Is size important?
I am in the process of visiting a number of different churches – ok that’s shorthand for “churches and Christian fellowships” – of varying sizes, from a couple of dozen adults and their families to the largest church in the county (according to the BBC).
There are advantages and disadvantages to large or small churches. A large church has a lot of resources.
Large churches have more people than they need for “running the church” – so there are people available to give time, effort, energy, money, skills … and so on … to the mission of the church. However, they need lots of people to manage the logistics of the organisation, and organisational structures. Sixty-four small groups, for example, means sixty-four leaders (or more) and they need their leaders … and so on. Makes it easy to set up training programmes and worthwhile creating teaching resources.
But – is it easy for individuals to be disconnected? A large congregational gathering makes it somewhat easier to be anonymous. I hear that there is a trend for some people to join cathedral congregations in part because of the perceived anonymity.
If I say that “large church like that is not for me” it doesn’t imply a critizism – I go to Spring Harvest most years. Rather it is a reflection that my vision, my driver is church in the small.
Pathway had reached the lower size boundary – we had enough people to do all the jobs that needed to be done to make Sunday worship happen, but we were getting to the point where it was not going to be sustainable.
So what of small church? Can a small congregation have significant impact in the community? What has it to offer that the large churches don’t have – and for that matter why do so many people migrate from mid-size churches into much larger churches?
I suppose I should give thought to what I mean by “small” churches – I’m thinking in numbers of people. Your mileage may vary, but I would say that less than a couple of dozen regular members is more like a large home group. Between a couple of dozen and say 75 would fall within my small church view – large enough that there is a reasonable congregation, and that there is scope for some small groups, but small enough that everyone knows everyone. Medium churches I’d say take us up to 150 – although some churches are bigger than that by having several congregations so a church of 300 could be 3 congregations of around 100.
And here I hit a difficulty – I guess my definition of small church is that everyone can know each other and that the church is more than a homegroup. Big enough to need a leadership team or equivalent. Big enough that people can start to specialise into different roles but enough cross over to be involved in other areas of church life, but small enough that people can try things out “safely”.
In a big church, it is a daunting prospect for many people to stand at the front of the church and find out whether they can preach/lead worship/lead prayers or whatever. In a small church it is still daunting, but it can be safe to try things out. It can also be easier to get the experience. For me, standing up in front of a large number of people is no big deal – I used to be a University lecturer and a trainer – but for some people even speaking up in a small group is a major thing.
So where does this leave me? I am a strong believer in church in the small – group of people who have a constituency or community in common – and whilst there is a place for big churches with thousands of people (and I’ve enjoyed the ministry via Podcasts from such places as Willow Creek and Mars Hill) – as a regular feature of my worship life, they are not for me.
