When the multisite movement really began gaining public traction 10 years ago the predominate models that were held up were using video to deliver teaching across their campuses. Since those early days the multisite movement has begun to grow up a bit and today about 50% of the 8,000 (ballpark) multisite churches are delivering teaching via video while the other 50% are using live teaching in their locations. But what are the pros and cons? Which model is best for your church?
- Simply put the biggest “win,” when it comes to delivering teaching via video is consistency. Consistency in vision, language, culture, and leadership coming through one clear consistent voice simply cannot be overstated in its value.
- Leveraging the gift of a great communicator at every location instead of good communicators at every location.
- Embracing the technology of video teaching provides a certain nimbleness and flexibility for the church to respond to opportunity and expand the reach of the Gospel.
- Some people simply will never accept teaching delivered over a screen.
- Less financial investment in the technology needed to support video capture, delivery, and playback.
- There are actually few communicators gifted enough to transfer effectively across video (they’re not growing on trees).
- Natural succession planning allows each campus to become it’s own independent church in the future more easily.
Don’t hear what I’m not saying. I’m not making a case for either option. I don’t believe one is better than the other. I believe better communication is better communication period. Whether it’s delivered via video or live. But I do believe there is a right decision for each multisite church based on the factors listed above among other things.
So what’s missing? What would you add to the conversation?
Posted in Leadership