Can church be satellited?

Hey, I found this on Steve Mcoy's blog. Scott, what do you think about this situation

Comments
Since Driscoll doesn't allow comments on his blog, I'll post my thoughts here. It seems to me that "multi-site churches" are those that grow in number faster than they can disciple leaders. Unless Mark wants his entire ministry to revolve around him, why not raise up pastors for each additional service and location?

I'm going to make fun of Driscoll's "multi-site church" for the same reason I laugh at TBN. Pre-packaged, one-size-fits all church-in-a-box is Evangelical Globalization. I'll always prefer the mom-and-pop operations where the pastor knows my name.

Posted by: stepchild | 01/31/2006 at 06:35 AM

I concede that a few churches grow so fast (some by God's blessing, others by the cult of personality) that managing it all is very difficult. I will also say that mega churches can be a healthy place to grow up in the faith. But "stepchild" has caught part of my problem with this idea. Where is the leadership trained to preach? Is no one capable? Why not plant other churches, cast vision for starting other churches, with their own unique place in the community and kingdom? The last paragraph in his post is sad. Pastors who can't handle preaching need to start selling insurance (or get their PhD). ;)

Posted by: Joe Thorn | 01/31/2006 at 08:43 AM

I agree with both Stepchild and Joe. We planted a church in metro-Atlanta and the "biggies" were doing the multi-site then. We begged one of them to help us but they were putting all of the $$ in the multi-sites. I realize that the "Personalities-pastors" are much better draws than me. I would rather hear them myself. I just wish they would pour their lives into other like Stepchild was saying.

My one question is what happens (I hope it never does!) if one of those Mega-church pastors dies? What if they are killed in a accident? What happens to the multi-sites? They are so persoanlity driven, I'm afraid they will not continue. I hope I'm wrong.

Posted by: Kevin Bussey | 01/31/2006 at 09:08 AM

I sum up my thinking on video venues as: “Good problem, terrible solution.”
It’s great that some churches are filled and don’t know what to do with all the folks that are coming their way. My contention is that if you have the resources to plant a video congregation, you have the resources to plant a church and it would probably be better for everyone involved if a local community was allowed to be a local community.
Steve and I talked about this before here on his blog and on mine.

Posted by: bob hyatt | 01/31/2006 at 09:23 AM

I don't have much to add to this discussion that hasn't already been said. I agree 100% with Steve and those who believe that video-church, while maybe a permissable option, is not a preferable one. Community is one of the most important aspects of church, for deep accountability, discipleship, encouragement, and godly fellowship. In my experience, that was lost in video churches, but it was also hardly present in the mother church in this case (Fellowship Church, TX). I see nothing wrong with watching videos of sermons as an additional growth tool in your spiritual walk, but not as your ONLY means of growth. For most people, the Christian walk requires deep interaction with other believers in order to flourish. In a gigantic church atmosphere, where you've never met any of the 5000 other people in the building, and they feel like it's not even necessary to have a live person doing the teaching, that personal aspect is lost.

So I do feel like the best option is for our popular pastors to really invest in and train up godly men to share the load and divide the masses in order to give them personal care. On the other hand, when I honestly look at myself and my own church, we're facing a similar problem. We've got 3 services on Sunday mornings, all preached by our head pastor, and we're currently looking into building a new worship center to hold more. If one week someone got up and told me that they'd like everyone on my end of town to start attending a church plant with a different preacher, I'd have a hard time being willing. I'm sure I would go, but I wouldn't like it. It's not that I worship our pastor or his personality, but his preaching really is effective in my life and situation. That's part of why we chose this church in the first place. (Of course, if they asked me to attend another building where our current pastor was just simulcast onto a big screen, I'd be even less likely to go.) So that's just another thought to add to the mix. What's the answer to that?

Posted by: Joni | 01/31/2006 at 09:38 AM

I think the answer (just my opinion here) is that we make it a value from the very beginning of our churches to always be growing, but through developing leaders and church planting to never allow the size of our congregation to reach the point where we are spending massive amounts of money on infrastructure and just keeping the machine working.

If people know this is a value of the community and that someday, they might be asked to take part in a church plant to multiply the impact of this community they love, I think they'll be able to handle that a lot better. Besides... they can always get the "mother ship's" messages on podcast :)

I know this is a touchy issue for many. It's hard to say "I think more smaller churches are better than fewer bigger ones" without those in the big churches feeling that as a condemnation of sorts... but it's not. Just my feelings/opinion as to what's best for the Body as a whole... I recognize that big church "works" on a lot of levels and for many people.

Posted by: bob hyatt | 01/31/2006 at 10:51 AM

Unfortunately (not only for Driscoll, but for others doing this kind of thing) it comes off as more ego-driven than ministry driven, and Driscoll already has to combat enough criticism about being ego-driven.

Posted by: Paul | 01/31/2006 at 11:19 AM

I applaud the intent to reach out to the unchurched. However, implicit in the distribution of the video teacher/preacher is the message that "unless you are as gifted as Mark or fill-in-the-blank, then you are not qualified to teach/preach in this church." Who's interests are served when individuals, who may have God-given teaching gifts, are intimidated by this unnaturally high expectation of giftedness and quietly remain in the pews or committee meetings.

Posted by: Nancy | 01/31/2006 at 11:27 AM

You know, I have not yet met one person who likes the satellite feeds. Not one. I know a number of people who have experienced it, and all have trouble with it. Now, I know that many people do like it. (Heck, a lot of people even like the Left Behind series, but I have not met any of them either - except for Steve).

I would like to hear from some who do like it. Who thinks this is the way to go.

Posted by: Joe Thorn | 01/31/2006 at 11:42 AM

I do think there is a place for video venues--To jump start a church. My brother attends Johnson Ferry (Bryant Wright) in Marrietta, GA.

They started a Video Venue church last year but only to jump-start the church. After a year the "Pastor" began to take over the preaching\teaching duties. They have started several churches. Bryant even said in a "state of the church" address that he would even have a different style worship and separate pastor meeting in the chapel the same time he was preaching if it reached new people.

I like his mentality.

Posted by: Kevin Bussey | 01/31/2006 at 11:52 AM

Agree with everything that's been said thus far. I would only add this simple prayer.

Prayer: Lord, please don't let the Monday Morning Insight guys find this thread. Amen.

Posted by: Stuart | 01/31/2006 at 12:37 PM

Well since few seems to be looking at this idea positively... I think that God raise’s up leaders to lead his people how he wants. We may all have ways we think things should be done, but God has a way that He is going to do it. Be that with a few gifted Pastors or an army of them. It does not seem like satellite churches are buildings with just a video screen in which people roll in watch and leave. Each location has its own worship team and team of pastors, only the teaching is presented via video. I would believe as these churches grow (though it sounds like many think they will not I guess), if God calls righteous pastors in these locations to take over instruction the main church would follow Gods will in making that transition. It seems like that would only save resources for further plants.

It also seems to me that it in some ways follows what Paul, and early leaders would have done. If Paul had the technology to send a video to his church plants instead of a letter would he have? Didn't those churches exist with leaders in place who then in turn received and studied Paul’s letters of instruction with their churches?

Leaders should be raised up if they are called by God, if they are not, and forced into something they are not called by circumstance it seems they can cause more harm by working outside of Gods will. If the preaching is righteous and Gods chosen continue to come, I just don't see how we can be against the attempt because of preconceived notions rather than be for the lifting up of the name of Jesus.

Posted by: Anthony | 01/31/2006 at 12:51 PM

It seems that while Mars Hill is expanding their footprint in Seatle, they are at the same time centralizing. Centralizing the teaching, the finances, personel decisions, and all the rest of the administration and leadership. I am convinced that centralization is not what Jesus had in mind when he told his disciples in Acts 1:8 that they needed to go to the ends of the earth. As a matter of fact when they didn't spread out, God allowed persecution to disperse them. The sad thing in Acts is that the apostles stayed in Jerusalem and other Christ followers spread the gospel. The leaders stayed centralized and Jesus hand picked Saul to lead out in expanding the kingdom.

There is no doubt that Driscoll believes in planting churches, but there is also something very wierd about the whole thing. I personally could not sit at home while most of the people I am pastoring watch me on video. It does not sound very incarnational.

Second, I will be watching very closely to see if video venues will out last thier personality-gifted teachers.

P.S. - It is annoying that Driscoll doesn't allow commenting (interaction) - but it seems that he is very comfortable without interaction from those he wants to communicate.

Posted by: Chris Bell | 01/31/2006 at 12:54 PM

Really good disscussion here, I just wanted to throw out a question and see what everyone thinks.

We live in a highly personality driven culture. I understand and probably agree with the argument that if you have the resources to do the multi-site thing you should just plant another church, but in a culture that is attracted to personalities do you think as many people would come to the new church plant as the would the video site campus? I know this is a problem and agree that if one of these guys who are being streamed all over their cities gets hit by a truck then the whole thing is likely to come falling down, but I am still not seeing any alternative given the culture we are trying to reach. So this is where we are left with the question would we rather do what will reach the most people in the culture for the Gospel (emergents should like this) or do we just say lets stick with the old format because its more personal?

Posted by: Ryan | 01/31/2006 at 02:17 PM

Ryan, I'm working on a post near that issue. I don't know if it will be up today or not. It's a good question.

Posted by: Steve McCoy | 01/31/2006 at 02:23 PM

This topic is being discussed at Jesus Creed too.

Posted by: Steve Walker | 01/31/2006 at 02:40 PM

My issue is not with the personality cult as much as it is with the M.O. of these churches; with their practical ecclesiology.

Posted by: Joe Thorn | 01/31/2006 at 02:46 PM

but in a culture that is attracted to personalities do you think as many people would come to the new church plant as they would the video site campus?

Which people are we talking about? Do the unchurched know who the celebrity preachers are? Do they care?

It seems that in many ways, this is another way for the larger to eat the smaller... Because let's face it: just putting up a video feed of a big name preacher won't make the unchurched beat a path to your door.

So really we're talkingabout starting things for Christians... and that freaks me out a bit.

My contention is this: This makes for good short term, church planting results but probably for not-as-good long term body maturity results. Not only do I see this model having a problem developing competent preachers and teachers, but elders and leaders as well... It seems as though part of the maturity process for a church body is going through the steps of re-inventing certain wheels for themselves, learning certain leadership lessons over and developing their own unique community, people growing to maturity and into real leadership in a body, and that body as a whole, listening to what God is saying to them and having the freedom to work that out as a local, organic entity.

More preachers, not less. More churches, not less.
The franchizing of big name churches is (IMHO) an unhealthy trend.

Posted by: bob hyatt | 01/31/2006 at 03:00 PM

As an outsider, I'll dare say it: I don't consider these churches. At best, they are missions. I don't mean to suggest they can't be good things, but if they are intended as a long-term approach -- versus a way to establish a new church -- I just don't see how they can be considered a church in the fuller sense of that word. The presence of the pastor (hierarchy) with the congregation in worship is more than just a holdover from the "old, unsophisticated" days. It says something about who we are as Christ's people, as the Church. I'm concerned whenever I read about these franchises that the pastors, having grown up routinely in denominations that don't emphasize ecclesiology, don't realize that they are making choices about more than just practical, pragmatic things when they opt for a video feed of themselves to an auditorium.

Posted by: JACK | 01/31/2006 at 03:13 PM

Driscoll has me convinced...but since I can't get his video feed in NC I think I'll just stay home and watch some other TV preacher. Afterall, if I need pastoral care I'm sure there is a form letter (Insert Name) Ministries can send me.

Seriously though, arguing for video venues indirectly gives anybody who wants to use the above arguement plenty of credence. This kind of pragmatism isn't healthy for the Body.

Posted by: Darren Fox | 01/31/2006 at 03:37 PM

Bob
I have to disagree with you. "The unchurched" (I hate that term) do know the influential pastors in their area. You do not have a church that is considering multi-site campus format unless they have been quite effective in their communities and become well known. Throughout much of Seattle many unchurched know who Driscoll is and that is the draw people. Not to mention Driscoll and many others and Mars Hill have done a great job at getting into the community and making themselves known.Through word of mouth, hype and friends, many want to come and here for themselves what is going on. So it is faulty to assume we are talking just about Christians being taken from one church to another, we are talking about how to get the Gospel to as many people as possible in a culture that is driven by the sensational. I am not sold on the mult-church thing either but lets not trivalize the issue to being like a Wal-Mart coming in and gobbling up all the mom and pop shops. I am most concerned about the gospel and people hearing it, if that is by video than I am open to it. Churches that do go down this route will face many obstacles in trying to forge community and foster spiritual formation, but lets not be a bunch of indy cynics and just say it will not work just because it is big.

Posted by: ryan | 01/31/2006 at 04:00 PM

Doesn't Piper have a satelite campus? I am all for letting the elders lead out, but Driscoll's personality is huge for that church.

Posted by: blake w | 01/31/2006 at 04:16 PM

I appreciate this topic, mainly because it helps me sharpen my thinking on multi-site, which we have. Thus far, I think I've discovered about 9 critiques of multi-site:

1. Personality-driven / pastor-centric [very true]
2. Evangelical globalization (?) "one-size-fits-all" [not really sure this is a reality]
3. It's not as good as church planting [may be true, but doesn't argue effectively against multi-site on those grounds alone]
4. Lack of community [pretty good start]
5. Centralization [not sure this is bad]
6. Pragmatism [potentially bad in the long view]
7. Lack of leadership development [not sure that this is reality]
8. Smaller is better, not a critique, just an opinion [biblically, not sure this is true]
9. Faulty ecclesiology [yet to be seen]

If I were in a church utilizing multi-site (which I am) and desired to lead away from multi-site, then which of these 9 would be a good place to start?

Biblically, what would be the case that multi-site is a wrong-headed approach? BTW, don't think Acts 1:8 will work. Even after the church was scattered there remained centralization in both Antioch and Jerusalem.

BTW, Joe, I have a Ph.D. and preach each weekend -- it must be God's grace (smiling).

Thanks for the thoughts, and I'll be checking this out to see the responses (and respond to the responses).

Posted by: Eric | 01/31/2006 at 04:34 PM

"There is nothing new under the sun." It's good to see the same people holding the same opinions as the last time we talked about this. I still believe what I said then, video venues can be defended biblically (see the Piper quote on my comment), and can be considered wise based on a church's circumstance.

Now, whether churches are making this decision carefully and prayerfully, cannot be seen. There are many WRONG reasons for having video, most of which have been articulately surfaced in this discussion.

Posted by: Matthew Westerholm | 01/31/2006 at 04:53 PM

I was wondering when you were going to surface Matthew. How did you like what Driscoll said?

Posted by: Steve McCoy | 01/31/2006 at 05:05 PM

It seems as though there are two issues that people are weaving in and out of. The first is whether a church should have a central venue with satellites around it. This is not bad in and of itself. There have existed denominations for centuries. One could think of a multi-site church as a mini-denomination. There is networking and support between them, I'd imagine. Biblically, sure, a case can be made.

The second issue is the video feed. My own thought is that if I want to see a movie, I'll go to a theater, not a church. I'm not the megachurch's first fan to begin with, but the concept of watching a video for 40 minutes in the middle of a worship service seems like it would stifle the spirit. I'd be sitting watching a training seminar video, not experiencing a sermon. Someone mentioned incarnation earlier. The Word preached is an incarnational experience, or supposed to be. This type of model would be too passive for me.

Posted by: P.o.C. | 01/31/2006 at 05:11 PM

"Sorry kids, but Dad's too busy to make it to dinner. Besides, there are so many of you! But don't worry, we've got video of him eating breakfast that we can watch on the monitor we've set up in his place."

"It's exactly like a gourmet restaurant, (e.g. cooks, waiters, fancy menu) with the exception that the food is reheated after being prepared and frozen by our master chef earlier in the day."

So I'm obviously not a fan of videochurch. It has nothing to do with whether or not it "works" (is that really the standard by which we want to measure our ministries?), and I don't think it's biblically right or wrong. I think it is a bad idea because a church is supposed to be a spiritual family. I don't like the message it sends to everyone (the members and the community) about what church is.

ChurchCasting is old news. These days, the megachurches are more than churches. They are Brands. For their version of church planting, many of them are currently marketing "church-in-a-box." Ed Young has "Fellowship Connection," Erwin McManus has the "Mosaic Alliance," and Rick Warren has well, whatever they call theirs. These brands actually sell franchise licenses (they call them "subscriptions").

Want to start a new Fellowship-type church? Just subscribe to Ed Young's program, and they'll send you everything you need: Bible study materials, Ed's preaching on DVD, even a sound system and video projector! We've been approached by a couple of these churches who want to reproduce themselves this way internationally. So I'm not being sarcastic when I call them "prepackaged, one-size-fits-all" canned churches.

To me, Driscoll's post reads like he's trying to convince himself that "multi-site" church is a good idea. Or maybe he's making a sales pitch for his own brand of PrestoChurch.

Posted by: stepchild | 01/31/2006 at 06:46 PM

"One could think of a multi-site church as a mini-denomination. "

I realize my background probably makes me react to this a bit differently than some, but this also strikes me as part of the challenge. I'll set aside the global issue of reconciling this with our Lord's prayer. For now, I would just like to address this quote from the perspective of experience. Do people find that these multi-venue churches start behaving like a mini-denomination? If so, what do people think of that (working on the assumption that the church was originally part of some denomination)?

Posted by: JACK | 01/31/2006 at 07:01 PM

The comparison wasn't meant to be a concrete one. However, there are similarities. A denomination with a more episcopal polity (Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist) have bishops that set the overall rule and tone for the entire network of churches. A multi-site church operates under the guidance of the Personality Pastor and perhaps a group of sub-pastors. He sets the rule and tone for the whole network. Of course, Catholic churches don't broadcast Benedict's Sunday Mass during their services.

But the concept of a church network with a single spiritual guide (or group) at the helm can be traced all the way back to the apostles. There is room for the comparison.

Posted by: P.o.C. | 01/31/2006 at 07:14 PM

In fairness, there are seldom two church who do "multi-site" exactly the same way. While I do have a real problem with the idea of watching the sermon on video, that really isn't my main issue as it may just be a matter of preference for me (Not sure yet).

My larger issue is ecclesiological. Satellite campuses aren't churches. If the congregants are truly a community of faith being led by the Spirit, the time will come when they will catch their own vision for what their church can or should look like. They'll begin to formulate their own ideas about how best to fulfill the mission. They'll have very different ideas about how to spend financial resources. But those dreams and ideas and that vision will always be contingent of the plans of others. Others, who, for the most part, don't worship at the satellite, don't know the people, and have no idea what the Spirit is doing in their midst.

Of course, if the people worshipping at the satellite aren't a community of faith led by the Spirit, then they're just people showing up to watch TV, and all that stuff about having their own vision and dreams and ideas is probably moot anyway.

Posted by: Stuart | 01/31/2006 at 08:05 PM

Why question is, "why do it?" I agree with the Piper quote that we don't have spelled out what it is all to look like at a local level in every detail. But I just want to ask, why video it instead of planting something new? Why multiple campuses?

It would be easier to believe that satellite campus is not about the focus on one personality if we actually had live preaching from different people. For me, the issue isn't really about the video per se, b/c I would have the same questions about the pastor who preaches at one campus to travel to another. (why not multiple campus with multiple teaching pastors?)

Does that make sense? Maybe this has been discussed and I just missed it so forgive me if it has.

But has anyone seen a reason given for multiple sites instead of church planting?

This is especially surprising in my mind from a guy who is so in favor of church planting.

I know there are some who attend (even lead) multiple church campuses here. So can someone help me to understand this. Does my question make sense?

Posted by: jason allen | 01/31/2006 at 09:23 PM

I recently stayed at the house of a couple who went to North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Ga. They loved the satellite format, and praised the fact that each location had a pastor in charge of it. He doesn't preach, but he is there for the congregation that attends that satellite. It's just that Andy does the teaching. Often these churches have pretty good pastor-teachers, and think it's beneficial for all the satellites to sit under the same teaching.

Personally, it doesn't attract me. But that's personal. It's been said that this model works well. They're right. NPCC has more campuses than some churches I know have members (exaggeration, but it feels that way sometimes). If it works for them, then wonderful. For me, I say raise up leaders who've sat under that great pastor-teacher, and send them out. Plant new churches, not satellites. I'm with Joe Thorn who asked at the beginning, "Where is the leadership trained to preach?" That's what I'm wondering, and praying nobody is overlooking.

Posted by: Joe Kennedy | 01/31/2006 at 11:03 PM

P.o.C., my point was a bit different. Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't these multi-site churches part of existing denominations? I know you may have not meant the comparison to be a concrete one, but I'm asking whether it in fact might be a fair one. And if these multi-site churches are part of existing denominations, I must admit it only further raises the question to me about the ecclesiology that is embodied by these multi-sites.

"A denomination with a more episcopal polity (Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist) have bishops that set the overall rule and tone for the entire network of churches..... Of course, Catholic churches don't broadcast Benedict's Sunday Mass during their services."

I wasn't going to take it there, but since you have I think it is fair to comment. To elaborate on my point before, the fact that the sacraments in the Catholic Church cannot be performed remotely says something about the Catholic Church's ecclesiology and how it understands the way in which the Church is the prolongation of Christ's mission throughout time. Catholics could just broadcast the Holy Father's mass and homily and then distribute hosts that have been consecrated previously. But the Church doesn't. There is something about the physical presence, about what that presence is all about, about how Christ is made present through our presence, that the Church understands and so constructs its liturgy accordingly. (Same with other sacraments. No confession by phone, for example, because there is something to the hearing of the words of absolution in the presence of another that is important to the understanding of the sacrament.) Even in the Catholic understanding of what constitutes a particular Church of the universal Church and the relationship of the Bishop of Rome and the local bishops and their clergy emphasizes that there is something important about physical presence in how we understand ourselves as Christians and members of the Body of Christ.

I offer all that up, not to promote Catholic ecclesiology, but just as an example of what I meant when I say that the decision to set up a multi-site church isn't a neutral one when it comes to ecclesiology. I think others have made this point as well and from different angles.

Posted by: JACK | 02/01/2006 at 12:01 AM

Well said, Jack. I agree.

Posted by: P.o.C. | 02/01/2006 at 07:03 AM

At the center of this discusion is the question: "What is the best way to expand God's Kingdom through the local church?"

Eric, in response to the centralization of the chruch in Jerusalem and Antioch. It is evident that Peter, James and other apostles remained in Jerusalem. But what was the command v. 4-8. Wait for the Spirit, then be my witnesses to the ends of the earth. I see the apostles desire to centralize in Jerusalem as contrary to God's command.

In fact, in Acts 8 it says everyone was scattered except the apostles - the very ones Jesus told to go to the ends of the earth! Even when Peter was lead to Cornelius he returned to Jerusalem . . . In Acts 9 we see the conversion of Saul the very person God used to scatter the chruch and who God used to continue to expand his kingdom. And in ch. 11 we once again see that those who were scattered by the persecution were spreading the gospel and starting the chruch in Antioch. It was not the ones in Jerusalem that God used. It was the scattered.

Furthermore, I see no evidence that the church in Antioch sought to centralize Christianity in Antioch. They were the "sending" church and the first place people were called Christians. Finally, the Jerusalem church appears one last time confirming that God has indeed spread his church even among the uncircumcised gentiles. The Jerusalem chruch is left watching what God is doing instead of taking an active role.

Related to this particular post, the strategy of using video venues promotes the idea that we must centralize to be most effective.

Successful movements are formed around beliefs and not a particular person or group of people. For instance the civil rights movement was spearheaded by M.L. King but it was the beliefs he held and shared that sustained the movement not the individual. As Christians, we are the only movement that can have it both ways. We have a strong belief that sustains us, and we also have the Holy Spirit who leads us.

Wade Burson understands this. If all of the stuff happening with the IMB trustees centers on him and not his belief about being cooperating conservatives it will begin and end with his tenure as a trustee and nothing will change.

The medium of video venues tells people (believers and unbelievers)that the person they are seeing on the screen is so special that no one else between here and the mothership is capable to teach God's word to the congregation. The medium of communication sometimes says more than the actual words spoken.

I believe Driscoll could have a larger impact by training leaders and starting more churches.

sorry for rambling . . .

Posted by: Chris Bell | 02/01/2006 at 10:11 AM

Chris, thanks for your thoughtful response. I didn't think it was "rambling" at all. I would simply and humbly suggest that Acts 15 promotes the idea that Paul and the church at Antioch understood the centrality of leadership in Jerusalem. And I'm not quite convinced that the apostles disobeyed Christ's command, since Scripture doesn't confirm that suggestion (the reference in Acts 8 was not condemnatory). I would also add that Antioch was the place to which Paul returned following His missionary journey, so there is some form of centralization in that respect as well. Perhaps your definition and my definition of "centralization" is different, and we're probably speaking of different things.

Secondly, some have equated multi-site with "no leadership development," if I am reading correctly. To the contrary, leadership development is an absolute necessity for multi-site ministry, in my (often humbled) opinion. In order to overcome the real obstacle of community, the "mothership" (smiling on that one) must develop and train pastoral leadership so that the atmosphere for community within the satellite may sustain the tight bonds of fellowship.

Also, I find it interesting that some have suggested that a gathering of believers who worship Christ together and seek to live for Him and reach others for Him do not constitute a church because of a video screen or because of their connection with the "mothership" (again, smiling). I have a difficult time finding biblical support for that kind of ecclesiology.

Also, the question arises, "Why do it?" Perhaps for some churches it is the style, content, etc. of a particular preacher. For some churches it may be that the resources of the "mothership" are more accessible to the satellite community. For some churches it may be that they believed it was the best answer to a growing congregation that had no more room. More than likely, it is a combination of these and other issues. I believe wholeheartedly, however, that the vast majority of these churches envisioned this approach to be a faithful way to exalt Jesus and expand His kingdom.

We may not "like" multi-site ministry. We may believe that there is a "better way" to do church. But these churches are doing it (moving from theory to praxis), seeking to be faithful to a "missional" strategy, seeking to follow a biblical paradigm by sending men and women to a geographical place for God's glory. That they use a video screen with a talking head, IMHO, does not diminish their faithfulness to Christ's call.

Thank you all, again, for allowing me to think through these issues. I am still listening.

Posted by: Eric | 02/01/2006 at 12:25 PM

Stepchild said "To me, Driscoll's post reads like he's trying to convince himself that "multi-site" church is a good idea."

You have hit on the head. Mark is selling himself on an idea he hates but nevertheless is doing.

At early Acts 29 conferences and other Young Leader events, Mark continuously talked about never letting his church go above 1200-15oo. If it started to get there, there would be a plant with one of the leaders from his church planting it (i.e. Gunn and Harambee). This anti-megachurch idea was central to his philosophy of growth.

This is the irony. I have no problem with Mark thinking differently than his early days. But, I think he may still have a part of himself that hates what his church has become (in this sense only). Our convictions always come back to bite us, when we act contrary to them.

The other irony regarding Mark's blog is his belief in midrash (but, I cannot blame him for not having all the Markites and Anti-Markites comment on every post, since they sit at home waiting for his next statement).

Posted by: Rick Bennett | 02/01/2006 at 01:20 PM

Stepchild said "To me, Driscoll's post reads like he's trying to convince himself that "multi-site" church is a good idea."

You have hit on the head. Mark is selling himself on an idea he hates but nevertheless is doing.

At early Acts 29 conferences and other Young Leader events, Mark continuously talked about never letting his church go above 1200-15oo. If it started to get there, there would be a plant with one of the leaders from his church planting it (i.e. Gunn and Harambee). This anti-megachurch idea was central to his philosophy of growth.

This is the irony. I have no problem with Mark thinking differently than his early days. But, I think he may still have a part of himself that hates what his church has become (in this sense only). Our convictions always come back to bite us, when we act contrary to them.

The other irony regarding Mark's blog is his belief in midrash (but, I cannot blame him for not having all the Markites and Anti-Markites comment on every post, since they sit at home waiting for his next statement).

Posted by: Rick Bennett | 02/01/2006 at 01:20 PM

It is an interesting phenomenon that BISHOP Driscoll is defending, and there's no question that the idea is spreading. I mentioned on my blog a church in Charleston SC that has "satellite" locations in several other cities, up to 3 1/2 hours away. Where does it stop?

It sure seems like personality/celebrity driven church to me (as opposed to Word centered- even if those involved are great and orthodox teachers.

Posted by: Alex | 02/01/2006 at 01:48 PM

Alex, I've said before that the next step was satellites at great distances. I didn't realize it was already happening. Thanks for that info.

Posted by: Steve McCoy | 02/01/2006 at 02:39 PM

http://www.seacoast.org/

Posted by: Alex | 02/01/2006 at 03:03 PM

Steve, check out www.lifechurch.tv they have 5 campuses in OK, one in AZ, and one in Fort Worth, TX. All of them have the same video feed. I also remember an article in Vision magazine awhile back when this phenom began.

Anyway check out thier website they define in a short paragraph what they mean by one chruch in multiple locations.

Posted by: Chris Bell | 02/01/2006 at 03:07 PM

Hey guys,
I really hesitate to throw this out because I don’t want to be thought of as a guy who is trying to impress people with what God has done in our midst. I am a pastor in desperate need of God's forgiving and empowering grace and am becoming less and less impressed with myself. Currently I am in a sweet but painful season of repentance over the coldness of my own heart. Even as I write I am fighting back tears (honestly!) at my own lack of holiness and desire to be accepted by people more than God. In short, I suck but God is good.

I love small, neighborhood churches and have given my life to assessing, training and coaching guys who will plant smaller, missional churches that will rock their part of the world with the gospel. My heart bleeds for church planting! But, I would like to throw out our situation as a church that is staring down the barrel of the whole video venue deal.
And, I only lay the numbers out to help you understand the tension of our situation. I am not trying to be super-planter and convince you guys that I am great. I firmly believe our church plant was in the right place at the right time. Glory to God, not to me or our elders.

Our church is just over 3 years old and almost 900 people are attending the services. My vision when we parachuted into our city was to plant a neighborhood church and then plant other neighborhood churches. We would get to 250 or so and then give 50 people to a planter and “rinse repeat step one.” This was a great plan except it didn't work. The problem is that there are very few guys who can plant a church. Our network assesses hundreds of guys every year and I can tell you that few in our estimation are called to do it. This is evidenced by the 70-80% failure rate. I saw this in our own context as we simply didn't have guys with the calling and skill- set to give people to. The other issue, whether we like it or not, is that believers and un-believers are attracted to those with " 5 or 10 talent" teaching gifts and tend to want to attend churches with that level of teaching. I am not implying that pastors who only have "2 talent" teaching gifts aren't as important or godly. I am saying what is the obvious: The larger the church the more "talents" the pastor is likely to have in the area of teaching.

I am are absolutely committed to church planting as is Mark (we serve together on the board of Acts 29 that has planted a ton of churches in the U.S. and beyond). The problem in a growing church is that as soon as you give 50 or 100 away, the seats are filled back up in a month. The truth is that certain churches grow because God intends them to in order to bless the world. I think this is the "right" reason for mega-churches who can be a resource center (training, funding, etc) to the city and perhaps world. There are a lot of jacked up mega-churches that function more like a mall than a mission center. But, that is another discussion.

We have three guys on our teaching team, although I preach about 70 percent of the time. There are many reasons for this but for the purpose of this discussion I will say I teach the vast majority of the time because it is my best gift to the church.

Here is our reality:
We were at three services in a smaller building so we moved our morning service to a high school with twice as many seats and moved back to two services. Now, only 4 months later we are having to go back to 3 services. We bought a building and will probably be at 4 services in the fall. Also, we are planting a church in the fall as well, taking several people and a staff member to do so.

The elders believe that a large majority of people who attend come to hear me preach. I hear it all the time from unbelievers (like last night when my wife and I had dinner with Eric and Amy). I hate it, but it is the truth. I don't want to set myself up as master teacher and I loathe the reality of the whole situation. It reeks of celebrity-worship, plays into consumerism and messes with my already far-too-large head. But, it also reeks of reality. Down through church history God has seemed pleased to use the teaching gift to draw people to himself. This is not a new thing, though it is weird for me to be in this position. I was a godless rebellious teen whom God saved from small rural town in Illinois. Nobody who knew me “then” can believe that I am the pastor of this church. Our elders and wife know my heart and how uncomfortable I am with all of this.

We have a great church and my teaching gift is certainly not our only "draw". But, I am coming to grips with the reality that this gift is significant and I don't need to apologize for it. Stay accountable to God, my wife and elders for it... not think of myself too highly for it... not think that gifting equals character for it...but also not apologize for it.

I hate the thought of my ugly mug on some video screen and I share the ALL the concerns that were posted here. But, I gotta tell you that the thought of preaching 4 and 5 times a Sunday doesn't look very appealing either. Some of you would say, "Just let the other guys teach." The problem is that they are both working 60-70 hours a week on other important matters for our community. When they preach they have to take 20 or so hours away from their important work. We are a young church (26 is average age) and so we don't have a ton of money to hire staff. You get my drift? Right now, and maybe for a while, the elders say I need to be in the pulpit the majority of the time using the gift God has given me.

Here are the questions our elders are wrestling with:
Do I just burn out to stay authentic with the people? Or, is this video thing a way to maximize my gift? Which is more authentic, using video or slipping out of the service early to drive to the other location we meet at in order to be with them live? Can I physically and emotionally handle preaching 4 and 5 times a Sunday? Will we be able to afford to hire more staff so I can teach less? What happens if I get in a car wreck? How can we lead our people to value other teaching gifts, even if it is not as edifying to them?

Sorry this got so long. Thanks for reading.
I’ll check back in periodically to see if I can further the discussion
Peace, brothers and sisters,
Darrin patrick

This is a pretty full discussion, but as someone who had serious, serious doubts about a satellite church situation, and was then won over by actually going to one, I thought it was worth chipping in.

The church in question was the Meeting House, which is mentioned by Marc in the list above (post no. 25). My wife and I were visiting her family and thought we'd check it out, since she'd been in her teens and had good memories. (This was before they started the satellite churches.) The site I went to met at a movie theatre, and by the time my wife and I walked past all the movie posters and the ushers, ("hello, the service is in theatre 3 on your left") our theological dubiousness had turned to outright doubt and skepticism.

And then the service started, and I am pleased to say that we were humbled almost instantly. They had a lead pastor on-site, so it wasn't just a bunch of people coming to a show, looking at a screen, and then leaving. The only bit that was technologized, if you'll permit the neologism, was the sermon. I don't know if it was via direct live feed or whether it might have been a few minutes' delayed - it strikes me that the former would be a nightmare of logistics, so I suspect it was the former. And then we were treated to some of the most humble, biblically insightful, kind, and sound teaching we'd encountered in a long time. The only difference was that the preacher wasn't right in front of us.

As a preacher, I was really hard-pressed to imagine how difficult this must have been for Bruxy (the teaching pastor there). My home church belongs to the historical black church tradition, which means a lot of call and response, and I can't imagine what it would be like to preach to a congregation that didn't talk back - let alone a congregation that wasn't on site! But just because I'd find it difficult doesn't mean that it makes God cry, if you know what I mean, and Bruxy delivered a message that I'd have been grateful for if I read it years later. The fact that he was on a screen was no big deal. In fact, it was simply the recognition that this church had grown very, very fast.

My wife and I were so impressed that we called Bruxy to see if he'd meet up for coffee, and - he being a gracious brother - he said yes. We chatted about the whole thing and he talked about the situation the church had found itself in. They had a bunch of people coming to Sunday service. But Sunday service was actually last on their list of priorities, because their primary instantiation of the church was in the local house gatherings that met throughout the week. There was no way they could get everyone from every house gathering to one site every week, since people were spread all over Ontario - each house gathering expanded the territory, as it were, which means they were pretty far-flung. And even if they had done, the resources required to get a site that could have held everyone would have been immense. So, despite the doubts and concerns that plagued them - as have plagued many who have posted above - they decided to give the satellite thing a go.

And it works. It works tremendously well. Because the church's emphasis is NOT on that single hour on Sunday, the vitality of the church depends completely on the vitality of the house groups. They can't get everyone together on a Sunday, and they don't have enough capable teachers to go to five different sites on a Sunday (nor can they space them out throughout the day and have poor Bruxy die an early death by logging 150 miles every Sunday while he dashes between sites). So, while they know it's important to have centralized teaching, it's not vital to them that they all congregate under one roof.

Coming away from the experience, I wondered why I was even concerned. If I went to a 1000-member church would I know everyone there? Would I even know to hug the person whose grandmother died the past week? No. You know a limited number of people intimately - we're finite and have limited capacity. That's what the Meeting House's house group base does well. But the body of Christ is a whole, too, and it's good to remember that on a Sunday. So they do that, as well. I think it actually bears a great resemblance to the early church phenomenon of epistle reading, which John Byron refers to above (post no. 10). And while I agree with John that I thought I wouldn't like a satellite church, I'll tell you that we wished we could stay and join up! It was that good.

I agree with posters above that such a sermon isn't ideal in terms of "incarnating the word," but really, if that's the case what are we expecting of our preachers? The point is, at this church the Spirit that was in the Word incarnate was living throughout the week at its house activities (which were utterly vibrant). The focus of the week wasn't that hour on Sunday. The hour on Sunday was the opportunity to be bigger than 20 people in a house, and to get centralized teaching. And the centralized teaching wasn't because Bruxy is some slick personality who rules a cult of personality (I think he would be the first to admit this). It's just because he's clearly a charismatically (lower-case "c") gifted teacher. They don't come along all the time. And if this community only has one, they're more fortunate than most!

This post isn't intended to offer blanket endorsement of the satellite model. Indeed, I'd be in much greater danger of sin (pride, judgment, et. al.) if this were a conversation about church "models" - as if the body of Christ were some balsa-wood pre-fab that can be dropped into a community regardless of particularities. Wisteria Lane, anyone? No, I simply wanted to say that I visited one satellite church (actually a misnomer - it's a house church network that conducts Sunday teaching via satellite sites) and, inasmuch as I am capable of discerning, I saw the Spirit very clearly at work.

And hey - if it keeps people relatively local, and you don't have 2000 people driving 50 miles on a Sunday...well, that's a tangential but not insignificant bonus, in my book.

Cheers, all. Thanks for reading this far.