Leadership Network estimates there are over 8,000 multisite churches in the United States,6 but the large majority of these churches have not gone through the generation 1 to generation 2 succession process defined herein.7 Thus, the potential population for this study was all multisite churches that have undergone generation 1 to generation 2
succession.
Since an updated database of multisite churches does not exist, multiple means were used to discover the population. These means were used concurrently. One strategy involved using internet searches to find multisite churches that have gone through the succession process.8 A second strategy involved reviewing known literature on succession
and Dynamics in Multisite Churches: A Quantitative Study” (Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2016), 99-100.
5The original aspiration of this project was to create a census of all multisite churches that have gone through succession. Multiple strategies were employed to establish such a list of churches and survey them; however, the population discovery process revealed too many unique instances to accurately quantify the entire population.
6Warren Bird, “Leadership Network/Generis Multisite Church Scorecard: Faster Growth, More New Believers and Greater Lay Participation,” Leadership Network, 2014, 3, accessed July 15, 2015, http://leadnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2014_LN_Generis_Multisite_Church_Scorecard_Report_
v2.pdf.
7Important in this definition is that succession is an intentional process. Thus, multisite churches that have lost their Gen 1 pastor but not due to an intentional succession process (e.g., Mars Hill [with Mark Driscoll], The Journey Church [Darrin Patrick], NewSpring [Perry Noble]) are not included in the population.
8William Vanderbloemen, telephone interview with author, March 3, 2016, encouraged internet-searching as a mechanism for finding these churches.
to find examples of multisite succession. A third strategy included a week-long Twitter campaign that involved soliciting stories of succession by (1) telling known stories of succession, (2) mentioning stories and leaders involved, and (3) asking for contacts of more churches. The fourth strategy produced the most examples of succession, and it involved snowball sampling. Snowball sampling is the solicitation of people within or related to a population who then provide examples of the phenomenon being researched (or potential examples of the phenomenon). Researchers then follow up with the
examples given to (1) confirm that the examples fit the population and/or (2) receive further names of examples that might fit the population.
In order to establish a list of contacts for snowball sampling, a database was created in Google Sheets. This database consisted of leaders at local churches (both multisite and single-site), denominational leaders, and church consultants in the following groups:
1. Multisite churches in Outreach Magazine’s list of fastest-growing churches.9 2. Multisite churches throughout the country based upon internet searching.10 3. Certain single-site church leaders who might be aware of the phenomenon being
researched.
4. Church planting network leaders of Acts 29 and the New Thing Network.
5. Key leaders of annual conferences of the United Methodist Church.
6. District superintendents of the Evangelical Free Church of America.
7. Church planting strategists of the Southern Baptist Convention.11 8. Multisite church consultants.
9In order to help build a database of these churches, I consulted researcher Jamus Edwards, who used this population in his own research.
10In order to build this list more quickly, I employed a small group of researchers and delegated to them a group of states in the United States. This group’s task was to spend one to two hours researching multisite churches within their group of states and add churches and a key contact at those churches.
11These leaders were often found in the southern Unites States.
The final list of candidates for sampling included just over 400 unique contacts.
These contacts were then emailed with an introduction of the research, examples of succession, and a request for names of churches.12 In most instances the contacts either did not reply back or replied back that they were interested in the study but unfortunately had no examples. However, a handful of these contacts either (1) provided a name or name of churches to consider or (2) forwarded the request on to other leaders at their church or at other churches who might know of examples.
These strategies—internet research, literature review, a Twitter campaign, and snowball sampling—produced a list of 77 churches that may or may not have gone through succession but deserved further follow-up. Following up with these churches and succession stories led to a potential list of 42 churches that fit the definition of the
population. Research on those 42 examples led to a list of 35 confirmed succession stories.13
While the database of multisite churches developed, a concurrent process of survey development occurred. A draft of the Multisite Pastor Succession Survey14 was generated through a comprehensive evaluation of the literature base and in consultation with a survey design expert at Louisiana State University.15 That consultation resulted in a forty-seven-item survey broken up into six parts. However, finalizing a survey of this scope required experts in the fields of the multisite church and/or pastoral succession.
This expert panel was necessary because the phenomenon of pastoral succession within multisite is still relatively new and the literature base is in its infancy.
12See appendix 3 for the snowball sampling request email. In only a small number of instances, contact information was bad or the contact was not used.
13See appendix 6.
14See appendix 2.
15This person is not an expert in multisite churches or pastoral succession but rather an expert in constructing surveys to gather data required for analysis.
Experts for this panel included those who satisfied at least one of the following qualifications:
1. Researchers who have published in the field of pastoral succession.
2. Researchers who have published in the field of the multisite church.
3. Pastors who are serving as the Gen 1 pastor of a multisite church and have held that position for a minimum of ten years.
4. Persons who have served as consultants for multisite churches going through pastoral succession planning.
5. Persons who are or have served on the governing board of a multisite church with a first generation multisite leader for a minimum of five years.
6. Gen 1 pastors who have transitioned their multisite church to a new generation of leadership.
These criteria were appropriate for phase 1 because the expertise on the
multisite church is divided over multiple disciplines (practitioners, theologians, empirical researchers, consultants, and governing board members). Every combination of these disciplines brought unique contributions to the survey and provided a stronger final version.
Fourteen panelists meeting the criteria were contacted and agreed to provide feedback on the survey.16 A unique Google Sheet was created for each panelist with an overview of the research questions and a draft of the Multisite Pastor Succession Survey.
The expert panel was asked to rate on a four-point scale the importance of each item to the topic of succession.17 Experts could also provide revisions on any given question or offer questions that they believed were necessary to add to the survey. Of the fourteen panelists, nine completed the ratings, two offered email feedback only, one seconded a colleague’s ratings, and two offered no response.
16See appendix 1.
17A fifth option of “NA” was given in instances where a panel member felt as if the question was beyond his or her expertise.
The goal of the first round of these surveys was to discover consensus on the most essential survey elements and make any adjustments to the final survey. Consensus to an item’s value was determined by 70 percent of the panel submitting a response rating the item as “3” or higher.18 Questions that did not gain consensus were removed or adjusted. Further, revisions to item wording or response choices were made based upon panelist feedback. This process resulted in a forty-six item survey.19 This survey was then put into a Word document and sent back to panelists for any necessary feedback before considering the survey as complete in regard to questions and responses.
In order to further develop the final form of a survey before administration, a pilot test was administered. Pilot testing assists in finding any significant issues in question clarity, completion time, or other variables that may prohibit successful implementation. In most instances, pilot testing happens amongst the exact population being researched; however, with such a small sample to research, any population loss would hinder results. Thus, the pilot test for the succession survey included five staff members of multisite churches who were familiar with multisite churches and had available time to offer feedback on the survey content. The forty-six-item survey provided from the expert panel was developed in SurveyMonkey’s software, instructions were added, and the survey was sent to the group of five for pilot testing. Those who pilot- tested were given opportunity to provide feedback on item construction, instructions, or any other aspects that seemed unclear. After feedback from this group, the Multisite Pastoral Succession Survey reached its final form.20
18John Beck Cartwright used the same determination of consensus in his thesis. John Beck Cartwright, “Best Practices for Online Theological Ministry Preparation: A Delphi Method Study” (Ed.D.
thesis, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014), 51.
19The responses to the survey were positive. Almost all items received consensus and only a few items were given for any adjustments.
20See appendix 2.
Step 2: Participant contact and survey administration. After the