-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Multi-site Churches: Good or Bad
- Thread starter Greektim
- Start date
The one article you have to pay for so it is a non starter and the other article fails to explain the purpose or benefit of multi-site churches. Quite frankly they just do not make sense. Why not turn the other sites loose to be their own church?
Bob Alkire
New Member
I'm with you here, I just don't understand it. When i was in seminary one of the saying of the professor's was," the only ones who like a larger church is a pastor." At that time they were talking about 600 or more in attendants.
I didn't read the articles but I am familiar with many ministries doing this and I think it is great.
It is clearly what went on in the NT.
Titus 1 is one place that makes this clear.
Im still not convinced....rather I am starting to believe in smaller & less regulated / independent churches.
Nothing could be further from the NT model.
Egalitarianism holds to the idea that everyone is equal and therefore is predisposed to group decision making, i.e. democracy, whereas elitists think they are the smartest people in the room and need to make decisions for the "masses. Thus narcissistic Pastors like mega-churches and multi-campus churches, where they wield power over ever larger numbers of people, but the NT model teaches Pastors are simply part of a leadership board made-up of equals, i.e. leadership by a plurality of Elders taking direction from the congregation as a whole.
The well known Pastor's disease is AND (Acquired Narcissistic Disorder) where with no one to check the affection and differential treatment afforded Pastors, they begin to think they are "spiritually" special people.
The well known Pastor's disease is AND (Acquired Narcissistic Disorder) where with no one to check the affection and differential treatment afforded Pastors, they begin to think they are "spiritually" special people.
Last edited by a moderator:
It can be good and it can be bad. It all depends on how things are setup and what they have determined to be the end goal. We are attending a larger, for our area, church that is in the processing of adding a campus. The campus is an existing church in a rural area about 25 minutes from town. They have some mature members, both spiritually and physically, but they had no pastor and not many younger folks. The church in town is supplying the pastor, and helping to cover his salary. They have asked people to prayerfully consider moving out to the rural church. The end goal is a self sufficient local church reaching the community for Christ.
I think that is very good. It allows an avenue for a growing church with some real assets to come alongside an a struggling one.
When is it not good? When the church has half a dozen campuses and video feeds all the sermons from the home church. I have seen several ads looking for a "campus pastor" by churches that want someone on the ground to do the grunt work. They typically ask the campus pastor to be prepared to preach 4-5 times a year.
It is true that the Apostles wrote letters to elders in other churches to encourage, teach, and edify the local leaders and the local church. There is no basis for the hierarchy and control that we see in the RCC and many Protestant denominations.
I think that is very good. It allows an avenue for a growing church with some real assets to come alongside an a struggling one.
When is it not good? When the church has half a dozen campuses and video feeds all the sermons from the home church. I have seen several ads looking for a "campus pastor" by churches that want someone on the ground to do the grunt work. They typically ask the campus pastor to be prepared to preach 4-5 times a year.
It is true that the Apostles wrote letters to elders in other churches to encourage, teach, and edify the local leaders and the local church. There is no basis for the hierarchy and control that we see in the RCC and many Protestant denominations.
This could be equally true of church plants where the goal is to turn it lose to be its own church body unattached to the parent church.
I do not see a need for satellite churches. they just do not make any sense.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I agree with you. Many people like to get lost in a mega-church. In my mind a local Church is like a family. I had the joy of being a member of a congregation like that for several years. It grew, they built a multi-million dollar facility, aided by a rich man in the congregation. When they moved into the new facility they left something behind. The joy was no longer there, This was the view of others!
Tom Butler
New Member
I think annsi's husband is a campus pastor in a multi-site church. Maybe she can join this discussion and share their experience.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is strictly a matter of personal preference on your part.
Fulfilling the great commission is more important than feeling like a family with "us four and no more."
Good megachurches break their multitudes up into small groups that have this same family experience.
Small groups are important- but heaven is characterized by multitudes which no man can number all gathered together singing in thunderous chorus the praises of the Lamb.
Which does nothing to speak to big, small, or multi-site churches.
Sure it does. Church is a microcosm of heaven.
What we want via the church is for God's will to be done on earth even as it is in heaven.
How, anthropologically, is God's will done in heaven?
Partly by multitudes of people coming together to sing praises unto the Lamb.
Not only does my post speak to the matter- it speaks to the heart of it.
You will just have to sit on that one. I can tell you it is an unorthodox view and not widely supported. Add to that it is a result of very loose hermeneutics.
It must be nice to be unbridled by the responsibility of providing warrant for baseless claims that you toss out in debate.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
If you were honest, you would say a hermeneutic that differs from your own as well as measuring orthodoxy based on your views. It sounds like you are the plumbline and authority in your theology and practice. Sound familiar to any other big daddy?
I simply responded to your post which had none of that. :BangHead:
On balance, I think Multi-Site Churches are a good thing. They allow existing congregations to strategically use their influence and resources to extend ministry beyond a central campus location. Additionally, and I've got the stats for this, they have such a high rate of success for starting new campuses and revitalizing existing churches (usually through a merger) that it behooves us to consider them as effective means of church growth.
Where I have a problem with Multi-Site churches is where they move outside of their immediate geographic region. There is simply no reason ecclesiologically for Seattle Community Church to go and start a new campus in New Mexico, New York, or Georgia. I believe that kind of expansion violates congregational and ecclesiological distinctives of most of these churches. Also, I don't think nearly as many churches need to be multi-site as are multi-site. Some pastors are just doing this because it is the new sexy church growth model. I think that is silly.
Anyways, my experience with multi-site is personal, the church where I get to serve is a multi-site church. We have had an amazingly blessed experience and have grown because of it.
I think there are certain boundaries and borders in multi-site we need to be careful about. However, the model is a good one for some churches to consider.
