Q: What do you think?
A: Well, let's take this one at a time...

Q: Are Cumberland Church and other franchised congregations the wave of the future?
A: Sadly, they might be.

Q: Are Chick-fil-A and McDonalds the right model for the church to be emulating?
A: Absolutely not.

Q: Are franchised mega-churches going to be the denominations of the 21st century?
A: Wouldn't take it quite that far, but close.

Q: Or, is this consumer Christianity taken to its logical and disturbing extreme?
A: About as disturbing to me as when they started selling peoples' ways out of purgatory. Maybe it's time for another reformation...

I understand the idea behind the concept. I don't think that "satellite" churches are that effective, especially as those that attend such probably feel like second-class citizens. I think the "franchise" is an attempt to allow satellite churches but within a larger framework of a particular church family. That being said, I'm suspect that is more effective in situations where the populations move regularly.

Now that I say that, this may be the ideal situation for "snowbird" congregations.

We have seen this phenomenon before.
They are called denominations.
Except, these are based on more mission-specific concepts, rather than doctrinal or polity issues.
So--let's see how the mission of Jesus gets played out in this new model of denomination.

Sounds like amodern term for a non-denominational denomination!

And comparing the body of Christ to fast food is just disturbing to me...

The language used is corporate but the polity is clearly denominational. This is inevitable, the megachurch's have the reach the limit of what they can do as a single entity. It makes sense that they would 'franchise' the brand.
The Methodist's, Baptist's etc all do the same thing we just aren't as in your face in regards to the consumer driven language. It is interesting, when you put missiology into plain American vernacular it sounds so base. I wonder if this is a hint at what is driving people away from the church?

"Are Cumberland Church and other franchised congregations the wave of the future?"

Probably one of my greatest fears, actually.

"Are Chick-fil-A and McDonalds the right model for the church to be emulating? "

That's a joke question, right?

The thing I fail to hear time and time again in this discussion is sufficient thought given to those who will be pastored by video. What I do hear is, "It's no different than in our main service when parishoner number 3254 has to sit in the 50th row and watch the whole thing on the big screen anyway. It's not like they can raise their hand and ask a question and it's not like I'm ever going to have them over for dinner anyway, so..."

Exactly. (The only problem is, what some see as a justification for video venues I see as an indictment of mega-churches.)

The answer is not to come up with new and creative ways to put space between those teaching and those being taught. Not enough good teachers? Invest in mentoring and training- not satellite equipment.

"Or, is this consumer Christianity taken to its logical and disturbing extreme?"

Yes. Oh, yes.

Isn't that what Calvary Chapel did?

This seems to be what denominations were about originally: a group of like-minded churches with the same theology, mission and methods. Although I'm not sure the church needs to be compared to McDonalds (God help us), how is this any different than, say, early Methodism? I think orginizations like the Willow Creek Association will (rightly) compete for the role of the denomination in the future (How many churches do you know that use Willow's "Core Values" or some variation of them?) Willow and others are also doing multi-site and very strong partnerships with other congregations. The franchise (although we may hate that word) seems like a next logical step, but I"m not sure it's all that new.

UrL said:

"Or, is this consumer Christianity taken to its logical and disturbing extreme?"

Why yes, yes it is.

This isn't the wave of the future. It's the last death gasps of the consumer church. Pathetic.

My gut instinct is to rip this idea to shreds...however, my sentiment toward "franchised churches" is much like my sentiment toward chain restaurants in general. On the one hand, I hate the way franchised businesses dot the landscape of America (the world?), making every interstate exit look virtually identical. I hate their lack of local originality. I hate what they do for my health. On the other hand, I know exactly what I can expect when I go to McDonald's, etc. It's quick, cheap, and comforting. But here's the million dollar question: which is better for me? A whole host of questions come to mind:

I recognize the desire for familiarity and comfort that many people have when they look for a church. We should recognize these legitimate needs pastorally, but should we cater to these needs?

How can we engage the Church's mission on a local level if we're a cookie-cutter of another local church?

Haven't we tried that before with every church who thought, "Well, gee, if we can do everything like successful McMegachurch, we can grow, too!"

How is this model healthy for the catholic Church and the individual Christian?

How is franchising different than denominations? Would the same criticism leveled by many evangelicals at denominations and (GASP!) tradition apply to franchised churches?

This post should provide excellent reflection along with Chad Hall's earlier reflections on "The Rise of the New Bishops." What exactly does these new trends toward franchising and networking mean for denominations?

Finally, Church historian Andrew Walls (cf. the recent Christianity Today article on him) argues that global Christianity will actually decentralize power. Does franchising go with that trend or against? If it's against that trend, will it actually hinder the mission of the Church?

Casey Taylor
irregularchristian.blogspot.com

I have no problem with church plants--that's really what we're talking about here, right? But when consumer language is brought into the picture I begin to worry. Can we treat the gospel as a product? Should we market Jesus like we market cheeseburgers? How is the consumer model practiced in the lives of the church members? Are the rushing into church, consuming the music and sermon like french fries, or are they engaging in authentic community that compels them to serve the world around them?

This hyperconsumerism/capitalistic/empire/colonizing model of church is the next logical step for the American version of Christianity - and it is dreadful.

However, I believe God is big enough to work through this misguided and fundamentally flawed model and metaphor of church, so long as it lasts.

Being part of a McChurch and being church is as different as driving through McDonald's for a combo meal and sitting down with family and loved ones for Thanksgiving dinner and sharing stories of the past and hopes for the future. Oh sure, you eat at both meals, but the meaning of theating is not only different, it is nearly polar.

Jesus said, "As you go into all the world, make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, and teaching them ..."

If it's "disciples" we're to make, and if "disciples" are followers of Jesus, then we can go either way on the "franchise" question. Either we attract people to the franchise's way of following Jesus (and if lots of people like the North-Point-Jesus-follower lifestyle, that's great), or we try to meet individuals wherever they are and introduce them to Jesus and see where that goes (which usually means gathering with SOME kind of like-minded people in the name of Jesus).

Either way, some Jesus-related affinity group is formed.

Call it franchise or call it a one-of-a-kind small group, I think both are forms of the church, if they're following Jesus.

Uh, haven't many Southern Baptist Churches had a tacit franchise mentality for years?

I remember my pastor (in a western state) talking about "grits evangelism," where he'd keep an eye on anyone in the grocery store who bought grits, and then he'd invite them to church because he figured they'd be comfortable in his congregation.

And it's not just Southern Baptists. Others try to pattern their churches after John Piper's. Or some Rwandan bishop's. Nothing really surprising there. One person's "movement" or "fellowship" is another person's "franchise."

"Just like a Chick-fil-A, my church is a 'franchise,' and I proudly serve as the local owner/operator."

Who does the church belong to? I thought it was Jesus Christ. This quote represents a horribly warped ecclesiology.

This is the wave of the past with new words applied. It's a natural out flow of the institutional form of church where one guy is at the top of a pyramid, said to be "the pastor". He's merely expanding his claim to being a "strong leader" with more people in more towns listening to him doing 99% of the personal expression of truth. It's designed to control the "style issues" or "external facade" that is thought to be so important to "attract" people in the door. You must appear trendy and give the "feeling" of relevance. All that's left is to market that around. This is all about doing church the way people like it, not the way Christ designed it.
With that said, we are to rejoice if Christ is being preached, even if it is out of selfish ambition. God's grace is strong enough to use selfish sinful stuff.

Iagree with Bill. This isnt the future. This might be the death of the consumer driven church. Why franchise? Tomarketthe name of a mega church to attract people? The only people that attracts are other believers. what is the point then? If you like the way a church models itself, then gofor it. why franchise?

it is another way culture has infiltrated the church.

Enjoyed the article. Interesting topic, isn't it!? I think this is a great conversation for church leaders to have. Thanks for letting me be a part of it.

In fairness, I just wanted to pass along the whole blog post that was mentioned here that I wrote. I think it may help bring more clarity to the conversation.

http://videochurchblog.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/08/10-ways-chick-f.html

I hope to share my thoughts on the article and answer some of your responses here on Monday at my blog site. Thanks again for allowing me to join in.

Eddie Johnson
www.VideoChurchBlog.com

I guess since church goers have been treating the church like a consumption center, its only natural that the church ends up treating them like customers.

What's sad is that if you filed this under satire, people would have believed you.

You know guys... it seems that the "franchise/owner operator" language used by Eddie Johnson is just a way to communicate the ideas and concepts of ministry "employed" by Cumberland Church. I don't think it was used, or meant to cheapen the church.

Jesus commended the faith of a Roman centurion after hearing the centurions secular explanation on the concept of authority. The concept was transferable. Jesus didn't scold the man and say, "don't you ever use the secular to explain the sacred again."

All any of us do as disciples is model ministry as we've be trained, and seen it in operation. All franchise's do is model business as they've been trained and seen it done.

Relax a little bit, or go ahead and load up on me now.

Brad Brinkley said: You know guys... it seems that the "franchise/owner operator" language used by Eddie Johnson is just a way to communicate the ideas and concepts of ministry "employed" by Cumberland Church. I don't think it was used, or meant to cheapen the church.

Certainly this was Mr. Johnson's attempt at translation and I don't doubt that his motives and intentions are noble. That being said, translation is a risk, and it is possible for us to do poor translation. I would consider the "owner/operator language" to be a very poor translation, especially given the implications it has for our understanding of the nature of the church and ministry (both lay and ordered). While Mr. Brinkley's enjoinder to, "Relax a little bit", is certainly well intentioned, I just think that this stuff matters too much to slough off such a careless translation.

"Yikes! Shades of Ichabod! But then again, if you believe in attractional, consumer-oriented church, then what could be wrong with it? I don't, however. I think it is antithetical to the model Jesus gave us. Personally, I think we should utilize our church buildings to house profitable businesses that can make a serious stab at making enough money to solve a lot of the injustices on humanity that are happening around the world. We can still meet in them to worship, but too many of them are shamefully inefficient and wasteful examples of slothful stewardship as they are. The franchise concept is nothing more than the Church reaping what it had sown."---sung to the melody of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps."

Lark News foresaw this in March of 2006: "Church franchise a hit, but hostile take-overs rattle congregations"

http://www.larknews.com/march_2006/secondary.php?page=1

It's fascinating to see how quickly American Christianity moves from "that would never happen" satire to reality.

As others have said here, I sincerely doubt this is the wave of the future. On the contrary, I think it is the last dying remnant of the modern church. We may find pockets of the county supporting this kind of thing- maybe even for the next decade or so. But eventually people (especially younger Christians) are going to experience this kind of thing as wooden, inauthentic, and commodified.

if 85 percent of u complain that's par for the coarse since ur plateaued or declining. It's tough to admit ur not effective when "new" strategy is getting it done... Let's ask the unchurched if "franchise" works... Isn't the who Jesus came to seek and save? I think they have spoken clearly if u look at the lives transformed at northpoint.

Ah yes, the attackers of all things "corporate" are out in full force.

God forbid we use something that remotely resembles a corporate model to reach those who do not have a relationship with Jesus Christ.

What most of us fail to realize is that very little in the NT is prescriptive as far as how the church should be set up. I think it's great that God allows flexibility in structure so that we can reach as many as possible.

Before you jump all over church models like this, take a look in mirror. Is your church/ministry being effective in reaching those who are far from God and leading them into a growing relationship with Jesus Christ? If so, great! Though you may not agree with this structure, take joy in the fact that thousands are being reached.

However, if your church is reaching no one, then don't waste your time and energy criticizing the methods of those who are. You've got plenty of work to do in your current setting.

Eddie -

Thank you for your humility and your willingness to dialogue about this. Off the cuff, how do you think this way of "talking" about church avoids feeding the consumer mindset that is so pervasive throughout the American Church? Also, it seems that the "franchise" model avoids doing the hard work of incarnational ministry (i.e., discerning through prayer and participation the needs of the local community). I would love your thoughts on these things if you are willing.

Why oh why do Christians "throw stones" at new concepts just because they are new. Have you been to Cumberland Church? Do you know Eddie? Have you seen people's lives changed for the better? Have you heard your daughter come home from the children's environment quoting verse and planning how she can employ it that week? No?! Then let me respectfully say that you do not know what you are talking about.

I echo Bob Hyatt and Bill Kinnon. This is the logical end of consumer Christianity--this is where "church, inc." takes us. And it lacks the power to speak a counter-kingdom into the corporate kingdoms of this world. And according to George Barna (whom I don't reference ever) ex-mega church marketing/statistical guru, this is not the future direction of the church.

It's the death rattle of a dying American church grabbing for relevance in the wake of having forgot that God has called us to faithfulness as His Body.

This is what happens when a movement--mega-church, consumer-evangelicalism--forgets that it did not begin with a coherent ecclesiology sufficient to sustain real communities of people. They just draw crowds and so they must continue to look to McDonalds!?! for their "strategic plan."

My reading of the Scriptures is that the people of God are supposed to--by their lives--confound the systems, structures, and wisdom of the world as a witness to those very systems.

When I initially read this article, the first thing that came to mind was the same one that occurred to K.W. Leslie - isn't this the model that Calvary Chapel has followed?

Yet it's interesting to look in Acts and see where Paul did follow the franchise model - and where he didn't. Paul certainly set up churches all over the place, and encouraged the churches to have a similar doctrine. Yet Paul's "franchise manual" (what today we know as our Bible) was in some respects more lenient than the franchise rules practiced by the fast food outfits of today. Paul's preaching in Athens was markedly different than his preaching in Judea.

Perhaps the business language turns people off, but we are certainly commanded to open up new places to spread the Gospel, and we certainly want these new places to be in accord with what we have been taught from Scripture. And there's nothing wrong with that.

well.....if " would you like some fruit with that committment to Jesus" is the language of the franchise church...then so be it....as long as theres not drive thru salvation let it be. After all, Paul was like the Ray Kroc of the first century...He didnt franchise Jesus but He did travel around and build the same kingdom...Gods....†

Does anyone remember ska of the late 80's? Ska was a phenomenon. True ska was impromptu and it only existed in the bar/coffee house scenes. For those of us who followed it, the hardcore punk ska crowd, ska ceased to be ska when it was recorded and codified. So . . . we bagged on the groups that popularized the face of ska. They were sellouts. What they were doing wasn't ska and we felt betrayed.

As I read these posts I sense some of the same sentiment. So here are some questions: Are you offended by the language or the codification of church? Is it the language or the promulgation of the system? Does church cease to be church when some of its systems are codified? Is codification really death--like the Romantics--taught us?

I happen to know that NP is not promulgating a brand, but they are using the principles of trade franchises (cf. the e-myth revisited by Gerber) to help planters plant other churches in other parts of the world. Quite frankly do you think anyone outside of church world would know who Andy Stanley is or NP? Most Christians in the west that I talk to don't know who he is and don't know NP, let alone people outside church circles.

When NP says they want to "lead people in a growing relationship with Jesus Christ" do you believe they have sold out or betrayed the cause?

Is it never right to meet a consumer living in a consumer world at their level in order to introduce them to Jesus?

jman,
What is "getting it done" defined please? Filling seats, selling lots of coffee, making disciples, sending missionaries..what??

Hey Gang,

Thanks for the insights. Don't agree with it all but I certainly am enjoying the conversation. It's an important one.

Check out my thoughts and feedback on this topic over at my blog - www.VideoChurchBlog.com

Let's talk about it.

Thanks!

Baconheart... "getting it done" = removing obstacles between mankind and their Creator... to not make it hard for people to come to God (Acts 15:19).

I keep thinking about how I would read this post and the comments if Eddie (whom I have never met) were, say, my best friend from high school, my brother, my son or my dad.

What if I loved Eddie?

If I loved Eddie -- and I came on this website to see not only his methodology questioned but his motives impugned...well, I'd be angry and sad and embarrassed.

If I loved Eddie I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. I'd be grateful for a guy who loves lost people so much that he's willing to try something different that just might reach people with a life-saving, life-giving message.

If I loved Eddie, I'd remember that he defies categorization. He doesn't fit into mega-church or modern-church or consumer-church. He's a living, breathing, three-dimensional guy with a wife and kids (who may be reading this blog, too).

If I loved Eddie, I'd be more concerned about how my comments here would impact his heart than how smart or clever those comments would make me look to others.

I think it is great that a church would look at a successful business model and apply it to their growth strategy as long as they continue to glorify God and make disciples. McDonald's franchises can be found thoughout the world. We need some more franchises out there too.

Food for thought... Have not the Catholics been doing this since the inception of the Catholic Church? Don't other denominations do this in some form and have been since the reformation? All Catholic Priests read the from the same words as mandated from the Vatican so that all Catholics are hearing the same message on the same calendar date. Other denominations preach the same theme on the same Sunday. So why is it now that this "franchising" of sorts is the topic of heated questions after thousands of years?

I had to check, was I at larknews.com ? Was this a joke. Then the awful realisation that this was serious! Yes it might be the way of the future... but a future without me. This is the logical extension of the consumer model. The very model that is revolting (or just weird) to a bunch of people.

So can I get my spiritual happy meal from the dollar menu?

Gettin it done (imho), is connecting people to God and other believers, discipleship, ministry and missions.

So...are THEY getting it done even though the methods THEY are using are not the same we have used since 1976?

Just as Sam Andress pointed, my reaction to this was completely identical. However, then my mind went to the thought of the Purpose Driven or Willow Creek Association models which in essence were basically franchises where the senior pastors tried to repeat the successes of Willow and Saddleback. However, as we know from following what has happened at Willow recently, that model is not sustaining growth anymore and people are leaving in pursuit of things like experiencing true community and honest faith. I don't know if there is a way to "franchise" that, although it has started as other churches now move to adopt the neighborhood church concept from Willow. I am hopeful that God will reveal his church to be unique to the various communities where they are started where the gifts of the leadership and the visions God gives them will become more prevalent, rather than being leaders that look to just follow what works in Illinois or Southern California and make it like a franchise operation in their own suburbia.

This is a book of Acts concept. It's just unfortunate that they are using franchise convention jargon. I hope they don't work it into sermons and give us a new dialect of christianese...

The thing I struggle with when it comes to video churches is what happens when the charismatic leader moves on, retires, or gets hit by a bus? It seems that the entire enterprise collapses like a house of cards when it is built upon the charisma of one person. Now, having said that, I fully recognize that I have the same problem (on a much smaller scale ;-)) but I do believe that autonomous communities are perhaps better able to weather the storm. I will say that I have been to Buckhead. I have seen Andy preach and he is truly Spirit-filled and an incredibly effective communicator of the Gospel. I admire deeply his convictions and the way he is changing lives, I just wonder what will happen when Andy moves on? One just has to look around at the struggles churches like Calvary Chapel, Crystal Cathedral, Coral Ridge, etc. are beginning to have with succession issues. (For example, if you turn on the Coral Ridge Hour you would never know Dr. Kennedy passed away. Which begs the question, is that ultimately all we are left with in such cases...reruns? Ouch!) Sure they may do well for a while and perhaps, God willing, even catch a fresh vision but when the ministry is built around the powerful personality of one person, it seems more than a little scary to me.

"What do you think? Are Cumberland Church and other franchised congregations the wave of the future? Are Chick-fil-A and McDonalds the right model for the church to be emulating? Are franchised mega-churches going to be the denominations of the 21st century? Or, is this consumer Christianity taken to its logical and disturbing extreme?"

You've got to be kidding me...right?
This is a joke...right?
You're pulling my chain, aren't y'cha now...come on, this is a joke...no body, and I mean no body with half a brain and a partial foot into G-d's plan for mankind would sanely proffer any such idea as this half-baked pile of steaming meadow nuggets as a serious idea.
Come on Editors out of Ur, fess up, you're trying to rile our collective conciousness here...admit it!

Owner/operator???? What arrogance that some fleshy human being can make that statement. Did you know that another word for anti-Christ is replacement Christ. So before you ask it "yes" I am infering this joker is an anti-christ. As far as I'm concerned the modern pastor is a replacement Christ especially in the CEO model. Anyone who attends this man's club should run, not walk as far from him as possible.

I guess I understand the concept and appreciate the desire to start new churches. But, as a lawyer I've been involved in some franchise cases, and I really can't see that as a useful model for the Church.

When you own a franchise, you don't really "own" very much -- basically you have a kind of contract called a license to use some things, most significantly:

-- a trademark (a brand name);
-- product designs or recipies;
-- an exclusive territory;
-- a share in local cooperative advertising money (e.g., the "Bob's Chevy" ads you see on cable TV);
-- group purchasing discounts with other franchisees on supplies (e.g., bulk french fries);
-- training in the franchise production and sales methods.

The Franchisor (the corporation that licenses the franchise to the franchisee) retains essentially exclusive control over the brand, product formulations, and major advertising. The Franchisee's main job is to sell product in his/her local territory.

Like some other commentators, I'm not sure it's necessarily problematic that there is some central control over a local congregation. That is, in fact, what denominations with a heirarchical structure do.

BUT, and I think this is cruical, those denominations usually tie their structure to a deeper ecclesiology and theology of authority and accountability that mediates among the local, regional, and global levels. A Bishop or Priest in the Roman Catholic Church is by no means analogous to a franchisee. The Priest is under authority of the Bishop and the Bishop is under the authority of the Pope, but there is a principle of subsidiarity by which each is downwardly and upwardly accountable (even the Pope is accountable to Christ). Moreover, there is a long tradition of ecclesiastical law (canon law) that works out the relationship of checks and balances among various aspects of leadership.

There is no way that a contract-based, brand-driven "franchise" model, IMHO, can capture this kind of structure. It seems more likely to be a shallow branding concept and/or a means by which a charismatic leader can exert his influence over satellite congregations without the accountability of a true heirarchical leadership structure and eccleisal tradition.

But then, I really do like the videos North Point produces, so I wouldn't knock them on that (seriously).

My question is this: Do these new groups train teachers for the groups they are organizing? Will the teachers have adequate Bible knowledge and depth of spiritual commitment to the Scriptures? Will they see the Old Testament is essential for an understanding of the New Testament, as an essential foundational If not, they will ultimately fail to do what the Great Commission has told us to do, i.e., make (train) disciples.

Whatever else you may think of this, it certainly should appeal to postmoderns. McD's is still more popular than the local pub and no self-respecting Ur commenter would criticize church in a pub.

I follow Paul, I follow Apollos, I follow Eddie, I follow Andy.

BTW, in case it hasn't been said already, North Point is SBC, as is Willow. This model is an extension of their model. If we drive this far enough, Jesus may come back to clean house.

In fact, if we get really successful at branding, we can have our own Pope! All hail pope Andy (btw, I love Andy)

I was sure that I was going to find that this was really an Onion article or something ... But I'm afraid that this is real, isn't it?

Shudder ...

What I find incredible is how many people are quick to criticize a model even though their own isn't working. You don't hear North Point cutting down all the dead, ineffective, dying churches do you? I appreciate that. At least some people know how to handle themselves with integrity.

I'm encouraged that most of the posters here are willing to be open-minded about the topic. It's gotta be a good thing for all of us to occasionally re-examine our ecclesiology, eh?

I encourage us to continue the discussion as brothers & sisters, recognizing that lots of folks who disagree with our viewpoint might still be passionate about God and the world whose worship he deserves.

Two questions that keep popping up for me as we wrestle with this, and Mike Erre asked them both with a gentle spirit:

Q. Does this feed a consumer mindset?

A. What's so bad about the word "consumer?" Every church has them, and every church listens to them. Every time a fellow walks past you and says, "Great message, pastor," he's acting like a consumer. And you're listening. Or, someone says, "I just can't imagine church without small groups." The sentiments might be the same as yours, but they are still consumer-mindset sentiments. So, the real question becomes, "Which consumers are you going to listen to?" Will you listen to the consumers INSIDE the church, or the consumers OUTSIDE the church? I live in a world filled with consumers that I'm called to reach. I'm honestly interested to see an example of a church that is intentionally and consistently ignoring consumers, but still effective in making disciples.

Q. Are we avoiding the hard work of incarnational (some say contextual) ministry?

A. Well, it's certainly true that Paul gave a different message in Judea than in Athens. Those were radically different cultures and countries in the 1st century. But we're not talking about Andy Stanley preaching the same message in Rwanda—we're talking Atlanta and Nashville and Jacksonville. The guy in your church in Nashville probably used to live in Jacksonville and he's going to be in Atlanta next week for business. I guess I don't see a huge cultural difference between American cities. In fact, the lack of variety seems to be what some resent. I understand-—when I travel I prefer a "local" restaurant over a national chain, too. Nevertheless, most people are wearing blue jeans and iPods no matter where you go. Our national culture isn't that terribly diverse.

I propose that there is a greater difference between urban and suburban in your own city than there is between your suburb and my suburb. So, what does contextualization look like when people in my church drive 20-40 minutes to get there, from all parts of Jacksonville? And what does it look like to know the needs of my congregation when each week there are new people, and there's more than 200 in the room, etc. etc.

And if you HAVE to know the church and the city in order to preach there, wouldn't you also have to be a part of that church and live in that city to write the children's curriculum? Why would it be okay to use Beth Moore or EE or Way of the Master or Lifeway or Hillsong (from Australia!) but not okay to use a model of ministry from Atlanta?

I don't have the answers. I'm here to learn. Especially as it relates to contextualization. Because Eddie and Andy and I all agree that our goal is NOT to connect people to North Point or to Andy Stanley, but to Jesus Christ. We just happen to think that a model that is really working to connect people in Atlanta with their heavenly Father might work in Nashville and Jacksonville, too.

i wonder how many people disparaging the mcdonalds model have actually worked or known people who worked at mcdonalds!

mcdonalds, these days at least, is known at the franchise level for it's good management, good training, and good education (the u.k. franchises are taking this one step further with asking the government to accredit their business management classes as A-level equivalents!).

good management, training, and education are all essential qualities of a healthy church, are they not? why assume that the "mcdonalds model" is merely the pursuit of profit? i see a lot of good lessons to be learned from the way a mcdonald's franchise is run.

My fear of this is that it is a good idea gone to far, and moving into the realm of a bad idea. My basis for saying that is this. While satellite churches can still be effective because they are typically located in a very close region to the original church, the idea of franchising is a much larger scale. The strong point of a church should be its ability to relate to that demographic. Once you have a church from the midwest trying to impose it's style on a church in California, it isn't going to reach the people in the same way. Different methods are needed for different locations. Cultures are different, people are different. Relations must be built in a different way. Once we start saying this is our charter no matter what in any location we are in, are we not risking the disconnection with the people that the Catholic church is now facing?

"mcdonalds, these days at least, is known at the franchise level for it's good management, good training, and good education (the u.k. franchises are taking this one step further with asking the government to accredit their business management classes as A-level equivalents!)."

Oh dear...you missed it completely, didn't you Dana?

"good management, training, and education are all essential qualities of a healthy church, are they not?"

If it weren't for the qualifying previous statement I would find this part to be true, and yet...I think you've missed the whole idea completely.

"why assume that the "mcdonalds model" is merely the pursuit of profit? i see a lot of good lessons to be learned from the way a mcdonald's franchise is run."

It's not the profit angle Dana, though unwittingly you've highlighted the mentality behind the motive.
Rather than profit, it's the final product that is produced from the managment that is frightening.

I will never eat at Mickey D's again, ever, because I watched the movie Supersize me. For the first time I realized that I was putting their crappy and poisonous product into my body, and I was, in cooperation...unwittingly, but yet compliant to the assault, undoing my physical health.

Is Mcdonalds a great managment model?

Sure it is.

Does McDonalds have a great product line that is good for us?

No.

And like McDonald's, they may be offering a great managment tool, but the final product will be absolutely bad for the overall health of the Church.

There is nothing really NEW, in this concept. Denominations have done this for hundreds of years. Willow Creek (and to a lesser extent Saddleback) have their version of this too. Myself, and many other church planters do this now using the concept of transplanting DNA, Sister churches, Daughter churches, etc...

What I find "original" is the use of the term "franchise." The terminology we use to describe our goals and mission means a lot. Given this is the term they have chosen for themself, let me make a few observations.

Q: Are Cumberland Church and other franchised congregations the wave of the future?
A:In the past 2 thousand years there have been many fads, waves, movements, some have come to mean something and others have died. Only God knows the future of such a thing.

Q: Are Chick-fil-A and McDonalds the right model for the church to be emulating?
A: Right or wrong, it is the model they have chosen and it reflects their values and mission. Here are the images that come to mind mind when they say they have a McDonnell's type franchise.

- They serve a Fast Food tastes good, but has little nutritional value.
- Their food is convenient and requires no effort to eat it.
- People who survive on fast food get fat and lazy.
- Fast food gives high consistency from franchise to franchise, but not necessarily good quality.

So if this reflects their mission, then, right or wrong, it is an accurate model.

Q: Are franchised mega-churches going to be the denominations of the 21st century?
A: Yes.

Q: Or, is this consumer Christianity taken to its logical and disturbing extreme?
A: Yes.

I also note the question was asked above, what is wrong with being a consumer?'. The problem is that the goal of our live is not make consumers, but producers. Discipleship is not about consuming the church, it is about consuming the person of Jesus Christ and taking Him to the world.

If a person is too blind to see the dangers of being a consumer... wow, that is scary.

The antichrist? Really? You mean I'm working with the antichrist? All my years serving at North Point, and two churches later I'm working for ol' AC? Wow! Isn't that a kick in the McNuggets! And how does an article about church models produce so much press for McDonalds? Our staff doesn't even eat there. However - and I'll bite - we do eat at Chick-fil-a. The food rocks. As do the stories of life change coming out of Cumberland Church. And here's the deal folks - here's where the analogy ends. The Operator of a Chick-fil-a gets the glory for "consumption" of their "product." At Cumberland, all the glory goes to God for the changed lives and the love relationship between man and his Creator. And in keeping with the gig at hand, that's one "product" I'll humbly and gratefully witness from behind the counter or my sound booth...whichever you prefer. By the way, I just checked Eddie's forehead and wrist - he's clean!

Melody - actually for "postmoderns" it would be the opposite of what you said. Postmoderns are suspect of institutional power plays, they seek the decentralized and localized. Michael Focault turned the modern dictum "knowledge is power" into the postmodern dictum "power is knowledge". That is those who have power create language, language shapes reality, and therefore creates knowledge and truth. Thus "franchises" would not be free functioning localized and contextualized communities, they would be listening to the the CEO every Sunday via simulcast. Sadly nobody is asking where are the pastors, teachers, prophets, evangelists, and apostles in this new churches. They just say, hey lets video this guy in assuming his message has the power to form real community hundreds of miles away.

I've actually thought this for awhile. It wouldn't surprise me if in the next several years we begin to see 5-6 super-churches begin to emerge across the nation. From Northpoint to Fellowship to Life Church.TV I could see franchises popping up everywhere. Unfortunatley, I think this would be one of the worst movements in recent church history.

Joe: I never said our goal was to make consumers. I clearly said our goal was to make disciples. But we live in a culture full of consumers. How are YOU reaching them? I repeat, I'm honestly interested to see an example of a church that is intentionally and consistently ignoring consumers, but still effective in making disciples.

Sam, sheerahkahn, and the angry ones: Visit a North Point partnership before you cast stones. They are staffed with seminary-trained locals committed to reaching their community. We are free-standing, autonomous churches. We work hard to contextualize. After all, it's our neighbors and friends and family that we're inviting to church. So many of your assumptions about the model are just flat-out incorrect.

I've never visited your church. And I'm not ripping it apart. Why the apparent glee in ripping apart another body of believers?

What is a church, after all? Isn't it a group of people reflecting Jesus by chasing after God, loving each other, and influencing the world around them? If that's happening in these congregations, what exactly is the great fear?

"What is a church, after all?"

The people of G-d, and by definition, is not a cult, because G-d allows people to make their own decisions, to go their own ways...G-d formed the church as a representative body of his presence on earth.
We are representatives of G-d, but like universities, it's always best to allow G-d to lead us, teach us, to take us to new realms so that we learn from different people, different viewpoints, different attitudes, and the wonderous magnificence of the differing ways people celebrate G-d and live a biblical life predicated on obedience to G-d, and not man.
I call it "Growing in the presence of G-d."

"Isn't it a group of people reflecting Jesus by chasing after God, loving each other, and influencing the world around them?"

You have this knowledge, and yet you still pursue this abominable plan of yours.

"If that's happening in these congregations, what exactly is the great fear?"

Perhaps that question should be answered by you.
Why are you unwilling to let the former parishners go?
Why are you so filled with your own self-importance that you think you have the best model and everyone else should learn from you?
Why are you so distrusting of G-d, that you have to seek to bring your cultural biases to another part of the country...do you think they don't worship or teach about G-d correctly?
What makes you think that you're the only one with a grand plan of "community?"

It's not "glee" Mr. Barrett that I'm expressing...it is shock at your unrepentant grab for power/influence when you should be happy with your own area that G-d has assigned you.

Hi Rich, please don't confuse my post with someone elses. I don't think I have shown "glee" at ripping anyone apart.

Let me make a few clarify comments. First, I have no reason to doubt your sincerity. I accept you, and all the leaders in your church, as brothers and sisters in Christ. I also have no reason to doubt that the basic content of what you teach is the Gospel.

But, that does not mean that we have to agree about the approach. Does it? We should not fear the process of intelligent discussion on either side of this issue.

As to success of transformed lives, I give glory to God, not man. So pointing to transformed lives does not demonstrate that your POM is right, it just demonstrates that God is good. You may find it helpful to read a couple short articles, "Lessons From an Ass and Marilyn Manson Is Doing God's Work.

I stand by my observations and concerns because I have no heard them addressed.

Again, I know some folks are attacking and it is hard not to be defensive, but I do embrace you guys as Family and would hope we could move past that to some helpful discussion.

As the old saying goes...every good analogy breaks down at some point.

If you're interested, I wrote a post looking to clarify my thoughts and position on this article and "franchising the church". You can check it out here:

http://videochurchblog.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/billy-is-on-fri.html

Eddie and Rich, for some reason my response did not make it past the moderators??? Anyway, I think our discussion on your site cleared things up a bit.

I agree...I don't like the idea of comparing churches to fast food chains. If that's the case a member basically becomes a customer of the church. Frankly I don't care much for denominations to begin with because all the division it has caused. It's true that denominations can also be a good thing but they just seem to keep the body of Christ, the Church, divided. A franchised church wouldn't help this division and would only further impose this idea of consumer Christianity.

Which franchise will you shop at next?

One Sunday morning while in Chicago a friend took me to a 'successful' church. Honestly I did know whether I was in a sahopping mall or a multiplex cinema or a busy airport terminal it matched all of these descriptions. After being 'stripped' of my bottle of fresh spring water we sat down in an amphitheatre and watched an SS prentation we were Seekers but were they Sensitive? The 'management' policy prevented any form of refreshments within the 'sanctuary' or 'hallowed place' the owner of this establishment has recently 'repented' let's give time to see the 'fruit meet for repentance'

Most Christians I know love the multi-site model and think it's cool. Most non-Christians I know think that this is just another reason why they don't go...church is big business and pastor's are great sales people. Most non-Christians I know are anti-institutional and this approach flaunts it. I think it is a shallow, modernistic approach to not doing the work of an missiologist.

What a concept ! Can you imagine going to a church and having it feel like the one you used to go to or went to before you went on vacation ? Maybe you would be familiar enough with the service to be able to recognize it anywhere in the U.S. or even the world!
Can you not see what is happening here ?
Europe has very few attending church, the U.S. is getting smaller etc. Perhaps the ultimate is to have one church with real believers and not several thousand different denominations almost continuously talking about the other denominations.
At least the Jews were of mostly one mind back when. Think about it.

I think many of you know that the "church" as it is being discussed here is NOT the CHURCH, but the discussions here seem to indicate some confusion. The CHURCH is clearly defined in scripture as that invisible body of believers who follow Christ's commands to Love God with all their heart and to love one another as Christ loved us. ALL denominations and non-denominations today follow "another gospel", a "friends with the world" gospel and not the one first delivered by Jesus.

I think this entire concept is thought provoking and inspirational! It is wonderful that men take the strategies that have produced fruitful ministry in one location and make it possible to reproduce in another. Think of the sincere and pure hearted pastor that has longed to reach as many people as possible but could not for lack of a strategic plan. Perhaps with great ideas like this coming forth in these last days, those that have been faithful with one hundred can now be stewards of one thousand. I am thankful when any one church takes a positive step forward in advancing God's Kingdom and then makes it possible for others to do the same. It may not be the model for everyone, but then they can go get the "Subway" version and prosper with that one. The bottom line is that lots of gospel sandwiches are begin served and hopefully the church is that much closer to fulfilling her purpose. Godspeed!

"Have It Your Way" and fashioning a message that "sells" isn't quite what I remember from reading Scripture. In fact, I thought I read that true Christianity is a lifestyle, not a Corporate Mission Statement mixed with Consumer Sales Management. Wasn't there also something in the Gospels that challenged the "bigger is better" mentality? Have we sold out depth for breadth?

Does the "owner/operator" actually hold legal title to the property and tangible assets? Does he or she see his/her equity rise as improvements are made with receipts? Are teachers volunteeres or employees? To whom does the "owner/operator" report and give account?

Franchising is a business model for marketing that has been shown to be successful. MacDonalds and Subway are here in New Zealand too! That does not make it automatically wrong for the church to use. The church incarnates the gospel of Jesus Christ into forms that fit our culture, and business is part of our culture today. The advantages of franchising are that it provides a well known brand and advertising, provides a national or international outreach and support system, and passes on sucessful methods.

Denominations could be said to provide a franchise system. However they need to look again at how they are doing in the marketplace, because individual churches within denominations have got so diverse that they no longer provide a strong brand, have poor support systems, and fail to pass on successful methods.

Surely the church must be interested in improving its marketing methods, not so much to promote itself, but to promote the gospel, which is our responsibility to share.

'Branding' churches seems inevitable but it's deadly.

Take two very competitive brands, for example, Pepsi and Coke.

Take away the packaging and preconceived ideas and it's mostly the same product, right?

So the difference they exhibit must be expressed in a mutually exclusive 'truth.' If they aren't saying different things, no distinction can be made between them in the consumer's minds.

In other words, 'Coke is the older trustworthy one' versus 'Pepsi is for younger people.'

Now, when the general public perceives church buildings, congregations, etc. branding themselves they perceive all churches appealing to different 'target markets'.

But they also will see all religions as just being different brands. Ask anyone and they will say the same thing - all roads lead to Rome, right?

So, as long as we absolutise one church from the next (creating a perceived distinction of 'Us' versus 'Them') we relativise the perception of God in everyone's minds.

The true church supersedes markets and marketing since it is made of all believers, of all languages, of all ethnic groups, of all time.

Fast Food Church? Wow, and he sounds so proud of himself. If what we want is a generation of overfed, self serving, gotta have it now and MY WAY believer's then, heck why not? As someone who was very close to the birth of the phenomenon known as Life Church (Oklahoma City) take it from me, its not all its cracked up to be. If you can be happy with your "experience" with God being doled out in bite sized morsels guaranteed to leave you hungry, and addicted, then this is exactly what you are looking for. I think the "megastore" has already robbed enough of the heart and soul of our nation and to hear Christ's Bride talked about in such crass commercial terms makes me wanna break out the whip and rive the money changers from the temple!!!!

This is perhaps one of the best strategies for reaching our culture. The message is the same...the method changes.