Featured Small churches

You forget.....I live in New Jersey. (Aka....SODOM II)

 

I think that the problem with large churches is the distance between the individual members. With large churches adopting a small-groups program, then the distance is placed between groups of members with the added aggravation of instituting a defacto hierarchy. The group leaders for all practical purposes become the pastors of the the small groups, under the authority of an earthly head.

 

And that cant be good!

 

I'm not saying a formal hierarchy, but a de facto hierarchy can't be avoided in the situation I've described. The hierarchy isn't in the by-laws, it's in the hearts. Break any large organization into smaller groups and leaders in those smaller groups emerge. They're looked to for guidance, and in operation they act under the direction of the pastor or pastors (if they're well-behaved).

My experience is in the Southern Baptist Convention, so I will use it as an example. Even though officially the churches in the convention are mostly autonomous, in reality the directors of missions are seen as the leaders of the churches in the associations, and they under state and national leaders. If a church wants to remain a member of the association, it has to toe the line—a very fuzzy line, and only in a limited sense, but the line is there nonetheless.

Stand a Catholic Diocese and a Southern Baptist association together, and they cast identical shadows on the wall.

That's the way it is in any organization. It can't be avoided, and I'm not saying a church doesn't have the right to associate itself with larger organizations. I'm saying that a de facto hierarchy in the hearts of the people cannot be avoided. Money becomes more of an issue as well, but that's another topic.

And I'm with EWF, on that. In the operation of the local church, that can't be a good thing. But the thing in large churches I think to be the most negative is the distance between the members. Might as well be separate churches.

_______________________________________

Now, someone will be tempted to say, That's not how it is in MY association or church or whatever . . .

Spare me.

If you're a Southern Baptist and your pastor goes rogue, who ya gonna call? It'll be your DOM, and that's because you see him as the de facto leader of the churches in your association.

 

Your church isn't that large.

 

Multisite churches are the way to go, I believe. As I said in another thread, studies are showing it makes more spiritual and financial sense than building higher and wider at one site. It also keeps Christ as the focus, rather than the facilities, the pastor, and the "products" available: programs, Bible studies, exercise groups, etc.

 

Does church size matter? - Mark Dever, Matt Chandler, Kevin DeYoung

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbO8Vbfa_-I

 

Years ago I started attending a small (less than 150 regular attenders) church. We were blessed with gifted teacher being called to our church. Our attendence started to increase, and we hit the boiling point (212 people one Sunday). But facility limitations contributed to not being able to reach folks moving into new and expensive homes. So we relocated and built a "state of the art" as we liked to say facility. Within a year we reached 350 and went to two services. We now have about 1000 regular attenders, and a small groups ministry. The small groups get to know the members, meet in their various homes, share meals and very much model the behaviors of a small church. The study material usually comes from the Sunday sermon, so there remains a strong tie to the teaching pastor, yet allows the give and take of discussion and questions of the small group members.

 

I don't know about anybody else, but I've never had any experience with a church that small. Even the little bitty Methodist-church-but-mostly-Baptist-membership we went to when I was growing up on a north Missouri farm had more people than that attending regularly.