This month our church just passed the 3-year mark of “un-multisiting”. If you aren’t familiar with the term “multisite”, it refers to a congregation that meets in more than one location. Each location is typically called a “campus.” Though we had 1 campus for our first 18 years, we added a 2nd one in 2010, & then a 3rd one in 2015. We claimed to be 1 church in 3 locations. But we released our 3rd location to become independent just 4 years after launching, & then released our 2nd one after 13 years of existence. A few other churches have made headlines for unmultisiting, but it’ still a rarity.
The folks at Renew.org, who I appreciate for promoting sound doctrine, were made aware of our somewhat unique situation & so invited me to “debate” about multisite churches. Within a few days of posting it on YouTube, it received several hundred views. But I thought I’d condense my view here to present some reasons why multisite may not be a healthy option.
Let me be clear that I don’t regret starting 2 multisite campuses. We were early adopters of the model when it was still new, & I became a fan. Our goal was to win people to Christ, & I knew that we wouldn’t be able to reach everyone in our region from our small out-of-the-way location. The intention to take our church to where the people are was a good thing. But because it was a new method, we didn’t necessarily think through the long-term implications. It was just assumed that all the campuses would remain “1 church” forever.
But the challenges with our 3rd campus brought some issues to light. The man we installed as a campus minister there had different ideas about what the focus of the church should be. He was already going his own way, & so we decided to bless it & release it after he affirmed that he would keep the same doctrinal beliefs we had. We prayed for the best. However, he soon changed the doctrine anyway, which was disappointing.
The release of our 2nd campus was a much more positive thing. I had offered the campus minister the option to become independent previously, but he hadn’t been ready. When he finally was ready, we planned for it & then blessed it. As far as I can tell, he has kept that “new” church on the right path.
Why didn’t we want to just continue being multisite? I’ve now seen nearly 2 decades of this model & have some serious misgivings about where it leads. I began to have questions. What’s the “endgame”? Is it functioning the way we had expected? How biblical is the method? Why not plant new churches instead of expanding our church further?
I grew more concerned over the kind of pragmatism that tends to override the biblical convictions. There’s really no model in the New Testament for having 1 church in different locations. It doesn’t say you can’t, but what we do see in Scripture is each church having its own leadership of elders & servants. You don’t see a centralized leadership giving governance over multiple churches. That’s the structure that denominational hierarchies became built on over time. It’s certainly not the way independent Christian Churches like ours were intended to be.
Although the leadership of these churches may claim to be “1 church in multiple locations,” it’s not really true, & the people never really feel that way. It inevitably still feels like separate congregations. What tends to keep those churches feeling any kind of “oneness” is the church name, & often the one preacher who speaks on screen at all but the “main” or “original” campus. Our 2nd location started out with pre-recorded video of me preaching, but that didn’t last long because it’s just not the same as “live.” Campuses watching on screen don’t feel as valued as the “main” campus, & the guy on the screen can become a kind of “celebrity” who’s holding them all together.
With live preaching at each location, the preacher on site becomes the true leading voice there–not the guy on the screen miles away. Each location also develops its own leaders, styles, passions, & personality. You would think it would create a synergy of fellowship between locations, but it can instead breed an “us vs. them” mentality with frustration & tension. It creates complexity & confusion with dizzying org charts. So why keep it as a multisite when it could be independent?
We need to question what really constitutes a “church”? If you can have 1 church in 2 or 3 locations, why not in 10 or 100 or 1,000? That’s what some multisite churches have done–they’ve “franchised” their “brand” in various cities around the country & even the world. It’s basically a small denomination with a headquarters & hierarchy. Where does it all end?
I believe our church followed the best practice possible since all of our locations were within a short driving distance of each other so that preachers, Elders, & staff could rotate. We knew the folks personally at each location. But many multisite churches operate campuses hours away or even states away. I’m not saying it’s bad, I’m questioning if it’s biblical.
What we’re seeing often is not the starting of new churches from scratch, but taking over or adopting smaller struggling & dying churches. So the “growth” of the church can be somewhat artificial. The same thing can happen in large churches that tend to draw in people from existing churches. They’re not reaching new people in the community as much as transferring & consolidating existing Christians.
We need to question why aren’t churches doing more planting of new churches instead? Why do they keep extending their church farther & farther? It surely involves good evangelistic motives. But it also centralizes power & makes pragmatism paramount. Yes, it may make possible reaching more people for Christ, but it has great potential to turn down a dark path, as such ventures historically do.
It’s my opinion that the multi-site model has also detracted from & robbed a lot from the church planting movement. I believe becoming multisite can be a good thing if it’s done more like church planting–to start a new church in a new location, with the intention to release it to become independent as soon as possible. It can be an effective temporary & transitionary way to get the job done. If you’d like to see the full debate & hear the other side, you can go to Multisite Debate.