One of the growing trends in evangelical circles is multi-site churches. Churches are developing multiple campuses and the preaching is done by the pastor of the mother church and then transferred to the other campuses by video, either live or recorded. In the Tulsa area one church that is just moving in that direction is The Church at Battle Creek. Not long ago Battle Creek revived a struggling congregation in Pryor by bringing it into the Battle Creek fold. They turned it into a part of the Battle Creek satellite congregation. Word has it that they are looking to extend their brand into more surrounding areas like Claremore.
From a purely pragmatic consideration, this church format seems to be working. It is working so well that more and more churches are jumping in with both feet. For now I have more questions than answers about this church model. Particularly I wonder about what this means for the role of the pastor?
America is a land of celebrity. We love our stars. I have to wonder if the video pastor only feeds into this cultural wasteland. One day will our only option be to watch the latest preaching superstars via satellite? What kind of “shelf-life” will they have? If all we need is a video feed of a good orator why not get a variety? Joel Osteen on the first Sunday of the month followed by Mark Driscoll, David Jeremiah and Rod Parsley…
Church Trend watchers like Eddie Gibbs say that churches are going to “have to move from an attractional mindset to an incarnational mission model” (“Christianity Today,” October 2009, p.45). But isn’t the multi-campus church model just another manifestation of the attractional church?
If the growth of the church is dependent on the superstar preacher, what does that say, if anything, about the role of the Holy Spirit in the growth of the church?
Can we rightly call a man our pastor if all we know of him is what we see on a screen – even if it is large and hi-def? The Puritan pastor Richard Baxter wrote to pastors: “We should know every person that belongs to our charge; for how can we take heed to them, if we do not know them?” Good question Richard.
For me the jury is still out on this way of doing church. I have unanswered questions. But like Paul I rejoice that Christ is proclaimed, however it might be done.
For more information on multi-campus churches see these articles:
Comments
I have a problem with this model, mostly for the reasons you stated in your article. FBC Tulsa started a church like this in Sand Springs. We were interested in it until we found out that it was just a satellite church. Honestly, Sand Springs is seven minutes from FBC Tulsa! That seems a little whacked, in my opinion.
The reason that multi-site churches seemingly work so better is that they make it easy to attend because there is no demand to do anything. We have failed in the church today to reproduce disciple makers and instead reproduce pew sitters. If you are going to be a pew sitter you might as well attend the best and most entertaining show. We must pray for a revival of people in the pew to do the work of the ministry.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!