So onto the issue of size...
Does a church have to reach a certain size before it can be considered a sucess?
I guess the obvious fact is that I'm not really bothered by the idea of never "growing" a big church. I'm more bothered about other things that seem like more tangible signs of sucess to me
# helping people who really are poor in genuine sustainable ways...
# welcoming people who don't feel comfortable with traditional church environments...
# building and deepening relationships...
# getting to become a bit more like Jesus...
There are loads of other benefits besides, like not having to hire venues or spend money on lots of admin type stuff, also there are loads of relational benefits of staying small - it means people can be known much more easily ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Pete and Al found this article very helpful recently, on church size dynamics. http://www.redeemer2.com/themovement/issues/2006/fall/church_size_dynamics.html
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to me in that it focuses the conversation somewhat, in the direction you are heading in. It seems to be suggesting that size very much is important for success, but that what size that is, depends on what success looks like for you.
So I wonder if, and you make this point for #3 in your post:-
#1 Helping people who are poor in genuine sustainable ways. - While small churches can make an impact, we both know I guess from experience that a large church has more resources to do this. Especially if we're talking about developing partnerships and a running their own project, or developing a building etc. *
Where-as, #3 building and deepening relationship would as you say, often if not always tend to be more in the gift of a smaller church.
*(I think this could be done differently, but would require a church thought of more like a community project, with God and community in the middle, than a church) What do others think?
Did Rob Bell said the time to plant a church is when it feels ok that it might just be 8 of you forever? Perhaps the question isn't about how big it should be, but what you want a 'successful' church to feel like.
When you (plural) are really feeling alive, thinking and imagining about future church. What does it look like in your mind? What are you (plural) doing in your imagination of it? I'd love to hear the story, though more than that, what size comes out of that?
Warmly
Steve
The one of disadvantages we struggled with, as a small church, was not being able to afford staff. All our leaders were also trying to hold down jobs, but it took a lot out of them, they didn't always manage to keep the balls in the air.
ReplyDeleteThat said, we debated for years about what staff we might employ, if we were going to employ them at all (pastor? administrator? kidsworker? evangelist?), and never came to a proper conclusion. There was a sense that we would benefit from SOMEONE being able to give more time, but no certainty as to who, or what they ought to do with that time.
Personally, I am a small-church person. There was a time when I thought I wasn't, and I spent two terms at our local "mega-church" (compared with the rest of us, anyway), before someone came up to me with a welcoming smile and asked if it was my first time. At that point, I concluded that big churches were places to get lost, not places to build relationships, and moved on.
I'm sure they work well for some people, but I think it takes a certain type of person to resist the temptation to let the big church swallow them up. It would be very easy to opt out of all responsibility for your own faith in such a place, I think.
Does that tally with your experiences of Mars Hill, or am I just old and jaded?!
"I think it takes a certain type of person to resist the temptation to let the big church swallow them up. It would be very easy to opt out of all responsibility for your own faith in such a place, I think."
ReplyDeleteHow big is big in this instance? It wouldn't have to be a megachurch to create a degree of passenger-ness, anywhere where there wasn't space to be open and honest with another would encourage it. Is it about relationships (which presumably people in megachurches get by going to smaller groups) or responsibility? Neither can be enforced, only encouraged.
Why is size even a discussion point? I think even considering it might risk falling into the numbers game. By mentioning that it isn't an issue, the fact it can be mentioned means that it figures somewhere in your visible spectrum. Surely it's a case of finding out what you get at the end?
Bit too tired, so hope all that isn't too troll-y! :)
The question I think one ought to ask is why do it at all? I heard on the radio that in Ghana the thing to do is set up a NGO. There are loads of them all overlapping and focussed on their specific definition of a bigger problem. In a country with scarce healthcare they interviewed a nurse who was going to set up a NGO to train and empower people rather than actually help people by getting on with nursing them.
What specific, practical, rubber-hits-the road reason is church 'for' and how is it not already in existence somewhere? Who is it for and what does it do? Form should follow function (Bite me Steve Jobs!)
Size becomes an issue externally ... the way I'm thinking at the moment involves a very simple approach ... and keeping it simple means often keeping it small.
ReplyDeleteAlso I've been around various models of church planting for about 15 years now and I'm sick of the "how many people do you have?" question as if that's the way you can tell that you're doing a good job... (also bored of hearing pastors use numbers that seem to be a toe-count rather than a head-count)
I've also heard all too many talks about how many people you need before you start... another small group, kidswork, sunday services every week, working part time for the church .... (insert your choice of random church growth benchmark here)... not really very interested in that type of stuff... I'd rather know who we're helping and how. I guess my main question is are people experiencing grace through us...
I think the reason for any new church is often down to calling ... that can be found in many ways from a simple dissatisfaction with the way things are and feeling that it could be done better to a damascus road type thing... (i've been at a number of places between these ...)
Hi folks ... been some teething troubles here with my googlemail account - seems to have decided that I'm not interested in some of your comments and filed the notification in a place I don't check very often ... I'll sort that out soon (Steve and Ruth don't feel rejected it's not me it's dirty google...)
ReplyDeleteSteve ... just a quick thought about part of your post ... a "small" church could be more effective in helping poor people if it didn't have any overheads at all... (or overheads that in turn generated their own funding - I think that might just be possible in our culture in a pretty unique way)
ReplyDelete