I am unquestionably a church guy! I believe Bill Hybels perfectly articulated the heart of every “church guy” when he emphatically declared, “The Church is the hope of the world!” Therefore, because of this core belief, the employment of new strategies and discovery of fresh methodologies that advance the local church typically garners my optimistic support. This is true of the multisite strategy, as you may have seen in my recent Influence article, “Before You Multisite: Four Questions to Ask.”

However, not everyone within the church community views this movement as favorably as I do. In fact, it is quite easy to locate voices that speak directly against the multisite movement. Multisite detractors critics voice three main concerns.

Argument #1: Franchise Cloning

Many vocal detractors of the multisite movement insist that the creation of a new venue is more analogous to genetic cloning than birthing a new church. They bolster their argument by pointing to the perceived obsession to which many multisite practitioners will go to produce an exact replica of the original campus. Central to their argument is the clinical, sterile and strategic process that appears to be far removed from the organic and relational connections found in New Testament church planting.

Those in this camp perceive that the present activity of God has intentionally been replaced with corporate franchising playbooks and practices. Therefore, this business plan approach results in a secular and competitive corporate church culture whose bottom-line result orientation cannibalizes smaller, less viable churches—essentially putting them out of business. In this framework, multisite churches can only be viewed as turf lords who foment competition between existing churches rather than a partnering model of mutual aid that we see in the New Testament.

Balancing Insight: Strategic planning without an utter reliance upon a divine partnership is as presumptuous as expecting God to bless poorly planned and ill-conceived endeavors. In reality, both ends of this spectrum are fraught with devastating consequences. Choosing to go multisite requires that a church bathes their natural efforts of strategic planning with continual Spirit-led and prophetic prayer. It is only then that going multisite becomes a super (His portion) natural (our portion) experience!

Argument #2: Cult of Personality

In the minds of many, the present multisite model stifles leadership development, especially those with speaking gifts. They insist only the most naturally gifted speakers appear to be given the opportunity to develop their communication and preaching gifts. Therefore, the assumption is that the style, intelligence, and personality of the preacher are more essential than the message of the gospel itself.

This practice fails to create an incubator that produces a perpetual pipeline of young preachers. Opponents looking toward the immediate future raise the question of sustainability. Without a robust pipeline of young preachers, who will replace the ranks of an aging ministerial population within mainline denominations? Likewise, without new preachers, how will the American church planters produce the number of new churches necessary to keep pace with population growth?

Choosing to go multisite requires that a church bathes their natural efforts of strategic planning with continual Spirit-led and prophetic prayer.

Detractors insist that these perceived problems outweigh any short-term benefits gained by the current wave of multisite churches. Ed Stetzer quips regarding the perceived limitation on reproducing leaders stating, “Let’s face it, it’s easier to create another extension site than it is to create another Andy Stanley, Larry Osborne or Greg Surratt.”

Balancing Insights: I’ve never met a person who enjoys bad preaching. In fact, it is hard to find a church of any size that does not use their best communicators in their largest venues, especially if they want to continue to grow! Secondly, if we are honest, most of us who would rather forget our first few forays into preaching, and in hindsight are eternally thankful that we were allowed to hone our craft on smaller, less critical audiences.

Argument #3: Biblical Illegitimacy

The final argument that is echoed most frequently throughout literature against the multisite movement strikes at the foundational premise behind the movement’s existence. The linchpin of their argument hinges on the fact that the New Testament is completely silent regarding the existence of multisite churches within its pages. This deafening silence is adequate enough for many to dismiss the strategy altogether.

For those who espouse this position, the lack of a specific multisite example within the New Testament provides biblical evidence that there is no need to examine further or explore the multisite as a legitimate form of Kingdom expansion. If the Bible doesn’t talk about it, there is no reason to employ this method. Therefore, biblical silence nullifies the movement and ultimately labels it as another form of church growth pragmatism.

Balancing Insights: Holding to such a strict interpretation of Scripture opens oneself up to questions such as the one posed by Matt Chandler, pastor of The Village Church, a multisite congregation in the Dallas-Forth Worth Metroplex. He asks, “The Bible says nothing at all about cell phones. Does that mean it’s a sin to use one?” How about electricity, sound systems, wireless microphones, digital signs, video projectors, bulletins… well, you get the picture!

I believe the multisite debate will rage on with both sides becoming more and more entrenched in their views. Because of the silence of the Scripture on the practice, those who implement this strategy will continue to be viewed by its opponents as pragmatists who blur the definition of a biblical church. Likewise, those who refuse to engage in this developing strategy will be viewed by its proponents as being guilty of missing yet another “God thing.”

Concluding Balancing Insight: The Church of Jesus Christ has never been stagnant; it has continually changed. For this reason, church leaders have been charged with the responsibility to stand in the intersection of change to discern the present activity of God in their generation. Tension is not new to the church, nor will it ever go away. In fact, tension is not a bad thing. The tensions over new methods in Acts 15 released a world-wide explosion of the Gospel that teaches church leaders a divine principle: Methods are not sacred, the Message on the other hand is.