"Yes, I think they should be church plants. I don't think there is the ability to bear one another's burdens when you never meet in the same location. And when you're showing a pastor on the screen yet have a campus pastor: is the campus pastor not fit to teach? If he is, then why is he not teaching? A church plant would be better."
Thomas White, associate professor of systematic theology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
"I'm not sure that multisite is helping church planting. My concern is that pastors may opt for a multisite approach instead of church planting. Multisite addresses the geographical limitations of a church. But a planted church is more contextually relevant. We really need to do some research. Multisite is too new to know the impact yet."
Aubrey Malphurs, president, Malphurs Group
"It's a both/and world. We need church plants and multisite. Multisites are a great way for churches to reach a broader geographic or demographic area by changing worship and ambience. It depends on leadership. If I have a gifted communicator, I tell them to plant. If I have someone who is a good shepherd, I suggest a multisite."
Larry Osborne, teaching pastor, North Coast Church, Vista, Calif.
"Theologically, I am not sure that those satellites are NOT churches already. They can be churches but still be connected. Either way, in many cases, churches once engaged in church planting have transitioned to starting sites. I believe that if they are going to do multisite, they should do both—start sites and start churches. There are some good examples doing both."
Ed Stetzer, president, LifeWay Research
"We draw too solid of a line between what is a campus and what is a church plant. Seacoast has a campus 200 miles away with ...1