It is still a hard row to hoe my friend. I think dynamics are much more than numbers, though it is easier to determine them and move towards reform with smaller numbers. But remember, in a smaller congregation it takes less opposition also. The church I am leaving (layman moving to be nearer family), 1 woman saying NO through her husband (a deacon) and scheming on her own can blow the whole thing up. I saw it happen.
Whatever size, it is never easy.
In Christ Alone,
Greg

No doubt about that, Greg. 16 "no" votes was enough to kill 3ABC's proposed constitution back in 2005.

There's also that interesting phenomenon that small church vote on things a whole lot more than large churches do. Just about any change you want to make in a small church is going to have to be voted on. Not so in a big church. Why is that, anyway?

I see the point both in the post and in the first comment. There is much more inertia to overcome in a large church. But it takes much less opposition in a small church, and one or two families leaving can sink a church.

I think there are a couple of ways to look at voting in a small church. On the one hand, it is an organizational dynamic. Large companies are not run as democracies. They cannot function efficiently any other way than for direction, values, etc., to come from a relatively small leadership team. I do not see any reason for a church to function differently. There is also the matter of expectations. I think it likely that when someone joins a larger church, they do not expect to have the same say or even influence they might in a smaller church. They might even pick the larger church for that very reason, whether from a desire to be anonymous or to function as a consumer.

As a small church pastor seeking to affect reform, my personal observation is that the desire to vote on everything itself keeps small churches small. Such a desire may reflect an unwillingness to submit to godly leadership. And when everyone does (and votes) what is right in his own eyes, it is tough to agree on what it means to make disciples or preach the gospel.

Just today I had an interesting experience in searching for a new church. There is a relatively new SBC church in my area, and I found the church's bylaws on their website. After reading the bylaws, I emailed the pastor with some questions. Most of the questions revolved around the congregational (or lack thereof) nature of the church. The church is elder-led, but elders are appointed by the pastor without a church vote. Elders have the power to nominate for the position of pastor, but that must be confirmed by a church vote. Yet, the elders can fire the pastor without a church vote. Other than that, the only other thing that requires a vote is the construction of a new building. The elders can even change the bylaws without even letting the church know until after a decision is made.

I sent the email yesterday and here's the pastor's reply. Note: the brackets indicate where I omitted identifying info, but everything else, included ellipses, is exactly as written by the pastor.

---

Bruce:

Thank you for your inquiries and welcome to [the area]. Under normal circumstances I do not answer doctrinal. theological or church governmental issues with people that do not attend [the church]. The bylaws that are on our website were created before we actually launched four years ago and some changes are currently being made...one being that church will not vote on the pastor's position. [The church] is not your typical Southern Baptist Church in the way in which we reach out to lost people and govern the church. We are not a democracy...we are pastor led. The Elders act as accountability board for me as well as help me pastor the church. The day-to-day operations are handled solely by the paid staff. Over the last four years membership has become less and less important to us...to the point where there is no emphasis put on it. Membership at [the church] doesn't entitle you to a say in direction...but does entitle you to pastoring, teaching and leadership [if appointed]. We want to be a church filled with lost people and missionaries. The new tweaks in the bylaws will better accommodate that model.

I know this is not the norm...but what we feel is in keeping with Scripture. I've done the best to provide basic answers to your questions in the time I have to devote to your email. Please note that if you are looking for a traditional Southern Baptist church with voting membership...[this church] is NOT the church for you. If you are looking for a church to get involved in...work in...and see people far from God come to know Jesus Christ...please drop by on a Sunday.

Again I appreciate your questions, but unless you are a regular attender of [the church]...this will be the last time I respond to your questions.

This new...or 4 year old church sounds so seeker sensitive (we don't want to be bothered) that they (the not so important members or maybe not members) may one day wake up and realize they are in an RCC. I agree with Dean Jensen from Sydney in his interview with MD. Baptist should be called "the members" as much as "the Bapists". This guy doesn't want to aid disciples, but to have a nice little sanctified kingdom. To give him a little more grace, he has no idea about Baptist ecclelsiology at its best.
In Christ Alone,
Greg

Greg G and Justin:
Amen. Many folks use the need to vote on everything to keep things small and controlable. Amazingly, the ones who most want pastoral or elder led initiatives to be voted on in business meetings run their own ministries dictatorially. Does anyone else see this? As I said before, I am just now leaving this very situation. It was wild. The same couple are largely responsible for running off three pastors (one teaching/senior, and 2 associates). The churches failure to recognize the need for discipline of the couple have cost the church the very young and growing Christian men and families they need to survive and thrive. All in the need of peace. At this time the deacon husband is under a form of discipline (suspended from all leadership) after 6 months of effort from 2 Godly deacons.
I would say to any pastor and to his lay friends that try to help, ID the problem folks before you begin your Biblical Reform program and ID the possible leaders that you can invest in and train. It largely must be a numbers and power game, the key I would think is to avoid politics and just teach and care for the people.
I think one of the dynamics we should bring up is the "family chapel" as long as we are discussing small churches.
In Christ Alone,
Greg

Having pastored in both large and small church settings, I firmly (but hopefully humbly) disagree with the idea that church reform is easier in small congregations. There are many things that do become more difficult in larger congregations, but change seems to be equally difficult across the board.

Yes, in a small church you might only loss one or two families during the change process, whereas in a large church you may loss 20 families. Yet people are people, and friendships run deep--and people are often unwilling to conform to biblical teaching if it means losing friends as members.

Don't forget, small churches generally have a tradition as firmly held (or perhaps more firmly held) as large churches. They are generally older than larger churches, and have a longer history to deal with.

Lastly, I would contend against the assumption that the pastor is more naturally the leader in small verses large churches. In both contexts (the large church suburbanite, the small one rural) the natural tendency to reject leadership was clearly manifest. Admittedly, in small churches there is more LIP SERVICE given to the idea of pastoral leadership--but really that is all it is.

I would agree that it takes different types of leaders in these two settings. A leader who can bring about change in a large church probably couldn't do it in a small church---and vice versa (unless he were uniquely and diversely gifted).

Dear Josh:
I think you are right on with the small church lip service. Many folks (maybe even me) are attracted to small churches in hopes of having more influence. To many it feels like a club. They pay lots of lipservice about Biblical submission and trusting the Bible, but they have no idea how eaten up they and their view/tradition of church are influenced by the world.
Does small church mean in most places older (both in history and demographics) church?
IN Christ Alone,
Greg

Greg

You wrote: "Does small church mean in most places an older (both in history and demographics) church?

Doh! Perhaps I was being idiosyncratic on that statement. I should have simply stated that small churches have long-held traditions (many times lasting 75-150 years).

Also, everything has a person's name attached to it (the furniture--great uncle Fran helped build the pews; the clock--Aunt Tillie sold a cow to buy the church a clock in 1935; the 35 cases of pink bulletin paper--which grandpa Henry donated; the small print KJV tattered pew bibles--which of course are donated in loving memory of Mr so-n-so whom nobody actually seems to know but everyone agrees it would insulting to replace the bibles. Don't forget, somebody's relative was on the original committee that drafted the constitution so don't even think about making changes to that.

A group---regardless of size, holds on to their identity with fierce tenacity. Change isn't natural welcome in large or small churches. It isn't harder or easier in either context. It takes patience, love, leadership, servanthood, and a lot of long prayer-walks with God.

No Doh! required. I agree, aside from church plants, my experience is that they are older. The church I have vented about has younger folks passing through every few years. They work, get burned out and move on. The kernel of the church are senior citizens who do little (ROAD-retired on active duty in Army parlance) and a small group of middle aged folks who for the main part are woefully unBiblical. Both groups have (bless their hearts) little real idea of the Gospel, but they know their tradition (sort of) and pray for the church to grow. Their are some new additions with more Bible before tradition ideas, but they are new and I fear getting burned out and fewer.
IN Christ Alone,
Greg

I have concluded that even small, tradition-bound SBC churches that would run screaming from the concept of "elder" ("it's what those confounded Presbyterians do!") still in effect are elder-run: it's just that the elders are not known as such, are not subject to selection in any fashion by the church, and are not held to the biblical standards.

For instance, committees have become de facto elders in our church. Not the 'counting committee,' but the 'committee on committees' and 'nominating committee' and most especially the pastor search committee operate as if they are elders -- making decisions regarding the spiritual direction of the church without being subject to the biblical standards. The problem is that in most churches, groups of laymen decide who to put on committees, which are then filled with other laymen. Our 'deacon selection committee' is comprised of the deacon executive committee (which is a self-perpetuating board) and two at-large members.

In these situations, people can say that the church is deacon-led all they want, but the fact is that non-deacons and people who are probably unspiritual (likely unsaved) are in positions of authority and power in the church.

Reform in that case is nigh impossible.

Rob, we must be in the same church. Deacons that really serve as elders without any of the qualifications...and some not even as deacons. We do in fact act like we are RULED by elders, we just have not qualified men wearing the deacon mantle.
Greg

Excuse me, I meant unqualified men serving as elders under the elder mantle.
Greg B