Multi-Site Churches?

[Marcus417]

I am wanting to get the board's opinion on multi-site churches? I think a church should plant independnet churches locally versus creating another campus that is still connected to the church. Redeemer in NYC has multiple sites and some other Megachurches have sites that even cross state lines.

Any thoughts?

 

[Gforce9]

Marcus,
There have been several discussions about that topic here and a search may prove to find a few of those. As far as the multi-site, as I have heard how they operate, lack in some very serious ecclesiastical areas.
1- A distant pastor cannot know and minister well to his congregation.
2- If the minister "visits" via TV screen, he is entirely disconnected from the congregation.
3- How is the session (and the offices/officers overall) supposed to minister, rule, discipline, and administer mercy from 20, 40, or 200 miles away?

 

[Andres]

I think a church should plant independnet churches locally

As a good Presbyterian, surely you don't really mean independent churches.

 

[Ephrata]

It doesn't seem advisable. Not to be too flippant, but the Lord said to Peter "feed my lambs", "take care of my sheep" and "feed my sheep", not "let my sheep watch you, miles away, on a video screen". Paul travelled to various churches he planted and advised them on doctrinal and pastoral questions, but he left the primary teaching and care to qualified workers.

 

[KMK]

I am against multiple churches all preaching the exact same message with the exact same powerpoint which was written by the megapastor who doesn't even know the people to whom he is preaching.

 

[SRoper]

These used to be called dioceses or bishoprics.

 

[reaganmarsh]

These used to be called dioceses or bishoprics.

Yes indeed. I have a hard time not seeing multi-sites as little episcopacies. It's one thing when a church is still its mission stage (ie, it's not yet particularized/self-sustaining). That situation, however, is intentionally a temporary period. It's entirely another matter to purpose and create such an arrangement.

 

[Edward]

It's franchising, pure and simple. McDonalds sells more hamburgers than the local mom & pop store. The local hamburgers are probably going to taste better at the local restaurant, but getting a franchise means that folks are going to get a known, if bland, product backed by marketing. And let's face it - McDonalds is probably going to have a better playground for the kids. So if you have a struggling location, sign up for a franchise, invest in the new signage, bring the facilities up to standards, and watch the parking lot fill.

If someone views Jesus as a product to be sold, it really makes a lot of sense.

On the other hand, I consider the standard attack on multisites (the pastor can't give pastoral care to everyone) a red herring. Any multisite I've heard of has local pastoral staff to provide care to the congregants.

 

[Jack K]

Marcus,
There have been several discussions about that topic here and a search may prove to find a few of those. As far as the multi-site, as I have heard how they operate, lack in some very serious ecclesiastical areas.
1- A distant pastor cannot know and minister well to his congregation.
2- If the minister "visits" via TV screen, he is entirely disconnected from the congregation.
3- How is the session (and the offices/officers overall) supposed to minister, rule, discipline, and administer mercy from 20, 40, or 200 miles away?

It depends on the model. The majority of churches that are technically "multi-site" do not fit any of the above characteristics. In fact, the particular church cited as an example in the opening post does not fit any of the points in the description put forth in post #2. So it's important to state clearly what sort of multi-site characteristics we're talking about.

I grew up in a multi-site congregation. There were two communities, 12 miles apart, barely large enough to support a single pastor between them. The church had morning services at one site and afternoon services at the other. Some people attended both services. Elders come from both. They knew the people and practiced personal shepherding. The pastor preached and did visitation in both communities. No sermons were beamed anywhere on TV.

Then when I was in college, my college-town church held morning services at a building "in town" and evening services in the student union, so that church was multi-site too. Again, there were practical advantages and shepherding in no way suffered. In fact, pastoral care was surely enhanced by the two-site approach that got the pastor and elders onto campus.

So, the celebrity-pastor-with-a-beamed-in-sermon concept has some implications that concern me, but still we must not assume that there's no on-site elder leadership at all at such churches... and we certainly must not assume that most multi-site churches fit that model.

 

[Gforce9]

On the other hand, I consider the standard attack on multisites (the pastor can't give pastoral care to everyone) a red herring. Any multisite I've heard of has local pastoral staff to provide care to the congregants.

Marcus,
There have been several discussions about that topic here and a search may prove to find a few of those. As far as the multi-site, as I have heard how they operate, lack in some very serious ecclesiastical areas.
1- A distant pastor cannot know and minister well to his congregation.
2- If the minister "visits" via TV screen, he is entirely disconnected from the congregation.
3- How is the session (and the offices/officers overall) supposed to minister, rule, discipline, and administer mercy from 20, 40, or 200 miles away?

It depends on the model. The majority of churches that are technically "multi-site" do not fit any of the above characteristics. In fact, the particular church cited as an example in the opening post does not fit any of the points in the description put forth in post #2. So it's important to state clearly what sort of multi-site characteristics we're talking about.

I grew up in a multi-site congregation. There were two communities, 12 miles apart, barely large enough to support a single pastor between them. The church had morning services at one site and afternoon services at the other. Some people attended both services. Elders come from both. They knew the people and practiced personal shepherding. The pastor preached and did visitation in both communities. No sermons were beamed anywhere on TV.

Then when I was in college, my college-town church held morning services at a building "in town" and evening services in the student union, so that church was multi-site too. Again, there were practical advantages and shepherding in no way suffered. In fact, pastoral care was surely enhanced by the two-site approach that got the pastor and elders onto campus.

So, the celebrity-pastor-with-a-beamed-in-sermon concept has some implications that concern me, but still we must not assume that there's no on-site elder leadership at all at such churches... and we certainly must not assume that most multi-site churches fit that model.

Fair enough. I havent seen this done in a Reformed setting, so you may be right. It would seem, though, this would be (at least) an less-than-ideal circumstance for Presbyterians.
I still wonder of the wisdom (and right-ness) of piping in a pastor via video feed when there is a local minister in those places that do so.......

 

[iainduguid]

On the other hand, I consider the standard attack on multisites (the pastor can't give pastoral care to everyone) a red herring. Any multisite I've heard of has local pastoral staff to provide care to the congregants.

Marcus,
There have been several discussions about that topic here and a search may prove to find a few of those. As far as the multi-site, as I have heard how they operate, lack in some very serious ecclesiastical areas.
1- A distant pastor cannot know and minister well to his congregation.
2- If the minister "visits" via TV screen, he is entirely disconnected from the congregation.
3- How is the session (and the offices/officers overall) supposed to minister, rule, discipline, and administer mercy from 20, 40, or 200 miles away?

It depends on the model. The majority of churches that are technically "multi-site" do not fit any of the above characteristics. In fact, the particular church cited as an example in the opening post does not fit any of the points in the description put forth in post #2. So it's important to state clearly what sort of multi-site characteristics we're talking about.

I grew up in a multi-site congregation. There were two communities, 12 miles apart, barely large enough to support a single pastor between them. The church had morning services at one site and afternoon services at the other. Some people attended both services. Elders come from both. They knew the people and practiced personal shepherding. The pastor preached and did visitation in both communities. No sermons were beamed anywhere on TV.

Then when I was in college, my college-town church held morning services at a building "in town" and evening services in the student union, so that church was multi-site too. Again, there were practical advantages and shepherding in no way suffered. In fact, pastoral care was surely enhanced by the two-site approach that got the pastor and elders onto campus.

So, the celebrity-pastor-with-a-beamed-in-sermon concept has some implications that concern me, but still we must not assume that there's no on-site elder leadership at all at such churches... and we certainly must not assume that most multi-site churches fit that model.

Fair enough. I havent seen this done in a Reformed setting, so you may be right. It would seem, though, this would be (at least) an less-than-ideal circumstance for Presbyterians.
I still wonder of the wisdom (and right-ness) of piping in a pastor via video feed when there is a local minister in those places that do so.......

Jack's point is that "multi-site" churches may be so for a variety of reasons and do not necessarily all commit the errors of some.

For example, the church my father attends in Scotland meets in Dunkeld Cathedral in the summer and in "Little Dunkeld" across the river in the winter. There are important sociological factors as well as practical reasons for those distinct locations. In addition, they also hold regular services at a tiny country church four miles out of town, which are largely attended by elderly people, for whom they are more accessible. The same minister preaches the same sermon as at the main church "campus". In this case, the result is significantly better pastoral care for the flock than would be the case if there was just a single location. But there is zero likelihood of the country church ever functioning again as a separate congregation, as it was in the 1800 and 1900's. (Interestingly, its original foundation had much to do with ethnic segregation, keeping uncouth highlanders at a safe distance out of town). Similarly, in country areas with small populations we may need to see a return to "circuit riding" patterns to maintain viable ministries. It's not ideal, but sometimes you have to do the best you can.

Of course, this is very different from "franchising" a big name preacher - but that's the point: not all multi-site churches are necessarily the same

 

[Scottish Lass]

I grew up in a multi-site congregation. There were two communities, 12 miles apart, barely large enough to support a single pastor between them. The church had morning services at one site and afternoon services at the other. Some people attended both services. Elders come from both. They knew the people and practiced personal shepherding. The pastor preached and did visitation in both communities. No sermons were beamed anywhere on TV.

Isn't there a difference between yoked congregations (which is what you describe) and multi-site?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I think a church should plant independnet churches locally

As a good Presbyterian, surely you don't really mean independent churches.

Oh come on. why not? Isn't RC Sproul an independent Presbyterian?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Well that is a problem with Dr. Sproul's ecclesiology, not Presbyterianism.

 

[Hamalas]

Well that is a problem with Dr. Sproul's ecclesiology, not Presbyterianism.

Plus he is actually an ordained PCA Pastor who is ministering out of bounds in and independent church (the same as Terry Johnson).

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Well the situations at IPC and St. Andrew's are a bit different.

 

[Kevin]

As Jack mentioned above there are many versions of "multi-site". And Presbyterians have been doing it for hundreds of years.

I know many ministers her that pastor multiple congregations, in one case five!

It is my view that it may be practical way to reach larger areas, given limited funds and lack of ministers.

 

[Edward]

It would seem, though, this would be (at least) an less-than-ideal circumstance for Presbyterians.

Having pastoral care provided by a different man than the one in the pulpit is a function of size and not geography. It's going to be a very rare man that's going to be highly gifted in all areas of ministry. A larger congregation is going to be able to fully use the talents of both a wonderful pastor whose pulpit delivery is not exemplary and a magnificent teacher who may not have the most outgoing personality, while either man might have difficulties in a pastorate where they served alone (although having a strong session could help in the latter situation.)

And let's make sure that we all mean the same thing about multi-site. I generally think of a church where the sermon is beamed to different neighborhoods or even different cities. But what about different rooms on the same property. I was a member of a large, well respected PCA congregation, on the conservative side of the scale, where due to size restraints, over a hundred folks set in overflow seating in the fellowship hall. A worship leader would direct congregational singing in that room (although the full service was beamed in). Multisite or not?

As noted above, I oppose multisite, as generally understood, for other reasons.

 

[nick]

The RPCNA recently planted a church in Texas that had a good number of like-minded families. As they were transitioning from a fellowship (similar to a Bible study) to a true church plant with pastor, they beamed in services from another church and had different pastors stop by to preach from time to time. This had nothing to do with the franchise version Edward mentions (which I am against and see more often than what I describe), but it is amazing how we can use technology in a way that can get a group of people from point a to point b.

*there are people on the board from this plant that could better describe how this worked, but this is what I've gathered from conversations with them*

 

[Edward]

This had nothing to do with the franchise version Edward mentions

Several folks, including you, have identified situations which are exceptions to my broad brush conclusion. Thanks for broadening the discussion.

 

[nick]

This had nothing to do with the franchise version Edward mentions

Several folks, including you, have identified situations which are exceptions to my broad brush conclusion. Thanks for broadening the discussion.

I actually found your description to hit the nail on the head in most cases and plan on using it in the future.