I've mostly grown up around small churches, and my sub-conscious tendency is that small is good. Partly that's personality - I don't interact well with the hoard mentality. Reading through the article, part of is it is that I also tend to resonate more with the inherit strengths of a small church, especially discipline, accountability, and more time with pastors and staff. Perhaps because of my background, it's hard for me to envision a church of 3,000 functioning as well as a church of, say, 500. And no, until recently, I hadn't really put registered that the first church started out at 3,000+.
The whole article is worth a read, but here's a few points struck me:
The smaller church by its nature gives immature, outspoken, opinionated, and broken members far more power over the whole body.
In smaller churches there is an unwritten rule that most everyone must be happy with any new initiative in order for it to be implement [sic]Ah yes, I like the power of the individual. I tend to forget that not all individuals are equally deserving of power, and it's acceptable - even wise - for more power to be in the hands of a healthier minority.
It is easier to practice lay ministry and the priesthood of all believers in larger churches, where pastoral care must be done on a large scale by lay leaders. Smaller churches tend to acquiesce to clericalism.For me, this was the highlight in the entire article. My first thought was "Wow, maybe this is why I've seen so many small churches struggle to imbue a mindset of lay ministry in their members."
Larger churches in general have something of an advantage in evangelism; they can provide more “doors” into the church through their numerous programs. Also, many (not all!) non-Christians feel too visible to visit smaller churches.Another striking thought: In some significant ways, it's easier to accomplish a primary purpose of the church through a large church body.
No comments:
Post a Comment