Small churches are better
From Total Church, by Steve Timmis and Tim Chester:
Too often, however, churches are not a context for making disciples so much as occasions for acknowledging relative strangers. Experience teaches that there is also an inverse ratio at work: the larger the group, the more inevitable the superficiality of our relationships. Instead of churches growing beyond the point of being able to sustain meaningful life-on-life family relationships, an alternative (and maybe essential) strategy would be to begin new congregations through church planting. (page 111)
So this was a question Mark Dever raised in our intern discussion today:
How large can a church be and still remain healthy (sustain "authentic community" or as this post says, "life-on-life family relationships")?
Posted by: PJ Tibayan | Jan 24, 2008 1:05:45 PM
In our church, of approx. 1000, we get concerns from folks because of our size. How we overcome that is through our Small Groups. It is through Small Groups that visitors are enrolled, body ministry occurs, and discipleship/teaching is facilitated. In effect, our congregation is comprised of dozens of 'mini-congregations' (Small Groups) that is overseen by our pastor and elders. That's how you avoid the pitfalls of a large church and maintain "meaningful life-on-life family relationships".
Posted by: Thomas Clay | Jan 24, 2008 1:06:42 PM
I was talking about this with a friend recently and we were wondering if the mega-church is acting like Walmart to the small church. It brings into one handy place all those that before would have been in separate locations. I know one argument in favor of the large church is that charismatic personality of certain men will always draw large crowds, but should we not admonish people not to set up idols that cannot save?
Thomas,
I have heard the small group argument many times, but that would require 100% enrollment in SGs which is highly unlikely. In what significant manner can a pastor shepherd the flock if he does not know the people? How can church discipline function as a means of sanctification in a setting where there is no acquaintance with the whole church so that going down the street is no big deal in a person's mind since there is no investment in the Body's health? These are questions not accusations that I think we need to think through.
Posted by: David Graves | Jan 24, 2008 1:32:19 PM
It's illustrative to ponder the ways that Paul and his co-workers thought about the nature of the church in this regard.
By forming household-based churches, they gave practical and tangible expression to the reality of the church being God's family.
The evidence that we have seems to indicate that growth in subsequent centuries tended to be horizontal (into more home-based churches) rather than vertical (into ever larger single congregations).
Perhaps we need to think more carefully about the NT models of household/family/body (not supermarket/corporation.)
Posted by: Al Shaw | Jan 24, 2008 6:30:16 PM