Within this section, seven primary multi-site methods will be labeled and introduced (Figure 12). Most of these multi-siting processes come from individual or combined multi-site approaches identified in taxonomies found earlier in this chapter.
Thus, the primary task here is assembling the seven processes in order to provide an
“apples to apples” comparison of ways churches employ multi-site as a practice. The key question of the multi-siting process is: “How does a church utilize the multi-site
concept?” As is the case with other multi-site characteristics, multi-site churches may use a single form or multiple forms of multi-siting process(es).
Process Relocating Adopting Mothering Replicating
Venuing Cross-
Culturing Partnershiping
Figure 12. Primary methods of multi-siting process
Relocating process. In his 1997 doctoral thesis, “The Multi-site Church and Disciplemaking,” Earl Ferguson dichotomizes multi-site churches “into two large categories. Those that are pro-active multi-site churches [emphasis original] and those that are reactive.”93 Ferguson further separates the reactive multi-site category into two subgroups, namely those seeking to “relocate” and those experiencing “growth
93Ferguson, “The Multi-site Church and Disciplemaking,” 19-20. Ferguson’s perspective on the multi-site church movement is unique. He is (1) the earliest doctoral student on record for documenting the multi-site movement, (2) a former multi-site church pastor, and (3) the father of Dave and Jon
Ferguson, pastors of Community Christian Church, Naperville (Chicago), IL.
explosion.”94 Explaining the move to multi-site as a relocating process, Ferguson states, A large percentage of these reactive multi-site churches come about as a result of trying to relocate. Typically, it is a down-town [sic] church whose constituency drives in from the suburbs and the leadership wants to relocate in a suburban area nearer the membership base. This is done by starting worship services at a location in or near the suburb or community where they want to relocate. Services will be held at both sites and for several years. This eases the pain of those who feel they are abandoning the old down-town [sic] site and allows time to reach new people in the area where the church plans to center its ministry base in the future.95
Ferguson then identifies Skyline Wesleyan Church, Lemon Grove, California, and First Baptist Church Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia, as churches that became multi-site by using the relocating process, and then later returned to a single site structure once
relocation was complete. Site consolidation, however, is not always the case, and at times temporary multi-site arrangements become permanent. First Community Church, Columbus, Ohio, provides at least one example of an incomplete transition that created (and maintains presently) a multi-site church approach (Figure 13).96
When Schaller labeled the “Relocation” multi-site expression in 1994, he had in view the “use of this option as one step in an extended relocation process.”97 In reality, whether initiated by a plan for location transition or an unplanned explosion in growth, when asked, “How does your church utilize the multi-site concept?” the answer is the same. Those who enter into a multi-site arrangement via the relocating process do
94See Schaller, Innovations in Ministry, 121.
95Ferguson, “The Multi-site Church and Disciplemaking,” 19-20
96Schaller presents a lengthy and detailed discussion on First Community Church, Columbus, Ohio. Ibid., 124-31.
97Ibid., 121.
Relocating Process Definition:
A multi-siting process designed to address relocation challenges of an existing church
Examples:
Skyline Wesleyan Church, Lemon Grove (now La Mesa), California First Baptist Church Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia
First Community Church, Columbus, Ohio Figure 13. Summary of relocating multi-siting process
so to address inadequacies of their church building’s physical site and/or situation. For definitional purposes then, the relocating process may be defined as: “A multi-siting process designed to address relocation challenges of an existing church.”
Adopting process. The adopting process is well documented in other multi- site classification systems. Schaller calls it caring for a “Wounded Bird,” defining the process as “an expression of a large congregation caring for wounded birds” or declining congregations with limited sustainability.98 Easum and Travis provide a somewhat gentler title, “The Strong Church/Weak Church Approach,” and then offer a more copious definition:
In this approach the healthy church takes a very strong leadership position over the hurting congregation, often taking it over and forming a partnership. When a dominant congregation gives leadership in the new location, the future success tends to be much better than when a weaker congregation still attempts to lead itself. The healthy church provides the staff and program for the hurting congregation and eventually absorbs the weaker church.99
Harrison, Cheyney, and Overstreet give the adoption concept a positive
98Ibid.
99Easum and Travis, Beyond the Box, 95-96.
designation, calling it “The Resurrection Model.” Moreover, their definition highlights both the negative reality and available benefits of this multi-siting process:
Going into a dead or declining church and starting a multisite service [sic].
This model is becoming a popular and timely response to the thousands of church buildings that are vacant or host to declining congregations. This approach works especially well when the main campus has a number of members or families near the new site who are willing to attend the “resurrection” multi-site location. Those adopting this model might consider a “funeral celebration” for the old church, then launching the new multi-site.100
Summarizing the explanations above, the multi-site adopting process is best defined as: “A multi-siting process in which a strong church assumes leadership and eventual ownership of a weaker church” (Figure 14). Several examples of this process are available. Easum and Travis highlight Lord of Life Lutheran Church in Fairfax, Virginia, taking the Holy Spirit Lutheran Church in Centerville, Virginia, “under their wing” and experiencing great success with the process.101
Adopting Process Definition:
A multi-siting process in which a strong church assumes leadership and eventual ownership of a weaker church
Examples:
Lord of Life Lutheran Church, Fairfax, Virginia Lifepoint Church, Columbus, Ohio Shelter Rock Church, Manhasset, New York Figure 14. Summary of adopting multi-siting process
In 2005, Delaware Baptist Church, of Delaware, Ohio, approached a year old ________________________
100Harrison, Cheyney, and Overstreet, Spin-Off Churches, 78.
101Easum and Travis, Beyond the Box, 96.
single-sited church plant, Lifepoint Church, Lewis Center (Columbus), Ohio, offering their facilities and remaining church membership for adoption. Lifepoint accepted, and in February 2006 began their two-campus journey. Four years later, Lifepoint was averaging 575 in worship.102 Finally, McConnell details five more cases, including Shelter Rock Church, Manhasset, New York, and their adoption of Bible Baptist Church in 2005.103
Mothering process. The mothering process covers a variety of multi-site arrangements. It can be defined as a multi-siting process by which a mother church launches or births new, often smaller, sites or niche expressions of their church. These expressions generally focus on specific locations, certain age populations, or ethnic niches. In some cases, these ministries become autonomous, and in others, they remain allied to varying degrees with their originating or mother site (Figure 15).
In previous multi-site classifications, four different categories have been used to describe this singular concept. Two of them belong to Schaller’s multi-site
expressions list. The first is labeled “Mothering” Strategy, and highlights Perimeter Church, Atlanta, Georgia, as the definitive category example.104 In reality, Schaller’s
102“Lifepoint Story,” Lifepoint Church [on-line]; accessed 19 September 2010; available from http://www.lifepointcolumbus.com/ lifepointstory; Internet.
103McConnell, Multi-site Churches, 225-26. The four additional cases of adoption
arrangements are (1) Oasis Church, Pembroke Pines, FL, adopting First Baptist Church of North Miami, FL; (2) Spring Baptist Church, Spring, TX, adopting Bridgestone Baptist Church (no location given); (3) LifeChurch.tv, Edmond, OK, adopting, Metro Church, Edmond, OK; (4) The Chapel, Akron, OH, adopting undisclosed church. Ibid., 225-33.
104Schaller, Innovations in Ministry, 122. See Schaller’s description of “The Perimeter Experience.” Schaller gives minimal clarification on this designation and by definition (“a typical strategy for ‘mothering’ new missions”), his category does not match his example. This mismatch is interesting because Schaller connected the term “missions” with Perimeter Church. It seems that either Schaller could
“Mothering” Strategy fits well within the other designation of the “Key Church
Strategy,” which is the establishment of a series of indigenous satellite congregations and launched from and supported by a primary or “key” church.105
Mothering Process Definition:
A multi-siting process by which a mother church launches or births new, often smaller, sites or niche expressions of their church.
Examples:
First Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas
Gambrell Street Baptist church, Fort Worth, Texas
First Baptist Church, Arlington, Texas/Mission Arlington/Metroplex St. Luke’s United Methodist Church (“The Garden”), Indianapolis, Indiana Bethlehem Lutheran Church (“The Spirit Garage”), Minneapolis, Minnesota
Upper Arlington Lutheran Church, Columbus, Ohio Figure 15. Summary of mothering multi-siting process
Examples of the Key Church Strategy are plentiful both within Schaller’s writings and Ahlen and Thomas’ work, One Church, Many Congregations: The Key Church Strategy. Some of these include First Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas; Gambrell Street Baptist Church, Fort Worth, Texas; Mission Metroplex/First Baptist Church,
________________________
not find a better name for the Perimeter concept or he was somehow unclear about the concept of Perimeter Church being one church with many congregations. Ibid.
105Ibid., 71. Harrison, Cheyney, and Overstreet’s definition of their “Satellite Church Model”
also fits within the mothering process classification: “In this approach, a main campus might have dozens of satellite congregations meeting in various locations, including apartment buildings, homes, office buildings, and schools. This method may include features of what is called the cell church, with the difference being that the members of satellite churches usually are not expected to come together in large celebration services, as is the case with cell churches. If most of the attendees never worship at the main campus, the churches are functionally satellite multisite churches rather than cell churches.” Harrison, Cheyney, and Overstreet , Spin-Off Churches, 77.
Arlington, Texas.106
While somewhat different from Schaller’s “mothering” multi-site expressions, Easum and Travis’ “Apartment Approach” and “Mainline Approach” share the same defining elements with Schaller’s. First, their “Apartment Approach” and Schaller’s
“Key Church Strategy” are similar, as validated by Easum and Travis’ definition:
Many beyond-the-box congregations are more concerned with changing their cities than with growing their churches. Therefore, they form alliances with anyone in the city, regardless of denominational affiliation, in their efforts to reach the city for Christ . . . . In this approach, lay Christians from across denominational
boundaries gather people for Bible studies and apartment clubhouses, mobile homes, and neighborhoods . . . . This allows specialized congregations to meet the needs of many micro-niches based on culture and social need. The ultimate goal is to provide an opportunity for every person in the city . . . to hear and respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ.107
Both of the categories highlight the same example: Tillie Burgin and her work with Mission Arlington/Mission Metroplex.
In the “Mainline Approach” classification, Easum and Travis present cases in which mainline congregations are beginning to develop multi-site congregations in order to “expand their mission, reach a different demographic, or deal with a landlocked situation.”108 Examples include (1) St. Luke’s United Methodist Church, Indianapolis, Indiana, and their “The Garden” site; (2) Bethlehem Lutheran Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and their “Spirit Garage” site, and (3) Upper Arlington Lutheran Church, Columbus, Ohio.
106J. Timothy Ahlen and J. V. Thomas, One Church, Many Congregations: The Key Church Strategy (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 63-78, 92, 135-48.
107Easum and Travis, Beyond the Box, 93.
108Ibid., 93-94.
Replicating process. The replicating process is probably the most common of the seven presented here. It can be defined as “a multi-siting process by which a church begins an additional campus or campuses that closely emulate(s) the style and approach of original campus.” Within this process, branding is often protected with extreme care. The goal is to provide “the same” worship, preaching, and community product at all sites (Figure 16).
Replicating Process Definition:
A multi-siting process by which a church begins an additional campus or campuses that closely emulate(s) the style and approach of original campus
Examples:
New Life Church, West Linn (Portland), Oregon
Willow Creek Community Church, South Barrington (Chicago), Illinois Eastern Star Church, Indianapolis, Indiana
Figure 16. Summary of replicating multi-siting process
Harrison, Cheyney, and Overstreet use the label “Franchise Approach” to capture this replicating idea. They explain the concept within a “cloning” framework:
As much as possible, these new worship communities are ‘cloned.’ There is a
‘branding’ element in this approach, where the sermon, songs, and other aspects of the worship service are generally copied from the mother or originating church.
These often take on the flavor of a company owned franchise.109
Surratt, Ligon, and Bird also make mention of this phenomenon, but with the title “Regional-Campus Model.” They define this approach as: “Replicating the
experience of the original campus at additional campuses in order to make church more
109Harrison, Cheyney, and Overstreet, Spin-Off Churches, 77.
accessible to other geographic communities.”110 As examples, they cite New Life Church, West Linn (Portland), Oregon; Willow Creek Community Church, South Barrington (Chicago), Illinois; and Eastern Star Church, Indianapolis, Indiana. Surratt, Ligon, and Bird argue that this model is focused primarily on circumventing geographic challenges of those “who do not want to or cannot make the long commute to the original campus.”111
Venuing process. The multi-venue concept has been discussed in detail above, so presently only a cursory definition will be offered for this process category.
The venuing process is “a multi-siting process by which a church creates additional worship venues beyond their primary worship gathering” (Figure 17).
Venuing Process Definition:
A multi-siting process by which a church creates additional worship venues beyond their primary worship gathering at a
single location Examples:
Jersey Baptist Church, Pataskala, Ohio North Coast Community Church, Vista, California Saddleback Community Church, Lake Forest, California
Figure 17. Summary of venuing multi-siting process
110Surratt, Ligon, and Bird, The Multi-Site Church Revolution, 30, 32-36.
111Ibid., 33. Schaller offers the “Urban Church” multi-site expression as “The urban church with two or three or four off-campus meeting places.” Schaller, Innovations in Ministry, 121. This expression may not fit tightly within the replicating process definition, but does fit to a degree within this general domain.
These venues may run simultaneous to the primary or original worship service, sharing some or no elements. Worship venues may also occur at different times, and they can be few in number or many. The key distinction of the venuing process is that a church becomes multi-site only with the addition of worship venues at their current location.
Cross-culturing process. Earl Ferguson provides in his doctoral thesis an example of a church capturing the essence of the multi-site cross-culturing process.
Citing Charles Olsen’s, The Base Church: Creating Community through Multiple Forms, Ferguson argues that Druid Hills Presbyterian Church was an early multi-cultural, multi- site church, based on the following commentary from Olsen.112
One example of a satellite base can be seen in the Druid Hills Presbyterian Church of Atlanta, Georgia. When Cubans began moving into the area, the church contacted them. The language barrier prohibited the Cuban group from sharing in the church’s Sunday programs, so they developed parallel education and worship experiences, with the support and oversight of the Druid Hills Session.113
The Druid Hills arrangement was a short-lived endeavor, but the idea of a predominately Anglo church launching a worship venue or campus to reach different ethnic groups is gaining traction within multi-site churches. The multi-site cross-culturing process may thus be defined: as “a multi-siting process in which a church of one predominant ethnic demographic launches a campus focused on reaching a different ethnic group.”114
Several examples of churches using this cross-culturing process are evident,
112Ferguson, “The Multi-site Church and Disciplemaking,” 18-19.
113Charles M. Olsen, The Base Church: Creating Community through Multiple Forms (Atlanta: Forum House, 1973), 80.
114Harrison, Cheyney, and Overstreet list this concept as “The Multicultural Model” within their major approaches to multi-site taxonomy. They describe it as follows: “These multi-sites will use the same sermon and program that have been translated into the language and culture of the community. This
especially among Anglo churches wanting to reach Hispanic groups in their area (Figure 18). The Church of the Highlands, Birmingham, Alabama, for instance, utilizes an
“Español” campus within their eight-campus structure.115 Because of their ministry focus on serving their community, leaders at The Healing Place Church, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, took note of the valuable contributions of Hispanic workers. The Healing Place saw the needs of Hispanics in Baton Rouge and the potential involved with creating a Healing Place campus designed specially for them. Presently, The Healing Place Church has one campus “En Español,” and they are preparing to start a second.116
Cross-culturing Process Definition:
A multi-siting process in which a church of one predominate ethnic demographic launches a campus focused on reaching a
different ethnic group Examples:
Druid Hills Presbyterian Church, Atlanta, Georgia Church of the Highlands, Birmingham, Alabama The Church of the Highlands, Birmingham, Alabama
New Life Community Church, Chicago, Illinois
Figure 18. Summary of cross-culturing multi-siting process
A final example of the cross-cultural process is New Life Community Church, ________________________
is a potential response to transitional communities and can build bridges among cultures.” Harrison, Cheyney, and Overstreet , Spin-off Churches, 78.
115“Español,” Church of the Highlands [on-line]; accessed 20 September 2010; available from http://www.churchofthehighlands.com/ campuses/espanol; Internet; see also Scott McConnell, Multi- site Churches, 215-16.
116“The Healing Place Church en Español,” Healing Place Church [on-line]; accessed 20 September 2010; available from http://www.healingplacechurch.org/hispano/; Internet. See McConnell, Multi-site Churches, 214.
Chicago, Illinois. As a multi-site church with 14 different worship sites, they do not have
“a unified approach to worship,” due in large part to the multi-ethnic nature of their church. Eight of the 28 worship services held at New Life each weekend are in Spanish, and as their senior pastor Mark Job explains, “We do come together a couple times a year for a combined bi-lingual worship experience.”117
Partnershiping process. This final process condenses several forms of multi- site activities into a general theme. For definitional purposes, the multi-site partnership process may be defined as “a multi-siting process in which a church works cooperatively with a non-church entity to facilitate the creation of an additional campus site” (Figure 19).
Partnershiping Process Definition:
A multi-siting process in which a church works cooperatively with a non-church entity to facilitate the creation of an
additional campus site Examples:
Stillwater United Methodist Church, Dayton, Ohio Lake Pointe Church, Dallas, Texas
Community Christian Church, Naperville (Chicago), Illinois Figure 19. Summary of partnershiping multi-siting process
In Multi-Site Church Revolution, the authors create the name “Partnership Model” to describing this process.118 Highlighting Stillwater United Methodist Church,
117Warren Bird, “Extending Your Church to More Than One Place,” 8.
118Surratt, Ligon, and Bird, The Multi-Site Church Revolution, 38-9.