Satellites v. Church Plants
Ever wonder why so many churches today are going to satellite campuses as they get larger? Michael Mckinley writes a helpful post on the pros/cons of satellite campuses versus church planting:
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.Read the whole thing. Given the decline in the percentage of church-going Americans, and the unique effectiveness of church plants to reach the lost, I would have to agree with Mckinley.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".
On that note, Global Church Advancement is hosting their annual North America Church Planting Conference next week in Orlando, Florida. I will be there to live-blog many of the sessions, and all posts which go here (as well as on my blog).
Comments
Also, it seems to me that satellite campuses are detrimental when they are being driven by a single personality. For example, why does Mars Hill Church in Seattle have to beam Mark Driscoll all around the city of Seattle? Is it perhaps because Driscoll is a draw while some lesser-known pastor might not command the same audience.
Posted by: Matthew Wilcoxen | January 24, 2008 12:37 PM