I experienced my first visit to a multi-site church yesterday. I'd recently been asking many questions about this latest phenomenon within the United States. Experts tell us that there are as many as 2400 multi-site churches in the USA. Well I took in the experience and my review is mixed. The place we (Beth and I) went to visit was in the Harrisburg, PA area. The church we visited is a church plant of a well established mega-church within the South Central PA area; I think the church plant has been going about a year. The church's worship is held within a school and the atmosphere that they created is professional and well done. Colorful banners, warm & friendly greeters, a (mini) coffee shop, great kids program, cafe area, and an all around relaxed environment were all there when we stepped through the door. I could tell that a lot of time and resources have been invested in the place. The worship experience was alright, they jumped right into worship after the Campus Pastor said hello and told the people gathered there to say hello to one another. After the songs, the screen dropped and then their was the Senior Pastor sharing his message via satellite. At the conclusion of the service the Campus Pastor gave the announcements, took up the offering, and then the worship team closed in a song. Not a bad experience; the worship team was excellent and the way the worship was conducted was very professional.
So let me tell you some things that I liked about it.
1. Great atmosphere (mentioned that one already)
2. Good music (I'd like to have that worship team at any worship venue)
3. Relaxing, no real expectations that I was going to be asked to do anything when I came in
4. The technology (sound, lights, and technician) were outstanding
5. It looked just like the "mother ship" (I've been there already). If there goal was to look exactly like the "mother ship" they did an awesome job of doing just what the "mother" church does.
What I didn't like:
1. Impersonal (I felt like I was at the next showing)
2. People said hi, but people didn't say hello (they didn't ask me my name)
3. It felt "boomer" like (I can say that because I am one)
4. I didn't connect with the "preacher" on the screen (what he said was good, but I knew it wasn't live, and it was hard to get into. It just felt like something was missing)
5. It was a homogeneous crowd (all white; the church plant doesn't look at all like the community)
6. It seemed like the crowd was "churchy"
I'd have to say that after this experience I'm not sure if I am a proponent of the Multi-site Church. I'm not an opponent, I'm just not seeing how a church can move into a community (that isn't at all like their own), and package themselves identically in a different location expecting that to be enough to reach and transform that community for Christ. I'm also struggling with the fact that the experts are telling us that the Gen X and Y generations are very relationally oriented. I didn't see this component yesterday, maybe one of you Gen X or Y people can tell me if the Multi-Site Church concept connects with you. What I learned? The best components for any church are genuine love and relationships; when you have these you will really make some noise for Jesus. Time will tell whether the Multi-Site Church is something that is going to be used and blessed by God. If it is, I'm all for it. If it isn't, I hope it dies quickly. Until then; can we at least have a live pastor at these venues (60% are, I'm glad for that)? "Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." Acts 5: 38-39
4 comments:
Thanks for that analysis, Barry. I've often wanted to check out their work having come from a church doing multi-site. The challenge is that their doesn't see to be any biblical precedent for multi-site. I struggle with starting another site and limiting it's autonomy for the sake of calling it the same church. If one congregation never interacts or fellowships or worships with the other there is no way you can call it the same church except in name alone. What do you gain vs. putting the same people and $$ resources into a new autonomous church plant?
As a church planter who is considering a remote site... I also have mixed emotions. We are launching a site on a college campus this fall. But the difference is its live not DVD... we are going to serve the community we are targeting with the goal of the remote gathering becoming its own Church plant in time. To me the video only site will only attract numbers & not build community. People want relational church... not the quick in fill my tank & go on with life. It smacks of boomer church... fix me, feed me... if you want to reach mosaics it takes investment in relationships in that they want to touch the pastor & him touch them. If it means more smaller community focused churches & less mega boomer ones... so be it... its people that matter not just about the numners
I too have questions, not a formed 'opinion', Biblical or otherwise yet on multi-site. I don't know of a passage that says there were such, but that in itself does not rule it out from a hermeneutic standpoint. Yet, having been in one such service, at a large church in TX several years ago, I had a bit of trouble following the preacher, just being there 'on the screen'...live and projected just seem to speak to me better (but that's me). Fellowship though was warm and sincere, and I felt welcome. I do believe it takes a very intentional effort to build the closeness that the Lord's church is supposed to have.
Recently heard comments from a multi-site small group pastor who sounded like their church is doing what it takes to make it work (the church covers 4 states with over 13 campuses), and God certainly seems to be growing His church through that work.
Just read your site Barry. Looks great. Good ideas.
Post a Comment