The multisite strategy is ingrained in the American church culture. While the majority of churches will never use a multisite strategy, they are no longer perceived as aberrations and outliers. But something has been taking place steadily that engenders few, if any, conversations.
Before we look at that “one thing,” let me clarify my understanding of multisite churches. I include the classic definition of a church meeting in more than one physical location. But my definition makes room for “multi-venue” (meeting in more than one place on the same campus). A multi-venue church might have one service meeting in the worship center while another service meets in another place on the same campus. A multi-venue church could also have a service on the same campus on a different day of the week.
I have not yet included multi-services in my definition of multisite. Still, these additional services on the same site in consecutive time slots do indeed have most of the characteristics of a multisite church. To avoid confusion, for now, I will exclude the multi-service church in my definition.
Back to my original thesis. What is the one thing we don’t hear about multisite churches? It is obvious, but its implications are hardly ever mentioned.
The One Thing
The one thing we never hear about multisite churches is that their creation and implementation can have two significantly different motives. Some churches move to a multisite model to accommodate “overflow” growth. But most churches today move to a multisite model to reignite growth that has stalled or declined.
My data and numbers are anecdotal, but I have confidence in their trajectory.
The Two Models of Multisite
From a strategic perspective, we see clearly how these models are different. The Overflow model is just what it sounds like. The church has run out of room in its worship space, parking, or groups. It has to start a new venue to keep growing. Again, the venue could be a new campus, a different room in the same facility, or a different day, to name a few.
The Reignite model means that the church has declined or, at the very least, stalled in its growth. The new site becomes a strategy to restart growth.
We contend that the motive for starting a new site has changed dramatically in the past twenty years. Here are our estimates:Twenty years ago, three-fourths of churches that moved to a multisite model did so to accommodate growth. These churches were almost assured that the new site would start healthy and grow healthy because of pent-up demand for space.
The motive for starting a new site reached an inflection point in 2015. As we move into 2025, we estimate that three-fourths of the multisite efforts will be to restart or reignite growth. The implications for this massive shift are significant.
Seven Implications of This Shift
Since most of the multisite efforts shift toward the Reignite model, we must realize that there are several issues we must address. Though not an exhaustive list, here are seven key implications:
- Change will be more challenging. Most church members will understand the need for the Overflow model. The mindset of church members in the Reignite model will typically be more resistant.
- There is rarely easy growth. The Overflow model has church members and guests ready to move to another site. If nothing else, they are glad to have some space. That is obviously not the case with the Reignite model.
- The move to another site may prove to be a relocation. If the original site is dying, it might eventually close. The new site will thus be a de facto relocation even if it was not planned to be.
- There is a greater likelihood of jealousy about the new site. It is common for members of the original site to feel like the new site is getting all the attention. While their motive is self-serving, it is nevertheless a real challenge.
- Demographic growth is still viable with the Reignite model. If the new site is in an area of rapid demographic growth, there is a good possibility that it will grow. One church I observed found that one-third of their community works at least one Sunday a month. They started a Thursday evening service and reached many successfully. They had more demographic opportunities even though they used the same facility.
- The leadership skillsets needed for each of the two models are likely different. Though this issue might be a challenge, I have worked with church leaders who have been able to meet this challenge. Indeed, their willingness to start a new site is indicative of a growth mindset they might not have used with the original site.
- Usually, the timeline for the Reignite model is longer than that of the Overflow model. Several factors could affect the timeline, but it is not unusual for the Reignite model to require a longer period of buy-in.
Is the Reignite Model Worth It?
The seven implications above are weighted more toward the negative. For certain, there are likely more challenges with the Reignite model versus the Overflow model. However, I am still hopeful for those churches that use the Reignite model. Frankly, it is often the best step a church can take to move from decline to growth.
We will gather hard data about these models in the future. We are happy to share any new information with you.
What do you think about these models? I would love to hear your perspective.
P. S. My friend, Tony Morgan, died on September 4, 2024, after suffering a heart attack. Tony and his organization, the Unstuck Group, have been a great resource to local churches, including those who are moving to a multisite model. Please remember his widow, Emily, and their three grown children in your prayers. Remember the Unstuck Group as well as they move into a new era without Tony.
