Satellites v. Church Plants
Hey Jonathan,
Thanks for your work going through Reveal. If brevity is the soul of wit, you are... very thorough.
With respect to satellite campuses, I think one of the reasons churches don't plant churches is that there's a danger that the mission and message of the sending church will get diluted through the generations. Satellite campuses address that problem by keeping the church plants on brand message.
I'll explain what I mean. Sometime soon the church I pastor has to decide whether to put all of our resources into growing as big as possible or pouring our efforts into church planting. The question is which would be preferable: one church of 1000 or 5 churches of 200? Should we build a building for the 800 people who can't fit in our auditorium, or should we plant 4 smaller churches for them? If we have 1000 persons worth of resources to shepherd for the expansion of the gospel in their lives and in the community, is it best done from one large church or 5 small churches? I understand that growing larger and church planting are not mutually exclusive, but for the immediate future we need to focus our resources in one direction or the other.
The benefits of the church plants are obvious: more intimate community, more direct shepherding, more opportunities for men to grow into leadership, more locations mean more gospel presences in more communities.
The downsides are also obvious... what if those other four churches don't exactly stay on message? What if they don't give to missions or preach the Word or do whatever thing is most important to the sending church? In that case, it might seem safer to keep all 1000 people under strong centralized leadership so that resources are allocated in the way I see best.
Satellite campuses seem like a way to have the best of both worlds, church planting with a chance of strong centralized leadership. That being said, I think true independent church plants are more than worth the "risk".
I agree worth the risk. I fear what will happen when a virus enters into the mother church.. The virus will be spread down to the others thus corrupting them all.
Marting Luther would be turning over in his grave if he were to see all churches with a larger than life senior pastor telling other churches what to do.
There is a risk involved but the pay off is far more valuable than that of statellite churches.
Posted by: Church Planter | Jan 23, 2008 4:11:51 PM
My goodness, what a disturbing message.
"Growing as big as possible"? How about "doing the work of Christ" or "growing our members into mature disciples"? Whereas I realize that this is only a few paragraphs out of a real context, your ideas about the goals of your church are disappointingly physical.
You list wonderful, biblical benefits to church plants, and then say "but we can't control them" as the counter-argument.
Why do you need to control a church that you plant? Yes, a church may move away from the message. That's why you train your young men properly. But after they are trained, then you need to LET THEM LEAD.
The attitude of "But we can't just let people trust scripture, the Spirit and sound training! It could be chaos! We need control!" institutionalism is a huge problem in today's church, and you just laid out very clearly why.
Be careful. When you grip something too tightly you end up killing it.
Posted by: MrPages | Jan 23, 2008 4:14:57 PM
Brothers,
Thanks for the blog and all the profitable discussion!
Michael,
It seems that if the men you are sending to be planters have been well trained fit the qualifications required of elders, then fear of "not staying exactly on message" shouldn't prevent you from planting churches. Think of how the gospel has spread all over the world through church planting. I'm grateful Paul didn't allow the disfunction of early churches he planted to hinder him from continuing to plant churches. Once a church has been planted, the congrgation has a great responsibility in assuring the pastors "stay on message" (Gal 1:6-9).
All that being said, larger churches typically have more resources available for mercy ministries and missions.
Posted by: Freddy T. Wyatt | Jan 23, 2008 4:30:42 PM
I think the way to keep the church plants faithful is by training the lead pastors of those church plants to be faithful to the biblical vision instilled in them by the sending church. As far as resources for mercy ministries, Freddy may have a point. But for missions, I do think if one is part of a convention like the SBC, being a small church will not hinder or hurt a mobilization for missions.
Posted by: PJ Tibayan | Jan 23, 2008 4:57:26 PM
I currently attend and am active in a large SBC church w/ two campuses. Other than common executive staff (ewe, corporate business words) its two churches with one name.
Currently working through Titus, writing commentary on a verse each day. I must be blind because I'm missing the mega church, multi-campus directions to Titus on church building.
Posted by: Stephen F | Jan 23, 2008 5:49:07 PM
Is there not a parallel here with rearing children? Teach them, prepare them, then let them go and entrust them to God.
Posted by: Bruce McKanna | Jan 23, 2008 11:27:32 PM
Very helpful post. Thanks.
Posted by: Alex Chediak | Jan 24, 2008 2:45:28 AM
Bruce,
Thanks for those words of wisdom.
Posted by: TW | Jan 24, 2008 7:52:47 AM
It seems there is often this misperceived either/or scenario. Either we grow as big as we can OR we plant smaller churches. Why is it not possible to grow large and still plant lots of churches? Doesn't the research actually confirm this possibility?
I'd be curious what you think about this.
Posted by: Jason Allen | Jan 24, 2008 9:30:05 AM
You neglect the possibility of the mother church going off the rails, which further strengthens the case for church planting.
As does the greater ability to grow disciples through getting people to serve.
Posted by: John | Jan 24, 2008 10:22:19 AM
I'm curious as to whether any multi-campus practitioners have come up with a rationalization for how multi-campus Baptist churches fit in with traditional Baptist ecclesiology? I realize that issue won't be important to non-Baptists, but I know there are lots of Baptist churches with multiple campuses (I think 2nd Baptist in Houston has 5 - does that make Ed Young the bishop of Houston?).
Kyle Newcomer,
member of First Baptist Church of Bryan, TX
Posted by: Kyle | Jan 24, 2008 2:19:28 PM
I don't think so that if one Church is going to plant a new Church then it is danger that the mission and message of the sending Church will get diluted, and yes I completely agree with your conclusion that Satellite campuses seem like a way to have the best of both worlds, church planting with a chance of strong centralized leadership and thanks for sharing your thoughts on new Churches.
Posted by: Christian | Jan 30, 2008 4:30:09 AM