So, "how many are you running?" "How big is your church or ministry?"
Have you ever been asked these type of questions, or better yet, have you ever been the one asking? It is quite hilarious, and sometimes sad the types of conversations that are entertained at church functions, district gatherings, or spontaneous pastoral interactions.
Furthermore, how many church growth conferences or leadership seminars have you attended? At the very least, you have received numerous amounts of flyers and brochures (both at the office and at home) promoting such events. Now I will be first to tell you that I believe in quantitative numbers. Numbers tell us many things…when something is strong and alive, people show up. Numbers can also express healthiness, success, and so forth. However, using quantitative means to define a church or ministry can be very misleading.
I believe that corporate America and the capitalist mentality have infiltrated our congregations and institutions, and as a result have made churches and leaders think that instant growth is ‘the way’ to define success and growth. You can tell where one bases their belief and definition on growth by the language they use (e.g., church is called ‘organization’).
However, I think quantitative growth does not necessarily suggest whether a church is big or small, and truthfully is a deceptive term. Therefore, in our understanding and conversation of church growth, I propose we begin using a more qualitative than quantitative language and thought. There are many numerically large churches with a small church structure. As well, I think that a numerically small church can have a large church structure, though this is rarely seen and not the norm. If you can identify with a few of these, you are probably a small church no matter what numbers you run.
*You are a small church if:
1. All the members have at least some acquaintance with all other members
2. Your church functions like a single cell
3. It is a social system with a single center or a cohesive identity
4. Your members value relationships more than a program or organization
5. You hold in highest regard people who act out their faith
6. You refer to your leaders as ‘workers’ rather than ‘leaders’
7. Tradition carries more weight than novelty
8. Older members are fiercely loyal…but often stubborn
9. Participants feel the church is the right size to sustain the kind of congregational lifestyle that nurtures them
10. The congregation accepts and appreciates ‘characters’ that are a source of both strength and difficulty.
So, what do you think?
1. Does your church have any of these identifications? Would you be considered a small church?
2. Do you ever get tired of the quantitative questions and lingo (e.g., so how ‘many’ are attending your service, etc.)? What examples can you give?
3. Considering the corporate, capitalistic culture in which most of us live, is analyzing a church on qualitative means logical and/or realistic?
4. Any other thoughts or insights?
*(key stats and info. taken from pg. 215 of “Inside a Small Church” by Anthony Pappas)
3 comments:
First, the church has tended to use the worldly definition of success with a few minor modifications. We eliminate people from consideration who achieve their “success” by unscrupulous means (most of the time), but we tend to use the same criteria that world does: numbers, size, money, power.
Second, Jesus was a failure according to the Jewish culture of his day. Any would-be Messiah who gets killed before he can establish his kingdom is by definition a failure. This is why Paul said that the cross was a stumbling block to the Jews.
Third, Jesus was a failure according to the pagan culture of his day. He never accomplished anything of significance according that culture. He didn’t build anything. He didn’t win any great battles. He didn’t consolidate a political power base. This is why Paul said that the cross was foolishness to the Gentiles.
But what about the success of the early church? Peter’s first sermon produced 3,000 converts (possibly more depending upon how you do the math). God added to their number daily. The early church exploded on the world. Shouldn’t we expect similar signs of God’s blessings in our ministries?
One thing we overlook is that this was kingdom success. The early church was pretty much the sum total of the kingdom at this point. Peter’s sermon did not produce the results it did because he had a clearly-defined mission statement, or well-written long-term goals. Peter was faithful, and God produced the results. This was God building his kingdom.
Maybe we’re asking the wrong question.
Maybe success is not the issue. Could it be that the real question is faithfulness? Does the master in the parable of the talents say, “Well done, good and successful Apprentice”? Of course not. He says, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” Jesus is focusing on his faithfulness, not his success. But in our culture we see them as the same thing. The first two servants both doubled their investment after all.
Thanks—a helpful post! I checked the list and I attend a small church that is a “venue” of a large church. The question will be (for me) at what point I call the small church “my” church. Not yet, but I can see that happening in time—already has for numerous others in the small church venue.
The unspoken principle that I object to is seeking information about numbers in someones ministry as a way of judging their value. I've overheard many such conversations asking "How many are you running?" If they say 60, they will politely nod and then find someone else to schmooze with, maybe. If they say 600, you see instant interest or even respect (or at least the speaker seems to think so). Numbers are important because they represent people, but this way of instantly categorizing people (or even judging oneself) is so lame.
Post a Comment