What do you think?
Rate this book
MultiChurch: Exploring the Future of Multisite
Is it time for your church to go multisite? How do you know if it's the right solution for your congregation? MultiChurch brings clarity to the multisite movement and assembles the lessons it has learned over the past 15 years. Combining insights from multisite church pastor Brad House and Christian theology professor Gregg Allison, this book will help anyone interested in multiplying gospel-centered churches to effectively evaluate and develop the best multisite model for their own church context. In MultiChurch , you This theological, philosophical, and practical guide traces the history of the multisite movement and assembles the lessons—the good, the bad, and the ugly—learned over the past two decades.
240 pages, Paperback
Published September 12, 2017
44 people are currently reading
71 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
May 4, 2022
House and Allison present a compelling case for multisite. Allison has written extensively on the marks of a church so his model is not based on pragmatism. He seeks a multisite model that faithfully carries out all the necessary elements of church. At the end of the day, my concerns for the multisite model were only strengthened. And after reading Allison's proposed model, I understand his motives and would happily link arms with their "church" in ministry - through I lean toward viewing each "campus" as a biblical "church."
The "multichurch" model strongly resembles independent churches in a healthy "network" relationship. The churches are tied together through shared leadership and budget but they act as separate congregations ministering to their own contexts. The book helped me think through multisite in a deeper way for we often build caricatures of multisite or point to the undeniably problematic examples. But not all multisite churches or models are created equal. And many of the arguments against multisite are not unique to the model but are human problems found everywhere (the church is built around one person, people become consumeristic...).
The book was helpful for its explanation and evaluation of the various church models (pillar, gallery, franchise, federation, cooperative, collective, network) and for its charts related to leading a church through change. The chart has four quadrants that relate to conviction and urgency. These help determine the order in which you deal with needs in the church (or the order of importance for various ministries).
I would highly recommend that current multisite church leaders read this book. Though I'm not a fan of the model, I'm convinced that God would be glorified and his bride would grow through multisite churches that look more like Allison's model than the live-stream models that seem to be the norm. Ultimately, we would do well to return to the biblical marks of the church. Before we talk about what the church does we must understand what it is. Before we run with what technology allows us to do we must see what God understands the local church to be. However, we must remember that the model is not what makes a church beautiful in God's eyes. It seems God is more glorified through a church that is shaped by the gospel and filled with pastors and members who understand their place in the local manifestation of the bride of Christ, family/temple of God, flock, kingdom, embassy... and is multisite than by a "biblically-modeled" church that looks nothing like Jesus. With that in mind there is still a need for talking about polity and models.
The "multichurch" model strongly resembles independent churches in a healthy "network" relationship. The churches are tied together through shared leadership and budget but they act as separate congregations ministering to their own contexts. The book helped me think through multisite in a deeper way for we often build caricatures of multisite or point to the undeniably problematic examples. But not all multisite churches or models are created equal. And many of the arguments against multisite are not unique to the model but are human problems found everywhere (the church is built around one person, people become consumeristic...).
The book was helpful for its explanation and evaluation of the various church models (pillar, gallery, franchise, federation, cooperative, collective, network) and for its charts related to leading a church through change. The chart has four quadrants that relate to conviction and urgency. These help determine the order in which you deal with needs in the church (or the order of importance for various ministries).
I would highly recommend that current multisite church leaders read this book. Though I'm not a fan of the model, I'm convinced that God would be glorified and his bride would grow through multisite churches that look more like Allison's model than the live-stream models that seem to be the norm. Ultimately, we would do well to return to the biblical marks of the church. Before we talk about what the church does we must understand what it is. Before we run with what technology allows us to do we must see what God understands the local church to be. However, we must remember that the model is not what makes a church beautiful in God's eyes. It seems God is more glorified through a church that is shaped by the gospel and filled with pastors and members who understand their place in the local manifestation of the bride of Christ, family/temple of God, flock, kingdom, embassy... and is multisite than by a "biblically-modeled" church that looks nothing like Jesus. With that in mind there is still a need for talking about polity and models.
July 25, 2024
Thoughtful reflections and raises good questions. Very American. doesn’t provide quite enough on alternative ways forward.
January 27, 2021
There was some great information in the first half of the book about the history of multisite and various models/strategies. As the evaluation of various models progressed, the pros and cons started to sway in favor of the preferred model of the author. As a person engaged with a different model for multisite, I struggled with what seemed like some unfair bias against specific models. The book seemed to imply that the best model for the future is multichurch (thus the title and reason for writing the book).
My own opinion is that many of the different models described in the book are healthy and will continue to be relevant (while having their own weaknesses). Multichurch is A model of healthy multisite ministry, but it is not THE model.
This is still worth reading - the spectrum described on pages 50-51 is worth the price of the book. These chapters in section 1 were great! Discussion of the "locus of power" and life-cycle were very helpful.
My own opinion is that many of the different models described in the book are healthy and will continue to be relevant (while having their own weaknesses). Multichurch is A model of healthy multisite ministry, but it is not THE model.
This is still worth reading - the spectrum described on pages 50-51 is worth the price of the book. These chapters in section 1 were great! Discussion of the "locus of power" and life-cycle were very helpful.
May 17, 2025
Stronger exegetically than expected.
June 8, 2019
The major strengths of this book are its taxonomy of multisite church models (including strengths/weaknesses of each model), response to objections to multisite church models, and the tools to determine what aspects of your ministry model matter most. The specific model of multichurch was interesting, but much less compelling than I’d hoped. I wanted to understand why they were so passionate about the model, but I didn’t catch the excitement. Still worth reading.
October 5, 2017
This book was very helpful for our church as we are currently in the midst of a church plant/branch ("federation") effort. Based on the experiences of Sojourn Community Church in Louisville, the authors articulate a healthy model of interconnected congregations working as one church with local autonomy in many regards. There were many helpful concepts and quotes, that I put together (see below) for our church elder team to discuss.
My only critique is that I could not tell the difference between the "Federation" model and the "Multichurch". It seems to me that the only difference between the two is the degree of control that a central leadership exerts, but that in reality a federation model could still be a healthy option if the central leadership is trusting and empowering of the local church leadership. I'd like to see greater clarity between the federation and multichurch, with a more persuasive reason as to why the multichurch is healthier than the federation. Nevertheless, the book had many helpful points, which I've enumerated below.
1.) Helpful model of different types of churches on p. 48-49.
2.) “Because the federation model lies between the franchise model and the two multichurch models, it exists in a “no-man’s-land” where campus pastors taste some freedom but are frequently frustrated with feeling micromanaged” (65).
3.) “Unfortunately, many multisite models tend to import or to export culture, rather than contextualizing it” (111).
4.) “The gospel itself hold the key to appropriate contextualization. If we over contextualize, it suggests that we want too much the approval of the receiving culture. This betrays a lack of confidence in the gospel. If we undercontextualize, it suggests that we want the trappings of our own sub-culture too much” (63).
5.) Three core truths led Sojourn Church through painful reorganization: 1.) Multichurch exists for it’s churches. 2. Everything cannot matter. 3. Mutliplication is nonnegotiable. (120).
6.) “If there is a foundation of youth for organizations, it is ownership” (127).
7.) “No brakes” polity vs. “Parking Brake” polity. A better way is when “Church require polity that balances these two realities: “Christians have been redeemed by Jesus , and they are being redeemed by him” (145).
8.) “The first point tells us that our polity should be structed to reflect and promote a high level of trust in, and expectation for, its leaders. The second point reminds us that our poity must acknowledge the fallen condition of our leaders and thus provide the appropriate checks and balances” (159).
9.) “. . . failure is normal and encouraged as a part of faithful risk” (160).
10.) “A challenge for multichurch models is that the expectations for local congregation are often set beyond the ability of those churches . . . If the church as a whole fails to recognize this reality, the it develops unreasonable expectations and demands. The effect is like robbing a child of her childhood. . . In this regard, the maxim ‘everything cannot matter’ is key. It is wiser to do a few ministries well rather than to attempt unsuccessfully to do everything” (167). (See helpful charter on 167)
11.) “Entrepreneurs in the business world know the importance of having a culture that permits and celebrates failure . . .Giving group leaders the ability to run their own events, make decisions, and potentially fail, catalyzes creative energy. I have seen concerts fizzle, parties bomb, and service ideas tank. But we have always celebrated the effort and ingenuity, regarles of success. This has led to the willingness of these leaders to try again, resulting in far more successes than failures. Still, those failures made successes possible” (172).
12.) “Greater complexity costs more money” (177).
13.) “Reductionism is everywhere. One church might be known for its worship and preaching. It exists for the glory of God alone. Another church concentrates on discipleship, being commite to the growth and health of its members. Still another church focuses on reaching the lost through evangelism and missions. It is the ‘Great Commission church. . . While we can never fully avoid this problem, the multichurch structure is a helpful corrective to this trend. A multichurch is committed from the beginning to the full expression of biblically promoted values and ministries” (187).
14.) “A multichurch has a unified eldership, while its members are under the supervision and care of the elders of their particular congregation. . . so there is both local accountability at the member level and collective responsibility among the eldes at the central level” (193).
15.) “Nostalgia forgets the messy details. We have a tendency to edit out the challenges and the mistakes and problems that we inevitably had to deal with during those ‘good ol’ days.’ We forget the hard work required to get where we are today. Some of the members who look at the past with fondness do so because they were not involved in those problems. The were not in the trenches during the moments of anxiety and stress, when the leaders were just trying to hold it all together. So these members often pine for the past while the church advances” (202).
16.)”People have a hard time giving up what they know for the unknown, regardless of how promising the possibility may be. When the people of Israel were wandering in the desert, they longed to return to Egypt. Why would they want to return to slavery? It sounds crazy! Buy Egypt was familiar, and they knew there was food. At least there, they got fed. The remembered their enslavement as being more comfortable than the freedom of living in the wilderness. They had to reprogram their habits, values, and attitudes to align with the glorious hope of the promised land ahead of them” (203).
17.) “ . . . his children would never have learned to pour milk if he was unwilling to clean up some messes.” (206).
My only critique is that I could not tell the difference between the "Federation" model and the "Multichurch". It seems to me that the only difference between the two is the degree of control that a central leadership exerts, but that in reality a federation model could still be a healthy option if the central leadership is trusting and empowering of the local church leadership. I'd like to see greater clarity between the federation and multichurch, with a more persuasive reason as to why the multichurch is healthier than the federation. Nevertheless, the book had many helpful points, which I've enumerated below.
1.) Helpful model of different types of churches on p. 48-49.
2.) “Because the federation model lies between the franchise model and the two multichurch models, it exists in a “no-man’s-land” where campus pastors taste some freedom but are frequently frustrated with feeling micromanaged” (65).
3.) “Unfortunately, many multisite models tend to import or to export culture, rather than contextualizing it” (111).
4.) “The gospel itself hold the key to appropriate contextualization. If we over contextualize, it suggests that we want too much the approval of the receiving culture. This betrays a lack of confidence in the gospel. If we undercontextualize, it suggests that we want the trappings of our own sub-culture too much” (63).
5.) Three core truths led Sojourn Church through painful reorganization: 1.) Multichurch exists for it’s churches. 2. Everything cannot matter. 3. Mutliplication is nonnegotiable. (120).
6.) “If there is a foundation of youth for organizations, it is ownership” (127).
7.) “No brakes” polity vs. “Parking Brake” polity. A better way is when “Church require polity that balances these two realities: “Christians have been redeemed by Jesus , and they are being redeemed by him” (145).
8.) “The first point tells us that our polity should be structed to reflect and promote a high level of trust in, and expectation for, its leaders. The second point reminds us that our poity must acknowledge the fallen condition of our leaders and thus provide the appropriate checks and balances” (159).
9.) “. . . failure is normal and encouraged as a part of faithful risk” (160).
10.) “A challenge for multichurch models is that the expectations for local congregation are often set beyond the ability of those churches . . . If the church as a whole fails to recognize this reality, the it develops unreasonable expectations and demands. The effect is like robbing a child of her childhood. . . In this regard, the maxim ‘everything cannot matter’ is key. It is wiser to do a few ministries well rather than to attempt unsuccessfully to do everything” (167). (See helpful charter on 167)
11.) “Entrepreneurs in the business world know the importance of having a culture that permits and celebrates failure . . .Giving group leaders the ability to run their own events, make decisions, and potentially fail, catalyzes creative energy. I have seen concerts fizzle, parties bomb, and service ideas tank. But we have always celebrated the effort and ingenuity, regarles of success. This has led to the willingness of these leaders to try again, resulting in far more successes than failures. Still, those failures made successes possible” (172).
12.) “Greater complexity costs more money” (177).
13.) “Reductionism is everywhere. One church might be known for its worship and preaching. It exists for the glory of God alone. Another church concentrates on discipleship, being commite to the growth and health of its members. Still another church focuses on reaching the lost through evangelism and missions. It is the ‘Great Commission church. . . While we can never fully avoid this problem, the multichurch structure is a helpful corrective to this trend. A multichurch is committed from the beginning to the full expression of biblically promoted values and ministries” (187).
14.) “A multichurch has a unified eldership, while its members are under the supervision and care of the elders of their particular congregation. . . so there is both local accountability at the member level and collective responsibility among the eldes at the central level” (193).
15.) “Nostalgia forgets the messy details. We have a tendency to edit out the challenges and the mistakes and problems that we inevitably had to deal with during those ‘good ol’ days.’ We forget the hard work required to get where we are today. Some of the members who look at the past with fondness do so because they were not involved in those problems. The were not in the trenches during the moments of anxiety and stress, when the leaders were just trying to hold it all together. So these members often pine for the past while the church advances” (202).
16.)”People have a hard time giving up what they know for the unknown, regardless of how promising the possibility may be. When the people of Israel were wandering in the desert, they longed to return to Egypt. Why would they want to return to slavery? It sounds crazy! Buy Egypt was familiar, and they knew there was food. At least there, they got fed. The remembered their enslavement as being more comfortable than the freedom of living in the wilderness. They had to reprogram their habits, values, and attitudes to align with the glorious hope of the promised land ahead of them” (203).
17.) “ . . . his children would never have learned to pour milk if he was unwilling to clean up some messes.” (206).
May 26, 2022
Although it was not written as a direct companion to it, Multichurch is a helpful read to bring alongside “The Multi-Church Revolution” because it provides a “10 years down the road” assessment of the multi church movement. The book is well presented and well thought out, with interesting points especially about the spectrum of what these congregations look like. In some ways I cannot help but shake the feeling that multichurch replaces some of denominationalism, and wonder how the power of large multi site congregations in highly denominational systems (for example, UM Church of the Resurrection) honors the denomination. More than anything though, this book helps to frame trust, presence, and vision as three driving forces of multichurch/multisite expressions.
August 11, 2018
One of the more helpful books I have read on multisite church ministry. They explore the continuum of using multiple venues to expand a church's capacity in ministry (from multiple identical services at one end all the way to multiple, independent churches at the other) with a careful, and from my experience, insightful evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each model. Their introduction of the "multichurch" model into the conversation was thought provoking - what can it look like for one church to have multiple expressions with real, strong local leadership? Well worth the read for those who are wrestling with the practical challenges and opportunities of multisite ministry.
April 6, 2023
Multisite is a complex phenomenon, and an interesting aspect of church growth to write an entire book about, but there is much that is good in the book. I found his description of the multisite spectrum to be clarifying, and was very interested to hear of the polity decisions that Sojourn made along the way. There is a great deal of humility in the book and if a church was considering a move to multisite or multichurch, leaders would find this book to be a great companion/sparring partner on their journey. I am a big fan of House's book Community and although I don't think this book matches his previous book, it's still worth the read.
March 29, 2020
Okay for churches that share a culture already from being a multi-site. Exciting for them even. Minus the existing culture, Can't see that a federal arrangement will work. Definitely a step forward in the literature all in all.
July 29, 2020
Excellent book. This is a book rich in theological and missiological points. One really needs to read many times to capture the various rich concepts found in the book.
March 19, 2021
Helpful
February 17, 2025
Helpful food for thought.
March 5, 2025
This book was Multi-Convincing!
October 20, 2021
Good book looking at the many different types of multisite churches in the first half of the book (my favorite part, personally). The 2nd half explains why they prefer what they refer to as the "multichurch" model.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews