Pages

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

I'm Smiling Now: A Response to Geoff Surratt's Response

Geoff Surratt has posted a response to an article made up of some blog posts I did a while back about the multisite church model. I appreciate his tone and would love to meet him and converse more about the subject. In his response, however, there are a number of things that are not adequately reflecting my own thinking. It may actually be better to read all the blog posts to get a complete picture of what I think, as the article is only a portion of my thoughts.

I will respond to his response simply to clarify, but will probably let things stand where they are after that. We are brothers and, while we do the kingdom work differently, we are both serving the King and I am glad about that. Everyone that I know who speaks of Geoff speaks highly of him, so I have nothing but respect for him even if we do church differently.

Anyone who has actually read my books or knows me would understand that I do not believe that a church must have a preacher up front (whether or not he or she is in another room several blocks away). I also do not think that a church must have independent resources or not rely upon a larger organization in order to be a church. My thoughts are that in order for the church to spawn a multiplication movement it must have its own independent ability to reproduce and not be dependent upon another organization. I have no problem calling a congregation a church if it is dependent on a larger organization. Whether the pastor is preaching in front of the crowd or several blocks away is irrelevant to me as to whether or not it is a church.

Actually, I do not see a Sunday worship service as paramount to defining a church. If the people are just an audience it isn't a church in my book. I have always said a church is "a spiritual family together on Christ's mission." Of course a multisite church can be a church, but I do not think the Sunday service is what makes it so.

I have committed my life to releasing church multiplication movements. That is what I was writing about, and I do not think multisite releases true multiplication movements...addition, but not multplication. I believe multiplication is proven true when the fourth generation and beyond is manifested, something we have yet to see from the multisite phenomenon. But hear me when I say that church addition is a good thing, especially when the churches are started by transforming people from lostness in to light. Transferring membership from one church to another doesn't really count as even church addition, does it?

Now to be fair, there is a difference in my mind between multisite and video venue, and in my article it is the video venue approach that I am taking issue with the most. I do believe it accentuates our dependency upon personalities and encourages our consumeristic problems and celebrity status in Christendom. I know good men are preaching the gospel in this way, I am not doubting that, in fact many people I consider friends are using this method. I don't question that in some cases lives are being changed and leaders are being developed. I do think, however, that there are longer term implications that should be considered when looking at this approach.

I do have one curiosity though: Is multisite "church planting" or is it "one church in several locations"? It seems like Geoff wants it both ways, and I'm not sure that is helping to clarify the issue. Why is it called church planting when we are counting missional results, and then it is one church when attendance and offerings are being counted? I am not questioning whether or not a multisite church is a church, but I do not think it is a good church planting model, and certainly doesn't release multiplication movements. It is really the logical conclusion of 20 years of church growth strategy, but when compared to church multiplication strategy it is not so sound. Addition is still better than division and subtraction, but multiplication is the only way we will fulfill the great commission to the ends of the earth.

12 comments:

JamesBrett said...

"Is multisite 'church planting' or is it 'one church in several locations'?"

i live in tanzania, and so don't understand fully the multisite deal. but it doesn't fit the category of church planting to me. i think, at best, it's a church "transplanting" situation, because it's already got the new leadership built in, and doesn't seem to begin with the seed of the gospel and disciple-making. but i'm not sure it even fits the transplanting scenario. there just never seems to exist another (and separate) "church."

i'm not suggesting multisite can't be a tool for God to touch people's lives and accomplish his mission. i'm just suggesting it's a different kind of tool than is church planting.

JamesBrett said...

"Is multisite 'church planting' or is it 'one church in several locations'?"

i live in tanzania, and so don't understand fully the multisite deal. but it doesn't fit the category of church planting to me. i think, at best, it's a church "transplanting" situation, because it's already got the new leadership built in, and doesn't seem to begin with the seed of the gospel and disciple-making. but i'm not sure it even fits the transplanting scenario. there just never seems to exist another (and separate) "church."

i'm not suggesting multisite can't be a tool for God to touch people's lives and accomplish his mission. i'm just suggesting it's a different kind of tool than is church planting.

Phil said...

Salutations. This doesn't really have to do with your post, but I wasn't sure where else to ask. I've been reading your books, and in Church 3.0, you mention one of your friend Rob was moving to Salt Lake City to start an organic church movement.

Two years ago, my company forced me out here to Salt Lake City. By chance, is he stll here and could you give him my contact information? I would love to speak with him and see if I could be of assistance. Like many, I am not content to go to church, I want to be the church to my community so that the Lord may be glorified.

My email addy is jcservant[at]cyberlightcomics[dot]com

sharedvoids said...

When does a multi site church become a denomination?

almost an M said...

Neil,
Thanks for your original post on CMA and this response. I happened upon your piece first and then went and found Geoff's piece and then finally the original post. Though it was sequentially backwards, the process still works. To facilitate that for others, I thought it may be helpful to include the link to Geoff's post.
Thanks again!
http://geoffsurratt.typepad.com/inner_revolution/2010/04/finding-that-multi-site-smile.html

russleonard said...

Neil- I agree with you that there are some problems that arise from the multisite video approach. God has called me into fellowship with a church that is a multisite video church. I have been planting organic seeds among some of the believers at this church. I started a couple LTG's with some members and am starting to see some transformation.

The problem that I see with the methodology of the church I am at is that they purchase dieing or dead churches and then transform into a small copy of the mega church. The dependency is now on the megachurch for leadership development and provision. I have seen little addition of new believers in these instances and most often it is just a redistribution of believers from the mega church to the new satelite locations.

I believe the leadership of this church does have a heart for the Lord and eventually they will realize that their methodology is flawed.

God Bless!

Jonathan Davis said...

It's funny to me how the "business" of church can sometimes become clouded. I think that is the reason that I no longer work for a church, but instead, work (volunteer) in a church.

Multiplication, addition, what does it matter? The real question is whether lives are being changed in a palatable way on a regular basis.

While not every church can fill the multi-site role well, there are some that do.

At the campus which I attend, (a Seacoast Campus in Greensboro, NC) I see life change happen on a weekly basis. I rarely see membership change. I see lives impacted by God's mercy and love. Those are the wins.

Most new people who come in are initially turned off by the video because it breaks the traditional mold. They didn't walk through the door to see what the latest church craze was. They walked through the door because they were invited or in need of something greater than themselves.

These people don't know who our teaching staff is. They don't care about how many books each has written, or how many conferences they speak at. They want to be engaged, and based on the number of people who come back and commit, we are succeeding in that.

More churches don't equal more life change. In fact, coming from the Bible belt, I feel the opposite is true. More churches create more confusion, and more reasons not to care for a non-believer.

The real reason I responded was that I saw multiple references that seemed to indicate that video venue/multi-site equals membership changes, not life change.

This assumption discredits the impact of campuses that are placed in communities and affect change.

Anonymous said...

Excellent thoughts, Neil. We don't know each other yet, but I appreciate all the work you are doing. Thanks for your spirit of grace as well. I have come to many of the same conclusions about the multisite model, particularly the video model. I think you hit the nail on the head when you stated that the main problems with this model are that it encourages making celebrities out of our fellow believers and that it discourages the raising up of leaders. At the church I attended with this model, there were literally 50 people well qualified to preach, yet the video was of the same preacher every week. To me, this communicated that in the mind of leadership, this guy was the only one worthy or capable enough to speak. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts and for speaking the truth as you see it in this important issue.

Kevin (shalomer.blogspot.com)

Anonymous said...

russleonard, is it good to be 'planting seeds' of your agenda in a church that their methodology doesn't line up with yours? Dangerous ground my man.

And can I just say that just because multi-site may not fit into the definition of 'church planting' (although in my personal experience it does) does not mean that it is not a valuable strategy for reaching people with the gospel.

ken said...

Neil,

While I've grown to appreciate the fruit of various multi-site churches I follow, I do have one question ...

God forbid, but what happens to a multi-site church with 20+ campuses in the very unfortunate sudden passing of the megachurch pastor who preaches each week? Do they we need point-man insurance now? Can another person step in and carry it? I would think this would seriously present issues in terms of keeping things together ... Could that mean pastoral personality is more important than multi-site pastors might realize. Kinda scary ... Would love to hear back from you. Again, I love the multi-site movement, but I had this question and thought I'd throw it up for your insights ...

Neil Cole said...

Succession of leadership is a serious issue for the mega churches of America to take into consideration. The majority of mega churches are still led by their founding pastors. These will be tough shoes to fill. I would say that we should learn from some of the struggles that other large churches (even movements) are suffering through right now. Could it be that the Vineyard and The Chrystal Cathedral are examples that we should learn from?

Anonymous said...

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts on multi-site. They exactly echo many of the concerns my husband and I are facing right now as our multi-site church in Australia is undergoing succesion from one very gifted communcator to another leader imported from the outside. We planted a multisite congregation from this central campus four years ago knowing it was a good model to church plant from having resource & momentum in the initial start up phase. But now our congregation is flourishing & has strong local identity & is an "adult" ready to plant new congregations of it's own. Now the main church/ founding senior pastor is phasing out due to being in his more senior years & we don't feel that continuing as a multisite congregation is best for the people we lead, best for local evangelism and best for us as capable apostolic leaders. We feel the time right for our relationship with the founding church to change to be more of a network church  rather than a multisite congregation with our own board, finances & autonomy. It is up to our senior pastor to agree to this & if he does then he is truly a great man more concerned about building Christ's kingdom than his own.

Thank you again for your thoughts - they will be very useful as we continue our negotiations!