Does Anyone Else Smell Irony?

Am I the only one who finds it iron­ic that the mul­ti-site church con­fer­ences are all sin­gle-loca­tion events? Just google for “mul­ti-site church con­fer­ences” and you’ll see what I mean.

It just seems… odd.

As pro­gram­mers are want to say, eat your own dog food.

7 thoughts on “Does Anyone Else Smell Irony?”

  1. Glenn,

    You make a good point. It is iron­ic.

    But does the sin­gle site nature of the mul­ti-site church con­fer­ences inval­i­date the mod­el?

    As far as eat­ing their own dog food, I think you will find that the vast major­i­ty of the church­es host­ing these con­fer­ences and the speak­ers are already involved with the muli-site mod­el. So I guess you could say that they already are.

  2. I did­n’t mean to imply that it inval­i­dates the mod­el alto­geth­er.

    But it seems obvi­ous that the log­i­cal way to edu­cate the broad­er church world about the virtues of mul­ti-site venues is by show­ing them: why not have three or four of the big mul­ti-site church­es joint­ly spon­sor a mul­ti-site con­fer­ence with some con­tent host­ed at each site and broad­cast to the oth­er sites?

    Per­haps it’s mere scheduling–it would be hard to clear out one day that all the church­es could syn­chro­nize around. Per­haps it’s incom­pat­i­ble technologies–church A does things one way and church B uses a com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent approach.

    Or per­haps it’s some­thing deep­er and is reveal­ing an impor­tant lim­i­ta­tion of the mod­el.

  3. I think you’ve got a good idea there, one con­fer­ence at dif­fer­ent loca­tions.

    Most of the mul­ti-site church­es that I am aware of so far still have mul­ti­ple loca­tions in a fair­ly small geo­graph­i­cal area. And yet the dif­fer­ent mul­ti-site church­es that are grow­ing are rel­a­tive­ly more sep­a­rat­ed. It’s not an insur­mount­able hur­dle, for sure, but a chal­lenge none the less.

    You are right too when you point out that there are many dif­fer­ent ways that church­es are doing the mul­ti-site thing. But again, I think hav­ing a mul­ti-site mul­ti-site church con­fer­ence is a good idea.

    Have you ever been to a mul­ti-site church?

    I was pret­ty skep­ti­cal when I learned about it, but hav­ing been a part of an off site cam­pus start (over a year now), I’m a con­vert. I now see that the mod­el makes some good trade-offs with resourse uti­liza­tion, staffing require­ments, and lead­er­ship devel­op­ment.

    I’ve become a fan.

    Is it per­fect? Of course not. It may not even be the “best” mod­el, what­ev­er that is. But the mod­el does bring some good things to the table.

  4. It just occurred to me that Wil­low Creek has been doing mul­ti-site con­fer­ences (their Lead­er­ship Sum­mits) for years. Seemed rel­e­vant to men­tion.

  5. Yeah. The mod­el real­ly isn’t any­thing earth shat­ter­ing­ly new­fan­gled. The old time cir­cuit rid­ers were basi­cal­ly low tech mul­ti-siters. The main dif­fer­ence I see now is the inten­tion­al­i­ty for a church plant­i­ng method­ol­o­gy which requires few­er resources.

  6. I wish I could take cred­it for it, but it’s a fea­ture built into the K2 tem­plate that I use. Thanks!

Leave a Reply