namb.net/Ezellnambblog.aspx?id=12884955267&blogid=8590116761
I don’t believe that a multi-site church can last. I have only heard of two in which the pastor resigned (one in a comment on this site a few days ago) and both folded and left the remaining sites with the option of folding, becoming autonomous or joining in another local congregation. To me they seem to be a novelty, a replacement for the mega church. Are there any instances of lasting ability beyond the present or founding pastor?
that has nothing to do with the pastor or the multisite model. that has everything to do with what is most convenient to the church during such a significant moment in the life of that particular church. what you mention, also happens in churches with just one campus…..
Check out Highview Baptist in Louisville, KY. The pastor that started the multi-site move to where they were ‘one church in seven locations’ when he left a few years ago to be president of a mission board. The new pastor has been called and the church is still growing and functioning in the multi-site format.
Thanks Tom. We have a multisite church in our area. But I have had no experience with this model, therefore I have questions that I ask to gain insight in concerns that I see. These do not mean that I am antagonistic; just trying to gain a better understanding. I am always concerned that movements produce longevity and not become a novelty. I remember Highview Baptist from when I was in seminary in the late 80’s and very early 90’s. I had only heard of two going through this transaction period and it had me wondering because of the newness of this model of church. I can only hope that Highview Baptist becomes the norm in these transition periods.
I’m sorry, but I missed a theologically-compelling argument for a multi-site church in this article. Pragmatism galore, but no Scripture. Not saying the argument can’t be made, I just didn’t see it here. Thanks.
I agree Andrew. Just because it is trending does not make it right.
One reason not to do multisite:
1. Biblical ecclesiology.
to how many “campuses” (so to speak) you think the Apostle Paul may have preached to at the same time by writing just one letter and then writing “After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in…”?? …. to me, that sounds very similar to one same message going to different campuses via internet…. isn’t that in the Bible?
So are you equating Paul’s inspired letters, i.e. Scripture, to a weekly sermon? Because that’s what it sounds like. We are still passing around those letters (hopefully), but I wouldn’t consider the church I pastor to be a “satellite campus” of a local church started by Paul in Philippi in the first century.
Paul also orders Titus to appoint elders, who have a VERY specific role in the local church, which is highlighted by teaching the Word, prayer, and shepherding a flock. How does a pastor/elder shepherd the flock that is “among” him if the flock is not among him (because it is in another location)?
And no, the internet is not in the Bible. 🙂
Dr. Rainer,
I’m intrigued by the ideas presented here, but I also wonder about the logistics. Could you at some point speak to the question of ecclesiology and perhaps some of the possible downsides to multisite (unless I missed this from another post)? Could there not be some added issues of pastoral care, detachment from the senior pastor, or excessive control of the pastor in this scenario? Thanks.
Appreciate the comments. As I write this, I am sitting in a room with 120 others at a conference on multisite development. The lead speaker this morning was from a very large and well known church in California and made the following statement: 60-80% of church plants fail, however 60-80% of multisite campuses succeed. Our strategy that has worked well thus far is revitalizing churches that were close to closing their doors and chose to turn themselves over to us. The first campus is just over three years old and now runs over 500/week. Our newest campus is just a year old and now runs about 180 in service each week. Each has a campus pastor that brings the Word every Sunday vs. a video presentation of our senior pastor. This is working well for us but we are still learning as we go.
We were part of a local church that actually was “adopted” by another church, in another site, and in essence, became a multisite outpost. The local leaders would be under the main pastor at the home site. They now essentially have an “archbishop” and bishops under him, but that model can’t be squared with NT ecclesiology.
This is the reason multisites should be avoided – they simply aren’t biblical. Whether they “work” or not, is entirely irrelevant. It can far too easily become empire building on the part of a man. Incendiary title aside, this article from Thabiti Anyabwile makes some good points. https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/thabitianyabwile/2011/09/27/multi-site-churches-are-from-the-devil/
“Whether they work or not is irrelevant”?
That’s an interesting statement.
Many things we do today in the church are done simply because they work. Offering baskets, altar calls, translating scripture into the English language, service times, service length, wearing blue jeans instead of togas, etc.
Maybe a better question to ask instead of “is this biblical?” As in historical, would be “is this biblical” as in, does it accomplish the mission of the church which is to expand the Kingdom by declaring the good news, winning the lost and making disciples?
Innovation is needed. Billions are waiting for the gospel and a group of people who are living it in their daily lives. However the good news is delivered is a good thing.
Jim,
Best reply yet. Thank you.