Lawrence says:

January 12, 2010 - 10:58:AM

Glencross Mennonite Church
Manitoba South

Thanks Jack, I agree that the focus should not be on bigger or smaller but rather on what are we really accomplishing? Large or small churches? How do we define a large church or a small church? I have been involved in several churches mostly 300 and less. Having been involved in church ministry all my life in a variety of areas beginning as a youth leader, church planting, pastorl but always in a leadership role allow me to share some experiences. Currently I am involved in our church with an average attendance of 250-300 on Sunday mornings. It seems to me that smaller churches tend to depend more on volunteers which has a huge effect on leadership developement.In smaller churches people seem to see the need to get involved.In larger churches I think there is a greater tendency for people to get lost in the shuffle and not feel the need to become personally involved or connected.I think there are things we can learn from larger churches but sometimes we make the mistake of thinking what works in larger churches will work in smaller ones as well. I'm not sure what we should classify as big or small, but I do know we are called to discipleship and to "...go and MAKE disciples" and it dosn't matter to God if it happens in big or small churches as long as it happens.

John says:

December 15, 2009 - 9:34:PM

Leamington EMMC
Ontario

The size of the church is not important. Is the church effective in it's setting? Here in Leamington we asked the question: if our church would close the doors, who would notice? Would Leamington care? In Toronto, a city of 2.5 million people, there are churches over 3000 people. In other major cities in Canada, there are also churches in the 1000s. In Leamington as I mentioned earlier, we have 12 evangelical churches, people can choose any church they want and would receive the teaching of the bible. There are minor differences in each church. Our area has over 50,000 people, on any given Sunday about 3000 attend all these churches. What would be the most effective way of reaching those that do not attend? Besides these 12 or so, numerous pockets of churches pop up every now and than, they come and go, these usually are splits from the other churches. For Leamington it would not make sense to start small churches all within 15 minutes of each other. Just think what the outsider must think. Another split. Christians can't get along. Leamington is the most diverse town in Canada, each church has a unique style and setting. I have vision that instead of trying to steal members from other churches, we all continue to be a light and go after those who do not attend. That to me would be the fulfillment of Jesus prayer for unity. God is also diverse and accepts many forms of worship, as long as it is to HIM.

Michael says:

December 9, 2009 - 11:29:AM

Aylmer EMMC
Ontario

I'm undecided on specialization. In addition, it is a matter of degrees. Here at AEMMC I am the pastor of music and missions, but I also preach and teach. Other pastor friends are far more limited and I'm thankful that I'm not.

I am not saying "abandon one-to-many" ministry. I am saying that we seem to have put most of our eggs in that basket for a long time and it is an imbalance. Because of this imbalance people are prone to "bring a friend to church" so they can hear the gospel/get saved/hear about Jesus from the pastor/etc rather than being able to proclaim the gospel/assist in conversion/tell people about Jesus themselves.

It is this fundamental issue that I see as problematic in the modern mega-church. Its focal point is Pastor so-and-so who is often seen as a super-hero, sure-all, miracle-worker. Most Pastor so-and-so types gladly welcome this exaltation - or thrive on it. Not that that can't happen in a small church, but the larger the fanbase (usually) the larger the ego.

(Again, I'm not making judgements on Leamington because I haven't been there.)

When you mention multi-site vs. small, I see that we have miscommunicated here a bit. What I'm talking about could very well be multi-site. I think smaller groupings are something we need to try, but I'm not advocation numerous autonomous groupings. Sorry if I seemed to be saying that.

Your bottom line is correct: "Big or small we must as churches engage the culture and the neighbourhoods around us".

We talk about it a lot.

I don't believe we are succeeding.

Jack says:

December 8, 2009 - 9:20:PM

Gospel Fellowship Church, Steinbach
Manitoba Central

Personally, I think we are kind of losing our focus by being too dogmatic about whether big or small is the way to go. In the end, the proof is in the pudding. I agree with Stephen when he says that, big or small, we must find a way to engage the culture in whioh we live. I would suggest we steer our discussion in that direction instead of beating each other up about the size of the creature we are trying to create.

Let's talk about how we actually do make an impact on the world in which we live. It is unfair to say that it is Satan's tool for some people to work one-on-one, or that the only way to keep a church dynamic is to have massive crowds. Nor is it fair to say that God can not work in and through large crowds. Any way you cut it, it still comes down to how I will choose to live my life daily as a follower of Jesus where I am planted. It is really irrelevant whether I get my inspiration from a small or large setting.

Jacob says:

December 8, 2009 - 1:38:PM

Gospel Mennonite Church, Winnipeg
Manitoba Central

Stephen, thanks for your thoughts and the tone in which you stick with us in the conversations. Many of us are very interested in learning from your previous experiences, especially your insights on the multi site approach.

A big note of encouragement to all the great leaders at Leamington. We are thankful and excited for the growing desire God is placing in your hearts to reach your community for Christ. Keep your eyes on Jesus and lead on.

Stephen says:

December 8, 2009 - 9:02:AM

Leamington EMMC
Ontario

I am with you Jacob, this is great interaction. Michael, I was not saying you are protectionist - simply pointing out that larger churches generally give opportunities for specialized ministry that smaller churches do not. When I went to seminary most of my friends were in a specialized track (youth pastor, worship pastor, pastor of small groups etc.) Are you saying this is wrong?

I would argue with Allen Hirsch that Korea and parts of South America and Africa have had even more explosive growth in the last 100 years (as a percentage of the total population) then even China so I do not think the house church movement is the answer.

My understanding of Gibbons is that he is more 'multi-site' church than 'small church'. That would probably describe me as well. The church I pastored in Kuwait was 4500 people (which some would say is a mega-church) but there were no big buildings and our largest single congregation was only around 450 people.

Bottom line is that big or small we must as churches engage the culture and the neighbourhoods around us. I see some house churches doing this really well. I also think a church like Saddleback does that really well. The question for us is whether we are doing it well and, if not, what needs to change.

gerhard says:

December 7, 2009 - 8:39:PM

Leamington EMMC
Ontario

TO YOUR POINT NUMBE ONE: ON THE FIRST DAY OF PENTOCOST THERE WERE THAT DAY 3000 SOULS ADDED TO THE CHURCH, IMAGINE HOW SMALL OR BIG THE CHURCH WOULD BE IF THEY HAD TRIED TO DO IT (ONE ON ONE),

AS FOR YOUR POINT NUMBER TWO:

THE BIGGEST MISTAKES WE MAKE ARE WHEN WE COMUNICATE ONE ON ONE , POINTING THE FINGER AT OURSELFE AS BEING FULL OF KNOWLEGE,START GOSSIPS, CREATE CONFUSSION, ETC. THAT IS HOW GROUPS LIKE (WACO TEXAS) START. THERE IS POWER IN SPEAKING SPIRIT FILLED MESSAGES TO A CROUD OF BELIEVERS WHICH CAN EASILY CONFIRM OR REFUTE THE MESSAGE BY TESTING THE MESSAGE AGAINST THE SCRIPTURES. I BELIEVE THAT (SATAN )TOOK WHAT WAS INTENDED FOR DEEPER SPIRITUAL DISCIPLESHIP, SUCH AS (SMALL GROUPS )AND ( ONE ON ONE)USED IT TO SPLIT UP MANY CONGREGATIONS, WE NEED THE BIG CHURCH TO KEEP US HUMBLE, SHOW US OUR SHORT COMINGS,AND TO GUIDE US BACK TO THE NARROW WAY. THE BIG CHURCH IS FOR THE SICK OF THE WORLD THAT NEED JESUS, TO COME AS THEIR LAST RESORT TO BE MINISTERED TO AND FOR SPIRITUAL HEALING. REMEMBER THE WELL POEPLE DONT NEED A DOCTOR, PAUL SAID THAT WE SHOULD BE BLAMELESS, WHAT BETTER WAY THAN TO BE TRANSPARENT TO A BIG CHURCH GROUP OF BELEIVERS, THAT CAN CONFIRM YOU AND REBUKE YOU WHEN WRONG. JESUS LAST WORDS WERE TO GO AND PREACH TO ALL THE WORLD AS FAST AS WE CAN,HE IS HELPING US WITH THE (HOLY SPIRIT)TO DO JUST THAT, AND WE LIVE IN THE DIGITAL ERA LETS USE IT FOR (GOD )IN THE FULLEST

WE CAN NEVER GO TO A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF THE PAST AND TRY TO COPY IT,REMEMBER WHO IS IN CONTROL NOT US IT IS(GODS KINGDOM) WE ARE ONLY WORKERS IN THE VINEJARDS TIME IS SHORT HARVEST IS GREAT!!!!!

Jacob says:

December 7, 2009 - 8:17:AM

Gospel Mennonite Church, Winnipeg
Manitoba Central

Yes, John. I love your passion and your desire to reach as many as possible for Jesus. That is exactly what this "rethink" is about. Our stats over the past years show that we aren't doing as well as we would like in this area. What needs to change? Where have we drifted? What needs to be kept? How will we move forward with greater focus and fruitfulness?

Speaking of the early church - Allen Hirsch in his book the "Forgotten Ways" says that the only other time or place where the church has had the kind of explosive growth as it did in the early church is the persecuted church in China.

I will let someone else jump in with the numbers and the "DNA" that might have contributed to.

John says:

December 5, 2009 - 8:03:PM

Leamington EMMC
Ontario

What are we talking about here? Are we saying that we should go back to "selling all we have, share all things in common"? If this was the true way of spreading the gospel, how come this only lasted about 60 years in the early church? Meeting in homes was not by choice, they were forced to meet in homes because of persecution. What is a BIG church, over 100? The question I thought we are asking, is about our rethink our conference. Since our conference has started, ALL our churches have/are small. How can we reach the world if we continue to think small? If you read ALL the letters that Paul writes, he starts off with a note to the Church, (Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus) even in Revelations, the 7 churches are mentioned. It does say churches in Corinth. The way I understand the early church operated with 1 church in a town,(met in sinagoges, later churches) had many small groups (met in homes) and than when it came to the big meeting in Jerusalem, that was the convention. (A group of leaders from all the churches) I cannot see that having more than 1 church (of the same common belief) in a town can operate. We already have over 12 evangelical churches in our town, that would not make sense to plant a bunch of small churches. They would never survive. Maybe I am babbling, but how can we even talk about a big church as not being effective, when none of us in the conference have a BIG church. Maybe we need to first establish at what point a church in considered BIG. Is it over 1000?

Jacob says:

December 5, 2009 - 3:33:PM

Gospel Mennonite Church, Winnipeg
Manitoba Central

It's great to see the honest dialogue on this one. It's great to see us leaning in a bit more. I used to be on the same page as Stephen about larger making sense and being the most effective. However, in the past years I have been challenged to rethink this on a number of levels.

Some great food for thought comes from an article in the Summer 2008 issue of Leadership. If you go to their web page you can google the title of the article. "On the Verge" Gibbons understanding of the gospel led him to build a multi-ethnic mega church. And now it's leading him to build smaller churches he calls "verges".

He believes small is easier to reproduce, to adopt multiple forms, to go through leadership change. He believes small is the new big.

Lets keep talking and learning.

Michael says:

December 1, 2009 - 8:53:PM

Aylmer EMMC
Ontario

Stephen,

To answer your question, I am not interested in whatever option extends the duration of my "occupation". I am not a protectionist.

I am interested in the option that accomplishes the goal of making disciples. In my experience, larger churches struggle with disciple-making while they excel at churning out dormant, comfortable attendees whose lives look 98% the same as all of their non-believing neighbors. I know - I was one of them.

That may not be the case at your church, and if it's not, great!

The conference, like every conference dealing with emerging issues, is a reaction to the dormant, domesticated church of recent generations. Do they go too far? Yep - I think my notes on the conference reflect that. I thought some of it was pretty flakey.

But I understand why the reaction is happening, and I'm on board with the sentiment, if not all the ways it plays out.

I don't see how starting with the Gospel in our own neighborhoods is "re-inventing the wheel". In fact, it seems like a thoroughly biblical course of action that obviously very few of us are pursuing.

We can see this in the ethnic monoculture in all of our churches.

Terry says:

December 1, 2009 - 7:59:PM

Glencross Mennonite Church
Manitoba South

In my opinion, a mega church is not the goal. If it happens by God's blessing, that is another thing entirely. The fact is, when we begin to plant a church ("wherever two or three are gathered...") we don't focus on getting big, but meeting needs and leading others to God/bringing them closer to God. If our mission is merely size, than we have lost the heart of the gospel. I'd rather have a church of 20 'zealous', fully-committed, Jesus followers, than 3000 bench-warmers. Not that all mega-churches are like that, don't get me wrong. But, I think we sometimes kid ourselves into thinking that a big church equals success, or that everyone there actually is a fully-committed believer. In the Bible there are many large churches, but I think there is also a lot of evidence from the text that they met mostly in smaller groups (eg. in homes). Economically speaking, I don't believe that a big church is more cost - effective. Although, I'm more inclined to think that the model you follow has a lot to do with it. If you follow the conventional model of a pastor for every 100-200 people, then that might work. But a smaller congregation could even get away with not OWNING a building, reducing cost...and not even hiring anyone at all...but have everyone contribute in some way (like the tent-maker model, sort of)

Stephen says:

December 1, 2009 - 12:56:PM

Leamington EMMC
Ontario

Terry, I would say that your reasoning supports larger churches, not smaller ones. It is cheaper to have one church of 300 than 3 churches of 100? We are a church of 500 with only 2 pastors. Could 4 churches of 125 get by with only 2 pastors?

Again, my experience is that larger churches tend to have multiple staff and multiple services and are able to give a much higher percentage to missions that smaller churches. If the issue is finances than bigger is certainly much better.

I find it interesting that Michael is the one who asked this question - a specialized staff member of one of the larger EMMC churches. Generally smaller churches do not have the resources for support or specialized staff like youth or worship pastors. Doesn't your occupation in itself point to the need for bigger churches?

Coming back to the main point, "one to one" and "one to few" ministry is an essential part of any ministry. However, I find biblical and historical significance for the "one to many" approach. Can you imagine if Jonathon Edwards or John Wesley or DL Moody or the Apostle Paul had simply decided they didn't like big meetings?

Mega churches are not a North American or middle class invention. Most of the world's largest churches are in the developing world.

The conference for me highlighted a growing trend these days to try and reinvent the wheel when it comes to North American church planting. I have lived outside Canada for 12 years and have preached in a number of different countries and I have seen the church exploding through "traditional" church models. I think we need to be very careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. New isn't always better.

John says:

November 30, 2009 - 9:26:PM

Leamington EMMC
Ontario

Here is a question: suppose you have town of 30,000 people, you are trying to reach as many people for Christ as possible, what would work better: planting many "Small" churches in the town OR one "Mega" church with small groups? Our experience has taught us that churches too close together in distant do not work. At this point we do not have 1 mega (over 1000 people) church in our conference. Why not? Jesus preached to 1000's, Peter preached to 1000's, Moses was a leader of millions, Jonah preached to a city. I remember in the 80's there was talk about church planting and making many "small" churches, let's look at realistically, at what point can a church be sustained and be fruitful and multiply? (100 or less) My vision would be that each Church in the conference would be become a mega church in their community,(first reach the lost locally) we plant churches in other communities (far enough apart), go out into all the world, with a passion (and having the money to back it up) If we keep thinking mega is the enemy, maybe our(my) thinking is too small.

Terry says:

November 28, 2009 - 12:52:PM

Glencross Mennonite Church
Manitoba South

In my last post I referred to the barns...and I think I was a bit misunderstood. I am not necessarily against a large congregation, although I see other models being more intimate. But larger buildings tie up too many resources. As one author put it, we end up tithing to ourselves...in other words we use up our money on things that directly benefit ourselves instead of using it towards our mission outside. Does that make more sense? Why why do I advocate a move towards keeping our churches smaller?? So we can effectively have less 'overhead cost' and use more to further the kingdom.

Dave says:

November 26, 2009 - 7:15:PM

Gospel Fellowship Chapel, St. Thomas
Ontario

From all the answers I think we can conclude that there is no biblical reason to have a mega church, only philosophical reasons.

I have gone on record lately to say that I don't want to be work towards the mega church. It feels too mall-ish. I heard a someone say recently that there aren't many malls being built these days. Why is that? is it a cultural shift, does Wal-mart have too wide a selection? do people go to boutique shops only because they specialize better? and hit the niche market best. Maybe it's our NA culture that's shifting.

To wrap up, I think that the 'theology of place' has much to say about which strategy will work best. Let's call this study of location 'locology'.

Jacob says:

November 26, 2009 - 10:11:AM

Gospel Mennonite Church, Winnipeg
Manitoba Central

Stephen, thanks for the courage to challenge our assumptions. I am learning to appreciate your perspective.

The program based church model seems to work best in "middle class neighborhoods" where we can afford the staffing and programming. We might need to explore different models for reaching into the most needy places. I just read that 2/3 of the world's human beings live in poverty, yet only 6% of mission workers actually minister as poor to the poor. John B Hayes goes on to say that if the good news were a marketable product like Coca-Cola someone in marketing would get fired. What model of church will serve us best in reaching and transforming the poor neighborhoods in our world?

Now on a lighter note let me add the humorous slogan of a small church with an attitude - "we're not growing ... but will criticize those that are".

Stephen says:

November 24, 2009 - 12:22:PM

Leamington EMMC
Ontario

You are presuming that bigger churches have less fellowship, which is exactly the opposite to what I have read. It is easier to get lost in a church of 100 than in a small group of 12 (belonging to a big church). You are also assuming that bigger churches (megachurches) do not disciple people as well as smaller churches. Again this is not supported by the facts. Larger churches tend to have much more intentional discipleship than smaller. Check out Tony Campolo's podcast "Commentary on Megachurches" - parts 1 and 2 for more on that. He says it much better than I could.

The early church met in homes but also met IN THE TEMPLE COURTS. I recall 3000 being added to that first church in a single day - big by any standard. In Ephesus Paul would use the lecture hall of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9) for meetings every day. Having been in Ephesus and seen the ruins, this was a BIG place. So why wasn't Paul into one-on-one or one-to-few?

The point of the parable of the farmer was not the size of his harvest but the pride associated with it. It is wrong to automatically assume the desire for bigger is always pride based. Would that mean the desire for smaller is jealousy driven?

Why bigger churches? They reach more people. The more chairs filled = the greater the potential for people to hear and respond. What I have seen in larger churches is the priciple of synergy - that 2 people fishing together can catch more than the sum of them fishing seperately. The larger the fire the greater the heat.

This does NOT mean that all churches should aspire to be large. God can use both the big and small. I do not hear big church pastors saying it is wrong to be small. So why should we be so quick to judge and curse the large ones?

Terry says:

November 23, 2009 - 8:54:PM

Glencross Mennonite Church
Manitoba South

I think that we need to be very cautious in our motives for going bigger. Although it might not seem wrong to build bigger churches, we should think about what values we want to promote and look at examples from the Biblical text (and Jesus teaching) to gain perspective. For example, the parable of the farmer who built bigger barns. He was only making provisions for his crop, after all...BUT, it was all self-motivated. Why do we build bigger churches...to keep our 'provisions' to ourself? If we kept our gatherings smaller, would we be spreading our 'spiritual resources' to more people?? Would we be more genuine? More generous? More intimate with others, and therefore more concerned about their welfare?? Thoughts to ponder...what do you think? ...If we truly value community we will do things that lead us in that direction.

Jack says:

November 23, 2009 - 9:38:AM

Gospel Fellowship Church, Steinbach
Manitoba Central

Bigger is better, man! We have learned that from our society even as modernity sputters toward its demise. There is something in our sub-conscious mind that says that when something is growing bigger it must be wonderful. So with our "herd mentality" we tend to run in the direction in which everyone else is going. The more discerning we become I think our natural reflex will be to run the opposite direction to which the masses are going. Personally I'd rather have lunch in a "mom and pop" shop than where billions and billions of burgers are sold every year. (You make the spiritual application.)

While still holding a fair fit of sway, mega churches, often centered around one person who does most of the thinking for the masses is not the way of the future. Large churches that have an effective small group component will fair better, I think, but from what I see it is still quite easy to "hide" in mega-churches. One of the deep cries from our current culture is for belonging in community and I think the church can best meet that need by a serious focus on "true community in Christ" - which can only happen where individuals really matter.

There is good historical evidence that for at least the first century most Christian met in house churches and had a powerful impact on their times. So maybe our vision should be to go "back to the future."