But it's also given me some perspective on things. For instance, how big Otter Creek has gotten, population wise. We're having around 1000 people every Sunday at the worship service. And what I've started to wonder (and this is not about Otter Creek in particular), what purpose does it serve to have huge congregations? So, some pros and cons about what I see in big congregations and small congregations?
One note before we start: I've attended two church homes in my lifetime: Otter Creek Church of Christ, birth to 14, Belmont Church (formerly of Christ), 16-20, and then back to Otter Creek, 20 to 35. Belmont had three services when I was there, generally with 1500 in attendance. But when I came back to OC in 1992, there were about 250 or 300 in regular attendance.
Pros of a big congregation:
- One of the biggest pros I see is the pooling of resources. The weekly offering at OC is sometimes a staggering number to me, generally equaling in one week what I made as a teacher. With this amount of funds there is a lot of good that can be done. A lot of people can really be helped with that amount of the money.
- Another pro is the potential for a heterogeneous experience. If you're attending a worship service with 1000 people in attendance, the possibilities for a wide variety of life experiences is enormous.
- With every pro there is a con. It would be great if the bulk of the money taken was given away to those who need the help, but with a 1000 member congregation, there is a lot of financial support that has to be given for the church. There are staff to be paid, property to be maintained, etc. Serving a congregation of that nature is a large issue and a lot has to be given over to that.
- While the potential is there for a heterogeneous experience, that is very often not the case. Humans are tribal creatures and we tend to want to associate with people of similar backgrounds and experiences. This can even happen in smaller groups within a large group, which is how the ever-dreaded cliques form.
- One of the biggest problems I feel with big churches is the ability for people to fall through the cracks. Church has to be about relationship, and sometimes I wonder if people choose to go to big churches because they don't have to to be involved and they can come and punch their "worship" time card. They can slip in and slip out and never really become a part of the church body.
- This one is mainly the opposite of the big cons. Relationships are so much easier formed in a smaller setting. One of the most striking things about going to church in Loughborough, England last year was how small it was, maybe about 50 people. Now a lot of them were related anyway, but there was this strong sense of family. People were missed when they weren't there, and not because their number in the attendance, but because a friend was gone. The strength of the relationships seems so much stronger.
- This one goes to the variety of experiences again. Within a small group, the chances for a variety is even smaller. It's even easier to have an insular experience within a small situation.
- There are definitely not as many resources financially within a smaller situation, although the argument might be made that people still find ways to help those in need because it's easier to find out about those needs.
4 comments:
I have been wrestling with the same issues Phil, especially with the intake of money and its use. The risk of a large church is that it becomes a being unto itself that consumes internally much of the resources given (time, money, energy, prayers, etc.) by the individual members.
When I study the Gospels and the NT books, I don't see a model for large churches, although large churches would not necessarily have existed since it was a infanct ministry. But how big were the Jewish temples which were the predecessors? I don't know the answer on that.
There is no guarantee that more dollars would find its way into the lives of people in need if the large church membership was spread over a larger number of smaller groups, say home churches or small groups using free space or cheap rent spaces. But, certainly the amount of money spent on infrastructure and internal services would be much less.
The thing that plagues me is when 70%-90% of contributions are going toward internal use & infrastructure costs (debt, operational costs, salaries, etc). Unfortunately the 70%-90% is typical of middle to large size churches.
I just don't think that is what Christ envisioned of the church. I am not critizing churches, just stating the dilemma I struggle with.
Tony
ask Gwen Shamblin. She reads your blog.
Ha!
The Church in Jerusalem started as over 3000 people, "with the Lord adding daily." Jesus spoke to crowds so large the occupied an entire mountain. So, I think we can't argue against large churches from the Bible.
Phil said "Within a small group, the chances for a variety is even smaller. It's even easier to have an insular experience within a small situation." I totally disagree. It is almost impossible to be insular when everyone notices everyone else.
I take the point about the possible heterogenous nature of a small congregation. Some are, and some aren't. And huge congregations can also be very hetergenous, basically people of the same color, income level, age, etc.
Got to go, I'll be back.
Post a Comment