Subscribe Twitter Redeemer City to City Facebook Share
Share on:
blog

The 'Multi-Site' Model -- Thoughts

12 Jan 2010, by Tim Keller


Recently Redeemer was featured prominently in a USA Today article about multi-site churches. Outside of the fact that Redeemer doesn't 'do video,' the differences between our approach and others were not referred to. And in much discussion on line after the article, it was clear that all multi-site churches were being Lumped Together. Just for the sake of clarity, it might be helpful to know these facts about why and how Redeemer does the multi-site.

1. First, we did not go to multi-site because it was more economical or efficient for us. When we began meeting at multiple sites ten years ago, we were already holding a morning and an evening service at a single site that was quite large. It would have been much more cost-effective to multiply to four or five services in that single location. Moving to other sites meant greatly increased costs for rent, for children's ministries, for music and many other things.

2. Second, we did not go to multi-site to quickly reach more people. The auditorium where we began meeting 10 years ago seats over 2,000 people, and other spaces that size are not available. The spaces we have rented in other parts of the city are far smaller. If we had stayed in that space and multiplied services there, we would have reached greater numbers more swiftly.

So what were the reasons that we adopted the multi-site model?

1. First, we sent our services out into different locations so that people could worship closer to where they lived. People can become more deeply involved in the community and can more easily bring friends if they attend services in their neighborhood. This was an 'anti-mega-church' move, since huge churches create a large body of commuters who travel long distances to attend church. We wanted to resist this tendency and root people more in their locales.

2. Second, the multi-site model is a transition design for us. Redeemer has a timetable for turning each site into a congregation in its own neighborhood, with its own pastoral leadership. I was the main preacher at all sites, but two years ago we went from four to five services at three sites, which is too many for me to preach in a Sunday. Rather than beaming me in by video, we determined that other pastors on the staff would always preach at least that fifth service. When we get to six and seven services, about two years from now, each site will have its own Lead Pastor who will share the preaching with me.

We will then transition from a 'multi-site' to a 'collegiate' model. Though still under one unified board of elders, each church will have its own pastoral team, elder team, and set of lay leaders. Other collegiate models in our PCA denomination include Harbor Presbyterian in San Diego and Brooklyn Presbyterian here in New York City.

I was careful in my interaction with the USA Today journalists not to criticize other multi-site churches. I do not know what motives other churches have for using the multi-site model, but those are ours.

Comments

jonathanmunozv
01/12/2010
Excelent post! In our project in Santiago (Chile) we have the same second reason for starting a multi-site model the next year... but, sincerely, I had some doubts about it. Now I can see it crystal-clear: this is an excelent strategy to reach different neighboorhoods and, therefore, different cultures in our city. We dream with different churches in Santiago with their own leadership and pastors. That's our goal! And the multi-site model is a way to get it. Thanks Tim!

RupZip
01/15/2010
In the coming days, we will all need to be less building-centric. We may need to pour our resources into people and rebuilding the lives of those affected by economic destruction. I pray it doesnt happen, but we should be thinking ahead to this possibility and making sure our resources are properly aligned. David Red Letter Believers Blog http://www.redletterbelievers.com "Salt and Light"

Tim Keller
01/15/2010
Thanks, David -- One of the original reasons for going to multi-site was so Redeemer would not be so dependent on the rental of one single building. So we saw the multi-site as a way of becoming less building-centric.

Jeff Hess
01/25/2010
You mentioned renting facilities several times. This is clearly something you have chosen to do despite the fact you probably have the resources to build something of your own. I'm interested in your take on when a new church (or new venue) should rent space versus buying or building their own. What factors do you take into account? Is it simply a limitation of the geography of city planting? Is it for flexibility in your ministry?

trevorcharris
01/26/2010
What I would like to understand is why you feel the need to build a model that will progressively go collegiate. Why don't you just plant new churches that act independently within the presbyterian network or that act as affliates / sister churches. Why motivates you to keep a single governing board ? Trevor HARRIS, La Garenne-Colombes, FRANCE

David Ramos
01/26/2010
Fascinating model that is more contextual and incarnational. I would love to hear more about this "collegiate model." I love the mutuality of this model, which exemplifies a greater "kingdom" idea. I wonder what this model will look like if expanded beyond one's own orbit of churches, if pastors of different denominations will share their pulpits one those of like spirit.

preachinmama
01/26/2010
I understand and support multi-site plants, but the reality is that setting up every week is a huge drain on our people resources. I am wondering how that is dealt with.

kiev_pastor
01/26/2010
Tim, it is nice to see you and you all guys again. We are church of about 60, but we have several great groups of guys in our church that would be willing to start another site or two in Kiev soon. 2 things that we are concerned about and need advisory are the following: 1/ What are the main problems of multi-site we should avoid 2/How did you manage several multisites with one Session. You have mentioned that you had pastoral groups in each site - how those did look like. Would love to hear any advice from anyone who has touched multi-site ground before. Tim, if I can ask you another question that wasn't replied at your last conference (sorry for the off-topic) - waht was the main multiplying model in Redeemer when it was planted (home groups, one on one descipleship, or...) it's very important question for us now here, since our church seems to be healthy in all ways, but still grows slowly. If you think you can answer this question by e-mail, please, do so. pastor@jesus.kiev.ua Thank you so much for your time and labor

MattM
01/27/2010
Tim, I like so much of what you're trying to do, but I still wonder about the rationale of the "multi-site" to "collegiate" transition. Is that really a transition without a difference? Why not allow those churches to particularize with their own sessions (since they presumable have an "elder team" there already)? I understand the need to keep a pipeline of in-house connectionalism when planting a church...but why not "multi-site" to "particularization", once a church site has been established? Curious to hear your thoughts. Thanks, brother.

Tim Keller
01/29/2010
Thanks for all the comments! Jeff Hess - Actually, we do not really have the resources to build something of our own in Manhattan. The costs of facilities are enormous here--we could not afford to go out and buy or build enough facilities for all our people to meet in. I think that for urban congregations like ours it is best to have a 'mixed' portfolio--some owned or long-term leases, and some rented. trevorcharris and MattM - The collegiate model is attractive to leaders who like team ministry and collegiality, and yet who want to be entrepreneurial as well. The collegiate model means the 'lead pastors' of each congregation will have to work closer together than they otherwise would. It means taking much more counsel before making moves. MattM asks 'why not move right from multi-site to particularize'? The first answer is that the collegiate stage helps keep the congregations more on the same page in ministry vision for a longer time. While the churches will eventually particularize, by that time they will have had a number of years in which they have had to work together. This will make it more likely that the churches' 'DNA' likeness to one another will last for generations. It makes long-term unity more likely. The second answer is that the collegiate model enables the pastors and leaders of each congregation to get much more help from me and from other senior leaders. They will be in a formal mentoring relationship with us for several years. It makes it more certain that the ministry wisdom of the founding generation of leaders is passed on. preachingmama-- Yes, as I said above, the multi-site approach is definitely draining. It is not as 'efficient' as staying in one location. It requires more money, staff, and (most crucially) more volunteer lay leaders. Each time we moved to a new stage in our multi-site we did a campaign to raise the money (and the awareness and the commitment) to do it. You need to 'stockpile' the resources and be sure you have enough before you go in that direction. Kiev_pastor - Up until now in our multi-site model we have kept everything very centralized. All the ministries are largely run 'from the center.' While we have some staff that are assigned to certain sites, the director of each ministry (music, children's, small groups, artists) is over all sites. This is the reason why up until now it has not been difficult to manage all the sites through one Session. In the future, when we move to a collegiate model, the elders will have to be divided into what would formally be called Session-commissions for each local site. A commission is authorized by the full Session to (in some issues, like discipline and membership) act for the entire body, with routine reports about its actions going into the minutes of the larger body.

adamvenable
03/09/2010
I'm interested in the collegiate model, but skeptical for at least two reasons: 1. It sounds like congregational leadership (session commissions) are not accountable to other leaders of churches gathered as a body (the presbytery), but only accountable to the "full session." 2. It sounds like you're creating your own presbytery.