The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works.

What to think of multi-site church campuses?

Doubtless, you're familiar with a trend in church growth. Instead of planting new churches, many churches are instead opening up another "campus," where those who assemble typically watch the preaching done at the main campus via live feed or rebroadcast.

What should we think of the practice?

There are obviously reasons to do it that way. For example, you can keep control over the doctrine and practice over the new group. You have name recognition, of the church and/or preacher, that will draw a crowd.

But, aren't there drawbacks as well?

Why not take the 6 greatest preachers in a denomination and offer to broadcast them into each church, instead of having some 2nd rate pastor labor through sermon construction amid his other duties?

Seriously, can you imagine how much time would be available if a pastor didn't have to preach that Sunday morning sermon?

What is lost in that approach? You could say you lose the ability for the pastor to really shepherd those people. But I've long since held that's going to be the case in a mega church anyway, where the pastors/elders are not really able to effectively shepherd the masses of people whose names they don't even know.

Of course, in the typical mega church the folks are already watching the preacher on a screen, so does it matter if it's live or if he's really in the building?

Anyone have firsthand experience in the multisite church? Your thoughts? What were the pros? the cons?

Personally, I'm not a fan of the multisite church idea, but the more I think about it, the more I come to realize it's really the mega church approach that I don't like, not just the multisite approach.

Here's a Christianity Today LINK to various responses to the following question:
"Should Multisite Campuses Be Church Plants Instead?"