Some Small Thoughts on Becomming Big

I’m just finishing a really interesting book, The Great Giveaway. David Fitch states his thesis right up front. “The thesis of this book is that evangelicalism has ‘given away’ being the church in North America.”  That’s a pretty bold statement, but Fitch makes a pretty good case, citing eight areas we have given away.

Each have intrigued me, beginning with his first; the church has given away its definition of success. It is here that Fitch is troubled by our use of numbers as a measurement of success. And he is right. We do tend to give a lot of emphasis to numbers. I would be less than honest if I said it doesn’t matter to me if our numbers decline at church, if attendance flattens out, if giving numbers do not go up. I watch numbers all the time - numbers on a scale, numbers in my classes, numbers when I play competitive tennis, numbers on staff reports Tuesday mornings. In my earlier years, I went to pastoral conferences, very much aware of my numbers, and other peoples’ numbers. Fred Smith once spoke to a group of us, opening his statement with the words, “Well, I am sure by now you have all had time to sniff one another.” In his southern drawl, we all knew that what he was using a canine metaphor as another way to describe our penchant for comparing ourselves, comparing numbers. We do this because, as Fitch puts it, the biggest ministries usually get the attention.

The concern of Fitch, and it is valid, is that numbers are not a true measurement of success. But it goes beyond this. Fitch says right out that numbers that lead to bigness tend to work against the mission of the church. The larger the church, the more difficult the church is able to be the church. Community diminishes with size. Church becomes some large, corporate, religious behemoth, impersonal, non-responsive, and monolithic. Instead, we should pursue a version of success that is faithful to God’s call to be his body as opposed to success via numbers. We should organize ourselves consciously away from the goal of getting big toward the goal of being the body.

It is this last sentence that turns sideways for me. It seems like becoming the body often leads to growth. As Rick Warren put it some years ago, if there is health in a body, if there is faithfulness to God, it will grow. It’s the nature of healthy bodies. So okay, probably most would agree, and say, yes, true, but when you get too big (say a size over 200, it is time to split off and become small again.

But is bigness all that bad? Is mega-church a derogatory term?  Does it necessarily turn into something impersonal and corporate?  As we are in the midst of building a “bigger” facility, are there reasonable concerns?  Bigness is viewed with some deep suspicion. But I am coming to believe that bigness isn’t all that bad. In fact, I’ve discovered that being smaller isn’t necessarily a measurement of a healthier body. Some of the most dysfunctional, yes even impersonal churches I have seen, been a part of, were under two hundred. And I have discovered, am discovering, that size does not necessarily counteract mission. It might even enhance it, enable it. Some churches have reclaimed their mission, in part, by growing to the next level.

McManus, in his Unstoppable Force, makes a passionate case for the church recovering its momentum, that it once again be a movement. But you can’t have movement apart from mass. Momentum operates by an equation something like this: P=MV2. To put it another way, Momentum = Mass times Velocity. Mass does not, on its own, create momentum. But when you have a focused energy multiplied by a certain mass, incredible momentum can occur. So mass isn’t necessarily an impediment to mission. It might even be one of the keys.

As Fitch puts it, mass can be a mess, but without mass, you have no movement. Without mass, you may not have the resources to do anything very significant when it comes to global efforts. If our church had not grown from 200 to 2000, we would not be sending significant teams abroad 2-3 times a year, partnering in powerful ways with ministries in places such as Hyderabad or Beirut. We would not be partnering with agencies in our neighborhood to become a resource for a healthier Washington County.

Fitch gives fair caution. And yes, getting bigger just to get bigger, to use size to salve our egos, etc., is really bad. But the issue isn’t whether we should get bigger or smaller. What we should aim to be is the visible community of faith, living out the stature of Christ (no matter the size), allowing this inevitable growth to take us to a level where we can create powerful momentum, both here, and abroad.

Comments

[Jon Knapp]

I like that. Find contentment in who God has made us as a church (don't wish to be another church size). Just seek to live out God's mission with your community of faith, and trust God for decisions along the way.

Let's not make big or small the goal, but health as we follow Jesus.

[Jenn Sanders]

I agree, in any size arena we should be measuring by peoples hearts a growing closer to Jesus - but there again, how are WE to judge how someone is doing with Christ.
My main concern is, in a large church what about the people the that fall thru the cracks? What about people that haven't been seen in a few weeks/months? Who is calling them? It shouldn't have to be the staff. In fact, I don't think it should be the staff at all. If the body isn't realizing that people are missing, then I would ask the question - are you just coming for the sermon and leaving? Are the people not a large reason for a church to exist? If there are no people, is there a church?
I share some of the same concerns that Fitch does as well, "numbers that lead to bigness tend to work against the mission of the church. The larger the church, the more difficult the church is able to be the church. Community diminishes with size".

[Dallas Lange]

Sounds like an interesting book. Certainly some good points. Here's my $.02. My biggest concern is not so much growth but how the growth came about. To simply reshuffle Christians to a new pew (or seat for the more contemporary churches) is not exactly what I consider success (assuming both churches are led in a God-honoring, culturally relevant manner). Growth that brings a smile must be about baptisms. When growth is done right (minimizing Church hopping) I'm down with as many as possible. If a church truly believes they have a calling that is from God, that is worth it, that is needed in this world, than why should they prohibit people from partaking in that? Of course it does become harder with size but I don't think a large church is unable to still be the church. They just have to be creative, try harder, and keep the bar high (for the leaders and those in the seats).
In Village's case I truly believe a new sanctuary will increase community. Less services equals more community in my mind.

[Jon Hay]

John,
I am curious, what is an optimum size in your eyes? Granted, we should not make size our measure of success, but is there a size you would like to see Village attain? Is there ever a point when we would be too big?
I ask because I often feel the recoil of our size when speaking with younger people, especially when they see our planned chapel. Be it false or not size does, in my experience, bring suspicion. What can we do to break down the walls of initial suspicion?
Jon

[agentolivia]

In Village's case I agree with Jenn's comment that community diminishes with size which is why I also agree with Dallas that a new sanctuary enabling fewer services will mean more community. As we have grown, we have dispersed over two days and five services. We have lost connection with each other as we have grown (in number) because we have not had the space to stay together (and keep "tabs" on each other), which no doubt has impeded our spiritual growth as a body.

I would add that as we have grown, community has been difficult because, honestly, who wants to linger and talk out in the cold (even with a hot mocha in hand) or in our so-called lobby where we'd be "shhh'd" when the next service started anyway. As easy as it is to dismiss a "building" as an essential tool of the church, I have learned much from our architects while on the building committee of the deeper meaning and *reason* for a building. The careful listening of Village's needs and identity on the architects part and on the building committee's part, will result, I strongly believe, in a space that will help us become more like ourselves, more like we are meant to be, more like God is leading us to be, that is, more connected to him in worship and community. Sounds preposterous? Perhaps. But imagine, even within a crowd gathered to worship, hidden spaces within the sanctuary meant for prayer and communion - an interaction not practical in our current space, but *invited* in our future one. Imagine a lobby with comfortable places to either quickly connect or sit and linger with a fellow traveler? There is so much more to this project than growing in size. We are considering ways to grow in intimacy with God as a whole community. Will we be prepared to use the resources that, God willing, will someday soon be at our disposal?

[Bud]

Okay, you talked me into it. I'll buy the book

[Yui]

Chase Bank close my account with no explinataon. Chase told me that it's the bank decision to close your account. Chase held my funds for three weeks. Very disappointed and frustrated. Chase even held my direct deposit too. I've open new account in credit union. Let's join together and be heard.

[Sanya]

SirLet the base of right angled tglnarie be b' , altitude a and hypotenuse c'Then by Pythagorean theorem c = (a^2 + b^2)^1/2The right tglnaries have perimeter P = a + b + c = a + b + (a^2 + b^2)^1/2and area A = a b / 2. ab - 2a - 2b = 2 (a^2 + b^2)^1/2 or (ab - 2a - 2b)^2 = 4(a^2 + b^2). Simplifying the sides of the first right tglnarie are 6,8,10AREA = PERIMETER = 24 In the Same way sides of second right angled tglnarie are5,12,13 AREA = PERIMETER = 30. The others have perimeter P = a + b + c THEN, area A = [s(s-a)(s-b)(s-c)] ^1/2 S= P / 2. On solving a=b=c=100 reveals the sides of the first tglnarie are 5,5,8, Area = 12 , Perimeter = 18 The sides of the second tglnarie are 3,25,26 .practically it is a small angles tglnarie Area = 36 , Perimeter = 541)For right angled tglnarieArea =Perimeter = 242)For Second right angled tglnarieArea =Perimeter = 30For other tglnaries1)Area=12 and Perimeter = 182)Area=36,Perimeter = 54

[Ramkarn]

(Please understand that I am geinarlnzieg and that I am not implicating ALL churches.)My opinion is that the reason these statistics exist is BECAUSE of the church. If the church wants to keep kids, it needs to learn how to encourage them in Christ rather than discourage them from the world. There is a difference. We need to be more accepting of kids rather than criticize their every wrong move. I'm not saying overlook blatant sin but I am saying not to put expectations on what Christianity looks like. Kids with purple hair and ripped jeans aren't all bad and they might have a heart for worship if we could get past their outer layer.I'm a married grown-up and I sometimes feel like I am not "good enough" or that I don't measure up in some Christian's eyes. If I feel that way, imagine what some impressionable teenager must feel like.Sorry for the long answer...you just touched on a topic that is very, very close to my heart.

[Maria]

Couldn't agree more Faith! I knew lots of friends grwniog up though that had great christian parent, attended church regularly and still fell away from the church. If I take my kids to a baseball game, it does not make them baseball players. I believe that having your kids in big church regularly teaches them that its okay to disconnect and that church can be boring. Could it be that what is being taught is not life applicable enough? Could it be that you cannot learn to serve your parents God with out it being your own? Could it be that perhaps the church needs to rethink their strategy? Yes, the question was directed at what the "Church" should do. I believe the problem may lay though that Parents too heavily assume the church is doing the right thing and teaching the right way. Again, the "this is the way we've always done it" approach. This topic should be discussed more often amongst parents! Keep the Convo going ladies! : )

[Sonia]

Interesting post! Wrt missions trips I see them mlinay as orienting young people to the fact that all the world is not like North America. I do not see them as particularly setting a career goal. One of my concerns is that such trips might overload the receiving missionaries and that their effort to host a group might be larger than the net benefit to the national community. IMO visiting the same location rather than visiting different missionaries each trip has benefits. The missionaries know what to expect and how to use the abilities of the visitors. Likewise the youth leaders know better how to prepare. We attend a suburban church but live in the down town core where there are lots of street people and homeless ministries. It bothers me that I rarely see or hear of a youth group being trained to minister locally to the homeless and street people.Looking back, a long time ago, to when I was in a high school youth group, I mlinay viewed it as a place and time to see my friends. The program was mlinay something to put up with. One day a week, at school we had small group bible studies and for me at least this was much more helpful and beneficial in the long run. I think that having the youth group spend a fair amount of their time in social and sports activities has considerable benefit as that is a much safer environment that many of the other activities that are available.Dave W

[Abhi]

A good topic, Dr. Doris.What comes to my mind is your mention of those with meatnl illness. I had a teacher in college (professor of literature) who touched on the topic of meatnl illness through the use of writing by a 16th century author who escapes me. It was very moving and concerned itself with how can men judge the role of meatnl illness this is God's domain man's domain is to respond in the love of Christ. I have found in my work that a direct approach is often good just ask if one may address spiritual needs in the counseling session I have never had a negative response the love of Christ is a cool and satisfying drink to all who thirst. I might be off topic for which I apologize but that is how your post inspired me.