|
|
Maybe I just too old-fashioned, but I don't see how any pastor can give himself fully to more than a handful of people at a time. Even Jesus himself only a few close disciples. I'm extremely sceptical as to how effective a multi-site venue could actually be.
For starters the Pastor would not even know my name. How can I trust him with matters of crucial import to my life?
No, I have zero interest in multi-site churches. I prefer to stay with my small intimate group, where each member is vested spiritually, emotionally, financially and whole heartedly in every other member of the group. There's just nothing else that can replace it. |
|
|
The model takes this into account. That's why they have the campus pastor. In some places multi-site is very much like a house church with video preaching. Does that sound any more acceptable? |
|
|
I am not a fan of the multi-site idea....at least I haven't warmed up to it yet. A couple in our small group attended one in Frederick, MD. They said they never quite felt connected...but then, the site they were part of was mostly a different demographic than they. This type of church model feels.... plastic, artificial to me. |
|
|
| Exactly Lara, church via TV. The stuff happens at the main church, then gets "played" on screen at the various "franchises", the alternate sites, or satellite churches. We look at screens enough these days, why would we want to do it in church on Sundays too!! (sorry, that's my last comment!) |
|
|
It's bad enough that the speaker has to remove himself from the body of the congregation to speak, but to remove himself even further is plain dumb. There is no way you can care intimately for me without ever having met me, prayed with me, hurt with me, sacrificed with me.
Baaahhhh. Leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. |
|
|
| JT, Mike gets it pretty close to my understanding. The justification/response to your concern is that it's not the speaker's gifting/calling to provide care. He's there as a very gifted teacher and strategic level leader but you're not going to see him in the ER at 3:00 am. |
 |
|
Grant |
 |
August 19, 2008 at 1:01am |
|
I have been a part of a large, impersonal, multicampus church where the "pastor" was not, not a pastor, that is. He was more of a business man, very territorial, and seemed to be building his own empire, rather than God's kingdom.
I have also experienced a few, small country churches, where the preaching was more powerful and meaty than a hundred health-wealth televangelists and their empty-headed fluff rolled into one. The intimacy of the smaller church is unsurpassed.
Somebody once said that large churches foster followership, small churches build leaders. In the large church a teenager is simply told to get on the bus, but in a small church, the few teens have opportunity to organize every activity from the ground up. Perhaps this is sometimes said that most great Christian leaders have come from small churches.
As to my personal philosophy on the matter, I very much agree with the mentoring principles, captains of tens, the 12 disciple-principle and so on. In other words, as someone above so well said, a person can truly only "pastor" or disciple a small number. Jesus set us the example, and I think that the most successful pastors are those who follow some local adaptation of these ideas. |
|
|
Grant |
|
August 19, 2008 at 1:06am |
|
| Now, to continue... That having been said, if a person can disciple 12, who disciple 12, who disciple 12, then perhaps that form of a multicampus model would be acceptable. After all, what is a denomination, but a multicampus church! :) |
|
|
Hi Dan, in your last comment you stated...
"The justification/response to your concern is that it's not the speaker's gifting/calling to provide care."
How can "care" not be part of the gifting/calling of any pastor? In fact, my particular understanding of the pastoral function is to care more than any other, being the one to lay down his life for any one of the sheep before he would see one of them hurt or lost.
I know that you do not mean he doesn't care, but that 'pastoral care' would fall to a hireling, an underpastor, or hospitality ministry member, will be sent to check on me in the ER at 3 a.m. But if he cared for me in his heart, would he really turn me over to a hireling? Of course not, because when the wolves come, the hirelings see to themselves. Christ taught us this. |
|
|
Lara, I've never even been to a multi-site (so I'm genuinely interested in folks impressions and experiences) but that's one of the arguments in favor of this model -- it breaks the mega- into the micro. There are exceptions but most of these that I've heard of are in a coffeehouse-sized room (in fact, for many it is a coffeehouse) where people are sitting very close to everyone else in the room with all the oppportunities that makes for connection.
Jonathan, I think they'd say that it's a five-fold ministry approach that separates pastor and teacher. I don't want to put words in your mouth but I have run into a lot of folks who say "five-fold" and then lump together "pastor/teacher". I've also run into folks who think Ephesians 4:11 reflects four-fold ministry--it's all about how many commas and where you place them...
Care is done at the site level because it's easy to find yourself teaching a much larger group than you can actually look after. Even Jesus taught a much larger group (the crowds) than he discipled (the three and the twelve). |
|
|
"Thus saith the Lord unto the Church of Regal Cinemas ... " I must confess that the concept initially sounded very much like the modern-day university. In a sense, colleges around the world are embracing this "multi-site" concept through its perpetuation of distance education (its modern offshoot of the correspondence school). So now we speak of "education without borders" or "nontraditional education." But the important difference lies in the fact that fellowship as such is not a part of the educational paradigm (even if student cooperation is). So then, what exactly is the motivation for wanting to build these cross-country multi-sites? The only thing I can envisage is that the pastor feels compelled to be the instructional shepherd of those multiple sites. Whether this is precipitated by a sense of pride or not is for each person to decide. However, I find it difficult to imagine how a one-size-fits-all message would be applicable and appropriate to every geographical area. For example, here in Las Vegas it may be important for a pastor to address gambling, debauchery, and lust as he exposits passages of the Bible. But would these messages apply to, say, Rupert, Idaho? What about Provo, Utah where its large Mormon population would all but guarantee that such vices were limited? Part of what makes a pastor effective is that he understands the pulse of the community. This is given some support by noticing that John's Revelation includes what "the Spirit says to the [seven] churches" in Revelation chapter 2. If you read what is addressed to the seven churches, you'll see that each message is absolutely unique! I think this poses a legitimate challenge to the multi-site agenda. Here is the (temporary) solution to this trend without giving it up cold turkey: If we treat these multi-sites as mere teaching resources and as additional extensions of ministry apart from our regular church attendance, then I think we can imagine such multi-sites as parachurch gatherings on a par with the Billy Graham crusades. Think of it also as something along the lines of Promise Keepers. But in terms of the nurturing of the local congregation, the multi-site agenda has this significant obstacle to overcome! Perhaps multiple sermons, based on topics (like workshops), are available? Would this be weird to see "what's playing at our church today"? "Excuse me, sir, we have two adults and three kids here to see 'The Sermon of Acts 2." "Oh, that will be in theater 6 to the right. Enjoy and pick up some popcorn on the way! |
|
|
Well said, SL! You've given voice to some of my hesitations about this model.
There are claims that fellowship, outreach and mission are actually expanded by this model (and here comes the key caveat) as practiced in certain places.
That's the problem in answering Lara's request for a description--there's no one definition for multi-site. In most examples I've heard, each site functions as a unique congregation except for the teaching and the "vision". Sacraments, fellowship, care, and discipleship all take place at the site level.
For me it really does come back to the one-size message. IMHO, life-change most consistently comes from some version of a face-to-face conversation. I've been informed and even deeply challenged by electronic messages but there I don't recall being changed. And isn't that the goal? |
|
|
More Posts from PastorDan
|
|
back to top
