I hate Blockbuster for that!

Concerning the real issue that Jonathan brought up, I do appreciate his post. And I do hope that the mega-church plants/satellite campuses aren't doing it to further their name and reputation, but instead to spread of the kingdom and the Name above all names.

Thank you for asking the tough-love questions. They have to be asked. The leadership of these churches have to re-evaluate their motives. The path of least resistance isn't the best course of action, nor is the most successful model of how to grow a "church" the wisest and most biblical way.

I believe we have neglected those churches that preach the gospel, but are small. Why not revitalize those churches, rather than corner the market?

When Paul speaks about sending greetings to other churches, why don't we follow that same model?

If you're in the DC/NoVA area, you'll get this...Like Lom Solomon, "not a sermon, just a thought." ;-)

I agree with most of your points here but I guess I'm having a hard time seeing the difference in a mega-church planting a satellite campus and a particular denomination planting a new church close to an existing church of another denomination. I can think of several instances of this and the town I live in is relatively small.

Wouldn't the same issues apply?

I agree with Brian, I don't see much of a difference between a sattilite campus and a "regular" church plant. I've seen the same types of problems with a regular church plant.

Perhaps the only difference would be the novelty of the mega-church. That is provided the unchurched are even aware of it. That is assuming that the sattilite church wants to reach the unchurched.

In a lot of ways I see the sattilite approach as likely being more effective and cost-efficient however. They already have infrastructure, staff and support. They can also more readily hive off people to go with the sattilite church which has been proven to be more effective than doing a complete pioneer work.

Also, you don't have to be a megachurch to do a sattilite campus or off-site service. I've seen this done with smaller churches. I like the thinking outside the box approach.

In regards to #2, you might be interested in this link:

http://www.auburn-doesnt-need-another-church.com/

The basic message seems to be: The 150+ churches in the area get it wrong. So, we're going to come in and get it right.

I don't live in the Auburn, AL area anymore. However, when I did, I pastored a 3 point charge there. So, I take this a somewhat personally. I am deeply concerned about the "our brand is best" message.

Matt O., instead of having a church like the one in the video (we will look SO closely like the world, people won't know the difference kinda church, we'll water down the Word of God, make it all about atmosphere, make it a social club church), maybe the best way to change the Auburn area, is to first pray, and second to send biblically sound pastors to infiltrate the dead and dying churches, and revitalize that church from within, equipping the members to go and be a witness of the gospel message to their family and neighbors. That maybe a better and more biblical way then to "reinvent" the church model.

TW, I would say that the video misrepresents the Auburn area as being full of dead churches. I could list several churches there that are alive and well and doing the work of the gospel.

I was concerned by the video's emphasis on making the church "attractive" to the unchurched. It seems to me that if a church is doing it right, then it will seem quite unattractive to the unchurched. Jesus was looking to attractive to even his closest friends when he was being hauled off by the Romans. Church should be oriented around Jesus rather than what makes it attractive to those on the outside. Not to say we're trying to run people off. We just need to remember that the Spirit draws people through the gospel. So getting that right is more important than filling the place up with people who find it attractive but may not be too clear on the gospel.

Matt

Matt,
Praise God for some living and active churches in the Auburn area. Pray for more faithful servants to preach the good news and to become passionate for the lost and needy.

I too, was concerned about the "attractiveness" that the video portrayed.

Amen to the Spirit, drawing them in. Don't forget Romans 10:17.

Here's a quote for you (I'm not sure who said it, but I believe I heard Dever quote it a while back):

"What you win them with is what you win them to."

Thanks for posting Matt.

As an elder in one of those solid churches (by God's grace!) in Auburn, I am deeply concerned by this satellite church effort, the message it sends about other churches in the area, and most importantly, by the branding and "remote presence" methodology. I have a hard time seeing how a biblical relationship between sheep and shepherds can be cultivated with this methodology.

"Incredibly appealing and attractive...", yikes!

Who did they interview "after further investigation", young people? young couples? older people? I believe that this church may not look like the one Paul describes in Titus 2. It'll be people in the same social and spiritual situation.

"Meets our needs"... consumeristic mindset. Not good.

"MS service...so they don't have to sit through the boring adult service..." man, this gets better and better all the time. What kinda church would admit that the adult service is BORING. C'mon. It's the Word of god being preached.

"Worship...great and vibrant music..."-seriously. Worship is 24/7 and it's not about singing all the time.

"All that church junk"...what?

We need to pray for this church. Stan, thanks for sharing and your concern.

Brethren, thanks for the comments. Jonathan, I deeply appreciate your concerns. I am trying to think through this concept of satellite campuses, but not from the mega church mindset.

Is it really the satellite concept that is the problem or is it a mega-church mindset that is most problematic?

I am thinking of an area close to me where only one church that I am aware of would be committed to the 9 Marks convictions (brand?) (or the T4G approach for that matter). Several congregations within my denomination in that area are quickly dwindling. What is the downside of a small to medium size church with multiple leaders, investing their plurality of leadership in a satellite campus across town to avoid losing the property and gain a gospel-centered ministry. Perhaps one day it will be an independent congregation. But for the beginning stages, what would the drawbacks of a satellite congregation be?