We should have known they weren’t healthy (in the multisite replication sense) when we didn’t have enough leaders, or a good culture within those systems (I’m talking about “system” things like music/worship, childcare, setup/takedown) as well as small groups (or whatever you want to call them).

It is crucial to honestly ask “Is what we have now worth replicating?” It’s a question that would have saved our third site from burning through a lot of visitors, volunteers, and staff, and ultimately tanking.

Secondly, I think multisite is valid for both church growth AND church planting, and you can ensure a church planting strategy through casting the initial vision of replicating sites and a process for the development of autonomous churches. If it is a part of your DNA, and you cast the vision well, it ought to be a part of what you are doing.

Lastly, I think you need to be willing to have sites fail, and understand what criteria would constitute failure. If you’re unwilling to shut down a site, I think you have lost the impetus for mission and gone to maintenance mode.

How do you measure healthy? and When does a process become healthy enough to recreate?

How can you insure that multi-site is a church planting strategy instead of a simply a church growth strategy?