Part Two of A Radical, Modest Proposal for Younger Church Leaders
The title of this series promises radical, so I’ll get right to it. The American church’s impulse to grow mega (to do church in very large groups) is in my estimation not a kingdom one but a cultural one. We Americans tend to assume that bigger is better. And just think of all of the ways we’ve gotten bigger and more centralized—industry, government, economy, education, agriculture, publishing, entertainment. For a couple of decades we’ve been trying to figure out a way to do the same thing for health care.
All of these areas have grown larger, more centralized, and more expensive. But are they better? Are they healthier? Are they morally superior? Those questions are worth some serious pondering. We are now beginning to understand the consequences of, for example, the industrialization of farming. Food is more easily accessible and, in a sense, cheaper; but it is less healthy, and in some cases may be making us sick.
Not long after the farm was transformed, we began applying industrial and business models to the church. We became obsessed with “breaking through” the barriers that naturally keep churches smaller. We did all of this without considering whether those barriers were there for a reason and what unintended consequences there might be in going mega, along with our culture.
So, today I offer four reasons why younger church leaders should consider returning to a smaller church model. There is much more that could be said, but I want to stay brief.
1. Oikos. The New Testament church was organized around households (Greek, oikos), groups of believers that were small enough to be intimately involved in one another’s lives, yet large enough to make a difference in the wider world. I think the size of the group is the key more than the meeting place.
2. Economy. The big budgets and large staffs required for the mega model are unsustainable in the long-term, especially in places and at times where the economy is struggling. Going forward, our church planting and sustainability models cannot presume upon the availability of wealth and affluence.
3. Humility. The kingdom principle is that when we are faithful in small things, God will bless us with the opportunity to minister in more significant ways. Too many of us, with the best of motives, have said, “Forget the small stuff; I want to make a huge impact right away.” But I believe there are pastoral attitudes and behaviors that can only be learned in a small setting. And I think the “more significant ways” often end up being different than what we first imagine.
4. Discipleship. Our commission is to make disciples, not to grow churches. When we’re making disciples, God grows the church exponentially. Willow Creek’s bold admission a few years ago that their discipleship model was ineffective should have created more of a stir than it did. It should have caused us to wonder whether it was simply a new program that was needed or whether it required a return to a more sustainable way of doing ministry.
As I’ve said before, I don’t want to diminish or deny what the large church model has accomplished. I also don’t want to impugn motives. We are all part of the same family. I simply want to raise questions about the unintended consequences and long-term sustainability of the model. And I want to continually invite us to reconsider the ancient pathways.
Continue the series: Grow Local
Originally posted Tuesday, 28 Feb 2012