Finding That Multi-site Smile

Neil Cole, author of Organic Church and Organic Leadership, takes the multi-site movement to task in an article this week. Neil says, "I must be honest and confess that I have not been smiling at the spread of the multi-site phenomenon. I know some do it well, but many do not." I hate to see Neil not smiling, so I thought I'd try to answer a few of his objections. Please go read the article and then come back for my response.

I'll wait.

C'mon, you didn't read the whole article did you? Oh well, finish it after you read my post.

Here is my take on Neil's arguments.

First, multi-site is not church planting

This is one of the arguments against multi-site churches I hear the most. It seems to qualify as "real" a church plant must:

1. Have a leader who delivers a 30-60 minute speech every week
2. Not be tied to a larger organization
3. Rely only on their own resources

Failure to follow these three guidelines seems to mean your church doesn't count. I don't know if the lives that are changed, the disciples that are grown, the communities that are transformed count, or who exactly is doing the counting.

Almost all of the multi-site campuses that I've been around function like a free standing church except:

1. They often use the teaching of someone who stands in another room when he speaks
2. They share resources with likeminded congregations
3. Their pastors are accountable to other leaders. (Bishops, presbyters, regional pastors)

I don't understand why where a preacher stands, how a congregation shares resources and accountability for a pastor disqualify a church from being a church.

Second, multi-site churches don't develop leaders

Neil says, "[In a multi-site church] A strong leader is not as desired as a good manager in starting new campus sites." Seriously? I can't think of a church in America or around the world that isn't looking for strong leaders for campus pastors. This argument is a throwback to the idea that only those with strong teaching gifts make good leaders. I have no idea the Biblical or empirical evidence for this; even Paul said that he was a lousy speaker, but he was a phenomenal leader. Campus pastors who don't deliver a 30 minutes homily on Sunday often need to be STRONGER leaders than those who do. Without the bully pulpit it can be MORE challenging to lead, not less.

As for developing preachers, the church I grew up in only had one preacher. Occasionally we would have a speaker come from the outside and once a year one of the younger guys might speak, but that was it. At Seacoast we currently have six guys on our teaching team plus our campus pastors speak on a regular basis. We also have classes for speakers and a myriad of opportunities for teachers to develop their skills. I'm sure some multi-site churches don't develop preachers just like some organic churches don't develop disciples. The problem with blanket statements is that they cover up reality.

Third, multi-site churches are all about ego

Neil indicates that pastors of multi-site churches are primarily concerned with getting more butts in seats and bringing in more money in the offering plates. I have no doubt there are pastors in it for the money and the ego boost, the pastors I know are desperate to reach people with the Good News and help them grow up in their faith. Multi-site seems to be an effective way to fulfill that call on their lives.

One of our Seacoast campuses is located in the poorest, most dangerous neighborhood in Charleston. They have a free clinic, a food pantry, a Dream Closet, ESL classes, as well as a tutoring program. They also have services on Sunday and watch a video for the teaching. No one at that campus thinks their church is all about the preacher or the Benjamins; it's about the Gospel and it's about taking the Gospel to the people. We've just found an efficient way of doing exactly what Jesus told us to do, "to go into all the world and preach the Gospel."

I hope that makes Neil smile.

Comments

[SethC]

Great stuff Geoff, I was wondering yesterday when you said you were writing a response how long it would be, but this one is concise and tackles the main issues Cole had. I feel that between the two articles anyone can get a good grasp over what Multi-Site churches struggle with and have to deal with.

At first, I was hesitant about Multi-Sites (like Cole) and I had several issues, but I appreciate the great lengths you go to so that people like me can understand the idea better. Thanks for another great article.

[Geoff Surratt]

Thanks Seth. I'm all for struggling with the idea of multi-site and any idea that will impact the Kingdom of Heaven.

[Paul Clifford]

Well since you can't comment on the original article, I'll comment here.

Geoff, I agree with you. Neil's definition would preclude the Roman Catholic church as being anything but a multi-site church. Even the United Methodist church would fall victim to his definition.

I think the advantage of multi-site is that it enables church planting while helping stem the tide of failure that is so often the fate of plants.

I know that Seacoast has a site that rivals the original campus for size. Neil's argument would seem to say that that campus will never become autonomous. I think it might and might spawn campuses of it's own.

Should that happen, what is his argument? "Some people suck at multi-site, so therefore no one should do it"?! Since most people suck at church planting in the classical sense maybe no one should do that either.

This article seems to me an example of change-hating. All that matters is the spread of the gospel. The how is irrelevant. When we've been in heaven 1000 years, will anyone care if their church was in Rome in 80 AD or a multi-site in Nevada in 2180? I say no. People, not methods matter.

[Bethany]

Geoff - thanks for sharing! One of the thoughts that I have been wandering around is church planting vs multi-site vs renovating dying congregations. Thanks for one more great article to stimulate thought.

[David McDaniel]

Geoff, great answer and, more importantly, great attitude in dealing with Neil who obviously disagrees with what you have done with your life for these last 10 years or so. It was a great lesson to me to see your calm and informed response. What I did not see was a mean-spirited, snarky response. That might have been my choice. Or maybe you keyed one in for cathartic reasons and simply never published it. Whatever your technique, it spoke volumes to me. Thanks for your example.

[Geoff Surratt]

David, I'll have to admit that the article as posted was the 4th draft. Draft one was not quite so reserved :)

[Carrie Thompson]

Pastor Geoff, amazing response. You never cease to amaze me at your ability to explain your point of view with grace.
I wondered, as I read his article, if he has ever met someone who attend one of the multi-cite campuses, that before attending they were not a Christ follower and now are not only serving Christ but also serving others. As someone who serves in a leadership role at multi-cite I am thankful every day to have the honor of being a someone on the team.

[Scott Cheatham]

I think it is healthy to question any "movement" of God, including multi-site churches. 1 John 4 opens with a mandate to "test the spirits" because of people who were doing things in God's name but who had wandered from the tenants of the faith.

If you read the totality of Cole's thoughts and not just one snippet, I think a better response could be fashioned. That would make Neil smile even more.

[Phil]

I believe that Christ is too big to bottle up into one church expression. I believe God can be glorified in many different church expressions (assuming, of course, they are in compliance with Biblical Guidelines), and after reading a number of Mr. Cole's books, I believe he does as well. However, the point he usually makes is "What is good usually gets in the way of what's best."

His argument is that in an organic style movement, where every believer is empowered to share, preach, baptize, pray, start churches where life happens, lead (by serving), etc., leads to a multiplication style growth of believers (Great) instead of adding more people to a growing body (Good). This is quite clear when you see the organic style of ministry sending out new converts to witness, lead in salvation, baptizing, and even starting new churches within weeks, whereas new converts in large churches are asked to bring people into a church months after taking discipleship classes (assuming that church even has such a program). One adds (good) the other multiples (great). People will always respond to God inspired sermons (good), but in a post-modern world tend to respond more to God inspired relationships and living (great). Building relationships and demonstrating living takes time and focus, and is therefore handled by many believers empowered to "make disciples and baptize" (Mat 28:18) rather than depending on a few empowered by a church organization.

And, from where I stand, it's hard to argue with Cole both on Biblical grounds and practical experience. I have been working for months in my own large church to just get permission to organize a small witness group in my own church. It's a problem I face over and over again as I have been moved from city to city. You state that large churches are looking for campus leaders. Perhaps some are. But reality is that many Christians within large church organizations simply go underutilized because they don't have certain qualifications, or simply have not been recognized by leaders who simply do not have time to get to know hundreds of people.

And as far as the ego... it is a very real issue as churches get larger. Let's not forget that David, a man after God's own heart, fell hard during the time he was king. Many good pastors and leaders fell into sin after their ministries became too big. Even one of the most respected multi-campus pastors, John Piper, recently stepped down, citing a pride issue as one of the reasons. The Bible warns us again and again about the dangers of pride.

There are benefits and blessings from large churches and even multi site ones. I don't have time to list them here. However, unless those leader recognize the weaknesses inherent in the model, and take real steps to address them, they will continue to miss out on many great things in 'doing a lot of good.'

[almost an M]

Geoff,
Thanks for taking the time to work through 4 drafts to make this response possible with the tone that it carries. As this came to my attention originally through Neal's post and then I came here to read your piece, I thought it may be helpful for others to know that a response has been posted on Neal's site--Cole-Slaw. The link is: http://cole-slaw.blogspot.com/2010/04/im-smiling-now-response-to-geoff.html
Thanks again for your thoughts on this and the muted tone from your first, unpublished attempt. I am certain that in working together much can be accomplished for His glory, while working against each other would be to our shame.