Full disclosure – I’m a flag waving member of the multisite movement. I pastor a multisite church. But I’ve noticed two limitations that even the strongest proponents and harshest critics of video venues and the multisite movement seem to have missed.
- The first is an Attendance Ceiling.
Few video campuses ever break through the 1,000 barrier. Almost all are midsized or smaller. Ten years into the multisite movement, no one has come close to breaking the code for planting multiple large attendance video campuses. And the handful that have planted one all feature very expensive facilities AND a nearby celebrity pastor with an enormous regional following.
- The second is a built-in Geographical Limitation.
The further from the mothership one gets, the harder it is for a video-driven campus to succeed. Most (not all, but almost all) of the video venue success stories are found within the same geographical region as the main campus. Those that do succeed at the outer edges seldom grow beyond the mid-hundreds.
What does that mean?
Well, to begin with, it means that those who envisioned video campuses as a way to break completely free from geographical constraints and expand their ministry nationwide won’t see their dream fulfilled. It’s not happening anywhere. And it won’t. The constraints of the attendance ceiling and the geographical limitations are simply too strong to overcome.
It also means that those who feared (and were horrified by the thought of) the MacChurching of America can rest easy. The American religious landscape is not about to be dominated by a few high profile celebrity pastors anytime soon – or ever.
THE ATTENDANCE CEILING IS SIMPLY TOO HARD TO BREAK THROUGH
Here at North Coast we do video well. Over two-thirds of our weekend attendance watches either Chris Brown (our other teaching pastor) or me on the big screen. Yet despite our success with video, the biggest hurdle we face on our off-site campuses is always the video.
Yes we reach lots of people, but there are many more we’ll never reach as long as we’re on a screen. Even those who rave about the quality of our sermons often end up somewhere else. They tell us they’d rather shake the hand and look into the eye of the preacher – even if that means listening to a message that isn’t quite as “good” (whatever “good” means).
It’s a story I hear from video campus pastors everywhere. That’s not to say that video venues aren’t working. They are. But most seem to top out at three to six hundred and appear to function best in mid-sized or smaller settings.
THE GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES ARE ALSO NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERCOME
In the early days of the multisite movement there was a lot of talk about a few churches having hundreds of video campuses spread across the country and even overseas. It sounded a lot like a franchising model. It never took off.
The reason is simple. Ministry is highly localized. There is a context to our preaching that is not only local, it’s regional as well. What plays well in one part of the country is often a dud in another.
Even celebrity status can’t overcome this geographical barrier because one region’s superstar is another region’s “Now who is that again?”
For instance, only a few people in my San Diego congregation have a clue who Andy Stanley is; same for Groeschel, Driscoll and any other non-Southern Californian “celebrity” you might care to name. And virtually no one has ever heard of Ed Young, John Piper or Tim Keller.
Sure these folks are well known among their fellow pastors, leaders, and the thousands who read their books. But the average Christian outside of their geographic region has no idea who they are. And it’s this regional myopia that makes it nearly impossible for any high profile pastor to launch a Wal-Mart like national franchise – which by the way few would want to do anyway.
THE BOTTOM LINE:
Video Venues and multisite churches are here to stay. They’ve proven themselves to be a powerful tool for expanding outreach and ministry beyond a church’s natural drive-time boundaries.
But they’re not about to replace church planting or local ministries any time soon. They fill a void. They draw some people. They help expand the kingdom. But in very few cases will they ever become the dominant ministry in your town or mine. They’re just another weapon in the arsenal.
At least that’s the way I see it playing out.
How about you?
Great insight. It is true that a video feed cannot lay hands on anyone and cry with someone or hug a single soul. It is an incredible opportunity to equip the saints but the power of a live person to confess to and pray with can never be replaced by a video no matter how well done.
However, as Professional Church Design Builder I am excited that churches can grow using less expensive buildings or repurposing vacant buildings with very little money. It is an exciting time for churches to expand ministries without carrying huge debts for new buildings.
I also share the joy of capturing this technology for the building of God Kingdom!
Thanks Pastor Larry for clearing the air! As far as I know, we the only church doing video venues in the state of Alaska. This presents both a unique opportunity and many challenges. We have chosen to not pursue the numbers game but create a place where transformation can take place in smaller venues, though fully equipped and staffed for what a venue requires for both Live and delayed video. Our Venue Leads are trained and cary out many “hands on” pastoral duties. One of the most exciting things to come out of our venues is a renewed desire to pursue ministry and plant churches. Most importantly, nothing will ever replace the local pastor/shepherd.
Pastor Larry,
Thank you for your comments, I agree with much of what you said. There is a hands-on component that is lacking, even with the “best” campus pastors on-site.
This got me thinking though, are there many who desire their video-venues to be “mega-venues?” One of our main purposes for video-venues, is to create small, more intimate gatherings, where community can be fostered and developed. Of course we want growth (numerical) but the overall goal isn’t numbers.
Willy
You’re right. Most multisites pastors aren’t trying to build a bunch of mega-venues. They just want to reach people and serve them. And many understand the power of smaller localized venues to be more intimate and community focused.
I’m simply pointing out that the assumption from both the proponents and the critics of multisite churches that large offsite (or multisite) venues are inevitable is probably not true – and the same for the assumption that venues can be widely franchised across the country by a high profile pastor who seeks to do so.
Larry, your insight is spot on. This was really helpful to me in the context of the video venue I currently serve in at Crystal Cathedral. Thank you for sharing. Oh ya. And I miss you all at North Coast. NCC will always be my home.
While there may not be many multi-sites with several large campuses today, there are some. I think it has more to do with the culture catching up with the technolodgy than it does an attendance cieling.
Ten years ago there were just a handful of mega churches and today there are thousands. Give it a few years and the same thing will happen on multi-site campuses.
To say there will never be multi-site churches with several large campuses, sounds a lot like what people use to say about the 4 min. mile being impossible until Roger Bannister ran one and thousands followed.
Before we limit the potential of multi-site campuses to reach the masses lets give it a little time.
Larry .. i really see it playing out different —
I must agree with Troy … it is very difficult to call it this early in the game … and i dont believe the “strongest proponents and harshest critics of video venues and the multisite movement seem to have missed” anything. They are pushing, leading and learning as they go … and have succeeded so far.
We are entering a generation were Video Communication is a “non-issue” – If we are not careful , we’ll cast a vision that will immediately create and uphold a tradition. (live teaching vs. video teaching)
I don’t believe it replaces church planting or local ministries… but it does have the potential to be the growing dominant force in reaching people…. (past the 1000′s and as effective as a church plant or other ministry as we have already seen)
……the best and biggest days of multisite are yet to come. just wait till the teenage years.
I think first of all that you wrote this very well considering how hot of a topic this is in the church world. I think your observations are correct but disagree with the the viewpoint on the future – I think we will be very surprised how much relational interaction is going to be done via video in all areas of our lives as the equipment costs continue to go down and as culture continues to be more concerned with convenience. Thank you for your thoughts – it was fun thinking about this with you…
Seeing how overall multi-site is new for most churches and video-venues is a relatively new way of ministry I think it will play out over the next few years as to size limitations.
Even most of the mega-churches didn’t just spring up “huge” overnight. I think we are just hitting our stride and beginning to understand what we are doing more and more. And these so called barriers are going to be smashed.
I can’t agree with you more.
One aspect of a ‘geographic’ video venue I experienced was the contrast of a localized mission verses duplication of the mothership. It seemed that the mission of the video venue was to duplicate the success of the “mothership” and the campus pastor played the role of ‘manager’ of the vision. What was missing in the video venue was the driving force of a local visionary to reach the local community.
The video venue did reach the 200 attendance mark, but will probably not grow beyond that without more autonomy in leadership, mission, and vision. I think this question should have been asked: “How can people be reached most effectively in that ‘geographic’ community?” verses “How can we duplicate the ‘mothership’ in another location?” The answers are sometimes different. Franchising the church has some huge pluses, but I believe new church start ups have a greater risk/reward potential on the local level.