Stuck in the Present

CHURCH SIZE: TOO BIG TO SUCCEED?

From my newsletter, “Moore’s Musings”:

For the first time I am taking a departure from the regular format for “Moore’s Musings.” In light of my previous comments about “megachurches,” I wanted to list some of my other convictions about church size.

Instead of sending this out two weeks after the previous “Moore Musings” I took an additional two weeks to gather my thoughts. Preaching regularly at a wonderful church outside of Austin also limited my time a bit in working on this edition.

I would not characterize my thoughts here as tentative, but perhaps provisional is an apt word to use. Tentative is too weak, but provisional underscores that my thoughts are still open to further reflection and correction.

I learn much from those who disagree with me, especially those who are gracious in doing so! By all means offer your pushback, thoughts, or questions. You can contact me either by email or post your comments on my blog at www.twocities.org. Your comments via email may be included in future blasts, but I won’t give your name unless you approve.

Away we go…

I have been thinking about the size of churches for many years. Since I have ministered in small, medium, and big churches, it seemed time to make my views more public. I believe the topic merits more attention than it gets. I should add that the recent scandals in several megachurches, as awful as they have been, didn’t influence my thinking below.

Here then are a series of miscellaneous and compressed thoughts on church size:

*I no longer believe the size of larger churches (somewhat arbitrarily set as 300 or more regular attenders) is neutral.

It is common to hear the argument that the size of a church is neutral. Size is likened to a baseball bat. As the logic goes, it is stated that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a baseball bat. Yes, you can kill someone with a baseball bat, but manufacturers like Louisville Slugger didn’t have that kind of slugging in mind when they made their bats.

I think size not only can but does present unnecessary obstacles that make being a body of believers much more challenging. How can a large group of people fulfill all the “one another” commands of Scripture when it is easy to be anonymous?

I have adapted the typical baseball bat analogy to highlight my concerns about big churches. Imagine having a huge baseball bat. Many are impressed by the massive bat. It effortlessly crushes homers. The person wielding the bat is very nice. Many on the field are in awe of the bat and the batters that are privileged to use it. Bats that big would change the complexion of the game we know as baseball. It would no longer be baseball as we have come to understand and love the game. So yes, I question whether thousands gathered together in the same place are still really “doing church.”

*I am keenly aware that small churches can have big problems, while big churches may have smaller problems. I have observed both. This undeniable reality doesn’t affect my concerns about big churches. Read on to see why.

*Small churches can have autocratic leaders who do much damage. Big churches can and do have autocratic leaders, but small churches may feel more vulnerable to tolerating a dictatorial leader since more qualified pastors are unlikely to be attracted to ministry in a small church. I have wondered aloud on different occasions why pastors generally (I know a few exceptions) feel “called by God” to move to a bigger church.

*Because of their size, and even more so if the church is not part of a denomination, smaller churches can get isolated and so make themselves more vulnerable to ungodly influences and unbiblical fads.

*I do have concerns about house churches, many times an overreaction to bigger churches. I have been very involved in both big and small churches, but never participated in a house church. My concerns about house churches mainly revolve around the problems of autonomy and their vulnerability to self-appointed leaders who are not qualified to lead. I have heard a few horror stories. I know there are some healthy examples of house churches, but I think their independence presents obstacles to the best kind of spiritual growth.

*With small churches you don’t have the structural issues that impede being known. A small church is not magically healthy simply because it’s small, but at least you don’t have to fight the structural challenges that come with bigness.

*Small churches don’t have structural impediments to reflecting the family ethos mentioned in the Bible. Like the previous point, small churches don’t automatically do this just because they are small. They must have godly leaders who are committed to functioning as a family. In some healthy small churches, I have seen all ages mixing in an organic way. I have never seen it done very well in bigger churches. In bigger churches you find specialty ministries that sequester the old from the young and vice versa. It’s why you have the sixty-plus old folks in Sunday school classes with names like the “Sunset” class.

*Speaking of specialties, Johns Hopkins University was the first research university in America. Many separate departments with their own specializations. Many good things have come from specialization. With respect to Johns Hopkins, their early adoption of more rigorous research methods in medicine thanks to the inspiration of European scholars, yielded many benefits.

Specialization, for good and for ill, has affected all areas of life including the church. It is why we put modifiers in front of pastor: senior, executive, associate, adult education, discipleship, evangelism, youth, and more. These areas of specialization dull us to the indispensable character qualities all pastors should have. C.S. Lewis wrote how modifiers can kill important words:

As long as gentleman has a clear meaning, it is enough to say that So-and-so is a gentleman. When we begin saying that he is a “real gentleman” or “a true gentleman” or “a gentleman in the truest sense” we may be sure that the word has not long to live…[1]

*Individualism is a big problem in our culture and in the church. Mature Christian growth does not come from being individualistic. Where is it easier to hide and be the person you want to be: a big church where you can be anonymous or a small one where your presence or lack thereof is noticeable?

*Big churches usually have a hodgepodge of unrelated ministries. A church I served in for five years had an annual “ministry fair.” About seventy distinct ministries of the church were offered as possible avenues for growth. We in leadership pretty much left it up to everyone to figure out where they should get involved. That kind of chaos with multiple choices does not produce mature Christians.

*I Peter 5 assumes the leadership knows the congregation and the congregation knows the leadership. At the big church I was at in the 1990s, the elders realized the body largely did not trust them. What to do? They decided to be greeters for a few weeks so people could get to know them. I kid you not. The relationships between the elders and the body did not improve.

Even if the elders are qualified men, how is it possible for them to know and be known by thousands?

*In the pastoral epistles, Paul assumes that one who is engaged in pastoral ministry is an elder. The interesting thing is that it is difficult to find “Bible-believing” churches where every pastor is an elder. I have scoured hundreds of church web sites. When all the pastors and elders are listed, it is almost never the case that all pastors are elders. Why is this if Paul assumes that all pastors are elders? I already knew the answer but decided to ask a few biblical scholars and pastors. The answer: the elders are typically afraid that the pastors will wield too much influence on the body. Fear of a voting bloc is the way some put it. And yes, it seems bigger churches are more prone to this fear.

*Larger churches tend to fast track membership. The large numbers seem to demand it. We had four weeks at the big church I served. I told the elders that an unprincipled Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness could become a member at our church. This certainly could happen at any size church, but when you have large numbers wanting to be members you feel the pressure to fast track the process.

Much more could be said, but this is already too long. If you have read this far, please receive my thanks, and do consider offering a comment or question.

Moore’s Musings is free, but tax-deductible gifts to Two Cities Ministries are most appreciated.

By Paypal at www.twocities.org

By check made out to Two Cities Ministries and mailed to:

Dave Moore

3721 Rocky Ford Dr.

Austin, Texas

78749

 

[1] From C.S. Lewis’s essay, “The Death of Words,” As quoted on www.cslewis.com/language-and-the-meaning-of-words.

BRILLIANT AND DEVASTATING ASSESSMENT

First, a note about the cover design. The photo does not do it justice, but this is a beautiful and provocative cover. It is truly a work of art.

Kotkin’s book only has 172 pages of text, but it is not a quick read. This is hardly due to a lack of lucid writing. Indeed, the book is written in a very lucid manner. The reason it is not a quick read, or at least should not be a quick read, is that Kotkin packs so much in for the reader to consider.

In a nutshell, this book does a brilliant job at detailing the forces that are hollowing out the middle class.

Yes, the text only is 172 pages, but Kotkin’s prodigious research into these issue yields almost 100 pages of endnotes.

Highly recommended!

WRITING TO PERSUADE

Trish Hall has the background to write a terrific book on persuasion. And indeed, she has done just that. As the former op-ed. page editor for The New York Times she knows what it takes to write in a compelling way.

Various studies are mentioned in the book. These do not impede there being ample feet on the ground wisdom that helps all writers to succeed at persuasive prose.

THE YEAR OF MAGICAL THINKING

Reader beware! Didion is a great writer, but also a haunting one. 

Here she reflects on the death of her husband. She also writes about the brutal circumstances of her only child’s ailments which eventually kill her shortly after Didion’s husband.

Didion does not believe God is in control. As she writes, “The eye is not on the sparrow.”

So be careful if you choose to read this seductive and sad book. Discerning readers will be enriched, but one must be ready to face the utter hopelessness of one who does not believe there is anything/anyone beyond this world.

STUCK IN THE PRESENT

When I wrote Stuck in the Present, I was not thinking about megachurches per se, but this excerpt describes a concern that seems more formidable in larger churches:

“A community, especially a Christian one, is a group of people who share something in common that transcends socioeconomic or racial backgrounds. What Christians share is a common history—a living tradition. When we lose sight of this living tradition, we put ourselves in a perilous situation. With a sketchy understanding of our common identity as Christians, we are no longer able to have true community with one another.”

David George Moore, Stuck in the Present: How History Frees and Forms Christians, p. 93.

WHY JOHNNY CAN’T PREACH

Gordon has written what legitimately could be called a “thin and weighty book” on preaching.

In just over 100 pages, Gordon offers much insight with his penetrating and provocative comments about the dire state of preaching.

As one who preaches from time to time, I can say that this book protected me from some of the common gaffes that preachers make in either preparation or delivery.

Highly recommended, and I should add that all teachers, not just preachers, would derive much benefit from working through this book.

 

WHEN EVERYTHING’S ON FIRE

There is much to like about this book. It is well-written, insightful, and winsome. Zahnd demonstrates his pastor cum theologian strengths with this clarion call that those tempted towards deconversion need not do so.

The author’s view on Scripture (he is indebted to Barth and Brueggemann, among others) leaves me wondering who I can recommend this book to. I have recommended it already but will only do so to those who have more grounding to find the significant wheat among the possible chaff.

THINK AGAIN: THE POWER OF KNOWING WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW

There are several things I appreciated about Adam Grant’s terrific book, Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know. Here are few of them:

*Grant employs a wonderful selection of illustrations, graphs, and personal anecdotes. Teaser: the opening about what caused some firefighters to lose their lives while a few lived, is a strong hook to the rest of the book.

*There is a helpful discussion of why computers/AI will never replace humans. The description of the debate between Harish Natarajan and an IBM computer is entertaining as it is illumining.

*Though Grant seems more sanguine than me about the willingness of people to “think again,” I am grateful that he admitted some are not interested in “dancing.” For more on the dance metaphor, you will need to buy the book!

*I found the encouragement to see our emotions as a “rough draft” to be most helpful. At my better moments, I am more in tune with how a lack of sleep will make me more vulnerable to errant comments. At my worst moments, well…

A personal note: I have interviewed over two hundred scholars, writers, and leaders. Grant is in a small group who makes himself accessible to his readers. Kudos to him for this example!

Some questions/possible disagreements/what I would bring up if I were in Grant’s “challenge network”:

I reached out to Adam with my first question:

*Wonderful book, Adam! Truly. One question nags: How should wise decisions be made where a data-oriented/scientific approach does not illumine?

Adam’s response:

Thanks, David—honored.

I think Bob Sutton captured it well when he defined wisdom as acting on the best information you have, while doubting what you know.

Cheers,

Adam

*Adam talked about the speed of information. I wish there had also been some interaction with both the amount of information coming at us, and even more so, how information gets democratized by most media outlets. In other words, the latest gossip surrounding Britney Spears gets equal play with an update on the war in Ukraine. We are constantly being told that everything is equally urgent.

*I think it would have added to the book to address how to go about motivating the “think again” process when so many grow up in homes where robust conversation and debate are not encouraged. In my own teaching about how to address controversial matters, I have had several tell me that they grew up in such homes. Serious and substantial conversations, let alone debate, was avoided at all costs. And the cost later in life is indeed great.

*Adam recommends that we think more like scientists. I think there is much wisdom in his prescription. I would have liked to have seen some interaction with the reality that scientists are hardly dispassionate creatures…though some of us may be tempted to think so! Like all of us, scientists operate wittingly or unwittingly with a philosophy of science. The work of Michael Polanyi is seminal here.

I am glad to have read this book. It got me to think again about my own thinking!

4.5 stars/5 on Amazon which in my grading is always adjusted upwards, so 5 stars!