Multi-Site churches are here to stay, are they good for the church, the community, and for Christianity?

We live in a culture and a time when “church” as we know it is changing.  And we know that nobody really likes change! Why?  Because change forces us to look at what we have been doing and admitting that what we have been doing really has not worked very well.  It is admitting that we have failed in some aspect.  As the church tries to find its way in this ever fluid post-modern society, it is confronted with new models, philosophies, and leadership styles invading its four walls.  How the church responds to this “new” fluid culture will determine whether or not it (the local church) will survive.   The problem is not so much whether the truth of God’s word changes, but whether or not the “way” we do church is working.  Because we live in a consumer-driven society, we approach church with this same type of attitude; an attitude of consumerism.  Essentially people approach church with the question, “what does this church offer me, and is it a good product?”  This might seem like a crude way of thinking to most of us, but if we are honest with ourselves we will acknowledge that we do do this.  Take for an example, when we approach a new church we already have come with a preconceived check list, and if that particular church gets a good enough score, than we will consider attending and buying (support through tithes and offerings) its product.  We look for things such as, does it have a good childrens ministry, what type of music does it play, what is the form of church government, how many youth are attending vs. how many old people attend.  Do they have lots of activities and programs for us, do they talk about money all the time, or how do they take an offering?  This is a consumer driven list.  What is in it for me.

Because of this prevailing view, I believe churches have not sought to fight against this cultural norm, but rather to embrace it, and try their best to change the culture from the inside out.   In A Multi-site Church Road Trip, the authors Surratt, Ligon, and Bird travel around the country investigating this new method found within many churches, namely, muti-site churches.  For those who are not familiar with this new method of doing church, it is a method in which churches are opening different sites or campuses with different venues (different styles of music, ambiance, creative arts, etc.)  in various parts of the city, in order to reach more people groups who may or may not have attended the same church.  By doing this, these ministries are able to reach more people without remaining in a localized area.  In other words, the church takes “church” to where the people are, not relying upon the people to come where they are.

A Muti-Site Church Road Trip is a very easy read and it is was very hard for me to put down.  I found it very interesting, learning about the various ways of doing multi-site or venue church.  If you are looking for a single method of doing multi-site church, than this book will leave you disappointed.  This book is more about a conversation concerning the subject, offering various methods and ideas, and not supplying you with a cookie cutter approach to doing ministry; no one does it exactly the same.  Although the common thread of all muti-site venue ministries, they all have mutiple sites and venues.  Yet, the styles of doing things, what each considers to be the essential aspects of their ministry, their leadership styles, what they are looking for, or how they do multi-site “churching” will vary.   Whatever your views on this new movement are, what you will come away with, is an appreciation for what they are accomplishing and what God is doing through them.

The only criticism that I have from the book is a statement that was made in chapter 3, Getting Multi-Site Into Your Genes, where the one of the  authors (Greg Ligon) quotes Jim Collins book, Good to Great, in which Collins argues that the DNA of a ministry takes time for the participates in the ministry to grasp, but when they congregants finally are able to grasp and identify the DNA, the ministry will essentially end up like some of the other successful business in our country.  Collins uses Starbucks as one example of a successful organization in which the DNA of that company took 13 years to be embraced before Starbucks was able to open up multiple sites and become the profitable empire it is today.  My major criticism for using a secular company such as Starbucks to promote the idea that Multi-site churches will be successful once the DNA is absorbed into the ministry, is that it ignores all the bad aspects or results of that company (granted the author might say that this was not what Collins was trying to say, although the average reader would more than likely take that point from it).  The major positive promoted in this book is that multi-site venue ministries are able to bring the church to more people in different areas where the gospel is not being effective, and really unify people around a singular vision (DNA of a ministry) in order to keep all sites feeling unified and a part of one another.  The problem with this is, when organizations grow larger, they begin to look at the bottom line, rather than the customer(or in this case the average attender of the service).  Since the “door” has been opened with the example of Starbucks, I will use that as my primary example.  Starbucks 10+ years ago was dramatically different than it is today.  The reason Starbucks was such a success, was that Starbucks was able to take a product that was essentially the same, while providing a different atmosphere and ambiance for different areas and cultures around the country and world. The music being played, the coffee of the day, the set-up of the store, the pictures hung on the wall, and other details might be different in one part of the country than another.  The problem is that Starbucks has changed dramatically from 10+ years ago.  The coffee is not as good, the area of gathering is smaller, the store is more commercialized by various Starbucks product, and the help is less knowledgeable.   My fear is that as multi-site venue ministries grow, they will succumb to the same results as Starbucks, in which more and more people are leaving Starbucks and returning to privately owned and operated coffee houses that seem less commercialized and more personal.   So my major problems of the multi-site venue model is two-fold from reading this book:

  1. The “lead” pastor becomes more of a superstar figure within the movement, in which people are drawn to the superstar pastor figure, rather than the community in which they are suppose to be worshiping with.  In other words, people begin to see the pastor as a superstar, in which they hope one day they will have a face to face meeting with.  The pastor becomes more and more seclusive (as mention in the book) and not really connecting well with the churches (except through a leadership team who are over various campuses or sites), and when He does connect with the churches, the people treat him like a rock-star, rather than the servant of the people.
  2. The church becomes a package that is marketable to a particular area. Although the essentials never change, the rest of the church is free to be whatever they need to be for that community.  It just seems to commercialize.  A person walks into the church, the uniforms maybe different, the music being played through the speakers might be different, the straws and the ketchup might be in a different place, and the ambiance might be different, but at the end of the day, no matter where you go, the product (the essential parts of the ministry) remain the same.  It is like a happy meal, no matter where you go, the happy meal remains the same; looks the same, taste the same, the toy inside is the same.  My fear is that we commercialize church so much, that it becomes a package of a particular ministry that is taken to different parts of the country, and yet, although some things might be different, you know that the end product that you are purchasing will be the same.

I know that this may seem a bit harsh, but it is my fear.  If we are attracting people in order to make them feel comfortable in a particular service, or provide them with a service that they feel is satisfactory, are we really doing church or our we just providing a consumer driven society with a particular service that they feel good about?  Are we commercializing Christ so much that he becomes all things to all men, no matter what they are given?  I seem to remember that Bill Hybels asking for forgiveness last year at a conference I attended for leading the Christian church down a road (through the mega-church movement) that was not beneficial, but rather, very detrimental to Christianity.   I wonder if we should really start adopting or fully embracing a particular “new normal” just because it is presented as the “new normal.”  Not saying that we should do away with it, but maybe consider is this what church is suppose to be?  Just my thoughts.

Once again, a great read, not sure if I accept all of the premises of this “new normal,” but really enjoyed learning about new ministries and seeing what God is doing through them.

PC