document.body.scrollTop = 137.000000;
Posted by Geoff SurrattNeil 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:
Have a leader who delivers a 30-60 minute speech every week
Not be tied to a larger organization
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:
They often use the teaching of someone who stands in another room when he speaks
They share resources with likeminded congregations
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.
Elwood Matthews
