The following post is something I feel strongly about and have considered blogging about before. I'm now discussing this topic as a result of a current discussion over at MMI. (thread)
I'm a church planter and I love church planting, church planters and all-things church planting. I'm also a HUGE fan of multi-site churches.
I've planted a church from $0 and 2 people (my wife and I). I'm also friends with some people at multi-site churches so I feel I can bring a clear perspective from actually 'doing it' and seeing it up close from both sides.
After having planted (and still planting) I have to disagree with someone arguing that planting from scratch is more effective than going multi-site.
Argument 1: A new plant raises up leaders better than a multi-site plant.
The idea that somehow immature or poor leaders will magically become the strong leaders you need in a brand-new plant is an ill-informed pipe dream. The truth is that even in current church planting most leaders are not indigenous... they are hired guns. Truth is that giving someone a title does NOTHING to grow them. In fact, good leaders reproduce themselves. This is why at growing churches you will see people change positions regularly. Most good leaders work themselves out of a job.
Exibit A: Fellowship Church
They are a VERY current example of what I'm saying. If you read blogs of their staff (some are below) you will find that they have done a MAJOR overhaul of their staff. Their CTO and COO (Terry Storch) is now a Campus Pastor. They have hired new staff FROM WITHIN THE CHURCH and they've gotten people to change where they attend. People LOVE that place.
Exibit AZ: LifeChurch
They've got 150 people MOVING ACROSS THE COUNTRY to Pheonix, AZ to help start the new campuses. I'm sorry but I don't know how much more commitment and depth you can get out of someone. With 100 people or more seeking God to see if he'd like them to give up their lives and become missionary families...
So multi-site haters I'm sorry but the leadership argument doesn't hold water. Planters are doing a great job growing and adding leaders but we can't say that we are "better" then our multi-site friends. In fact in many ways (as I'll discuss in future posts) they are in far better position to reach the lost than new church plants.
Fellowship Bloggers: (Thanks to TerryStorch.com)
7 comments:
Great post. I'm not sure how the question became church plant vs. multi-site or how one became more or less holy than the other. Both need exceptionally strong leaders with different gifts. We become all things to all men so that by all means we might reach some.
Thanks Geoff. Good insight.
Mark thanks for reading... and for your insight as well. You both (geoff) are on the front lines and know a ton from the multi-angle.
Brad,
To answer your question...I don't know of any yet (help out there?) but I think it may be a reality in years to come (planned or not planned).
As founding Pastors change or simply get too old to communicate [Ed, Andy, Craig Groeschel at Life, etc.) we may see some pushback or a new wave that brings the movement full-circle to break down congregations. In each case though I see extremely LOYAL Campus Pastors (see Geoff and Mark as examples) so they'll be great at sensing what will be wise for each church to do. As far as I know these aren't plans but I'm not THAT privilidged and fi I was I'm sure I wouldn't post it on a blog.
The thing is I don't suspect these guys will mind if/when that day comes. North Point is doing more of a mix with planting teams of guys who agree in philosophy and who can use their messages and tools but yet remain their own governed church.
Good question Brad. Any other insight from guys in multi-land?
Really good post Tally. I don't know why there has been debate either way as well. We are all reaching people for the Kingdom. I had originally planned on planting an automonous church before we started our campuses. I then saw first hand how quickly we could reach people by being a campus of Seacoast. It does allow you to jump some hurdles that other church plants go through (instant name recognition, stability...). I think that we should do whatever is the most effictive way of winning people for Christ. I don't think it will matter how they got there in the end.
It takes a true leader to see more than one option and to be able to agree with both while seeing the pros and cons of both. I was with Mark when we opened our Plano campus and like him I wasn't 100% convinced, but now I see the results and it's effectiveness.
Also i see other churches "going big" like Lakewood and their purchase of the MCI center. Not that there is any comparison of Fellowship and lakewood other than size, but I honestly believe that in 5 years FC will impact more lives and more people will enter our doors because we grew out and not up.
Tally, let me know when you are ready to become a RSC campus. :)
The church planter in me still struggles with it for some reason. I don't know why but it does. I know how effective it is as I have been to Buckhead many times.
It might be the fact that North Point is starting a satelite about 6 miles from me that makes me not a big fan. :)
All joking aside, I am looking forward to seeing how the stand the test of time. Will the people eventually want a teaching pastor who is the lead pastor as well?
I look forward to seeing it develop.
Brad, you asked about churches that spun campuses into church plants. New Life in Hawaii has actually been doing that for several years. I'm not sure how many they have spun off (several), but they see multi-site as an effective church planting strategy.
At Seacoast we plant churches and start campuses. Its not impossible that campuses might spin off, but right now that's not the plan.
Hope this helps.
Tally,
I was always suspicious of the multi-site video venue deal. Then a couple of weeks ago I spent some time with the staff a Buckhead, and my doubts were erased.
Post a Comment