Camp Selah
Camp Selah, A Private Retreat Site for Small Churches and Pastors

TOPICS OF SPECIAL INTEREST TO SMALL CHURCHES
  • Prepared by Dr. Neil Chadwick


    Page 1 of 2

    Choose from the following titles:

    Page 2 Titles:

    ADVANTAGES OF THE SMALL CHURCH.

    Although these have been mentioned in the literature, it should not be taken for granted that they are believed. On the other hand, some things that are mentioned are really not distinct to the small church. For example, the need to be shown special attention and receive recognition is certainly not unique to the small church. It may be a perceived need, due to the sorry fact that it has been too often overlooked, or omitted. It would be foolish to say that in the larger church this same need and expectation is not also present.

    Furthermore, attention should be given to the reasons why there are advantages, theoretically, philosophically and spiritually - not merely saying that small churches are better because people like them that way. Included should be what people express in surveys and other feedback instruments, as long as the surveys are able to get at some of the underlining reasons.

    Here is a beginning list of small church advantages:

    - The formation and sustenance of personal relationships. Lots of "T.L.G." (Touching, Loving, Giving).

    - Workers understanding their role in relation with the whole.

    - Opportunity for personal growth.

    - Accountability for holy living for pastor and people.

    - Involvement with a sense of responsibly. The small church provides both opportunity and encouragement for a higher percentage of people to be involved in ministry.

    - Modeling of Christian character - teaching by example.

    - The Pastor remains as a person. There is less chance of the unhealthy separation and idolizing the man. This also may mean the Pastor and family will receive more personal, emotional support. The small church may be able to more easily avoid the "Super Pastor" syndrome.

    - Church as family can best be experienced in the small church.

    - Renewal, restoration, and innovation can more easily take place.

    - Flexibility of structure, being able to respond to change, to innovate, as well as respond to crisis needs and opportunities.

    - The development and use of spiritual gifts (all of them) is more likely in the small church.

    - There are unique opportunities available to the small church which may be less possible or manageable for the larger congregation.

    CATEGORIES OF SMALL CHURCHES.

    Small churches are not all of the same fabric, i.e. City vs. Small Town, Charismatic vs. Main Line, Ethnic vs. Diversified Congregation, etc. These differences must be taken into account, what is good for one small church may not be all that helpful for another. There are many other variables that make one feel that no two churches are alike, which in fact is really true. However, common themes observed may help deal with similar situations.

    CHANGE IS POSSIBLE.

    More thought needs to be given to the subject of change in the small church. Too many people have given up, saying, or at least inferring that they believe, small churches are small precisely because they reject change. So why talk about improvement? Perhaps the unwillingness to change is so ingrained that it is better to abandon these churches, and invest energies elsewhere. But first off, the premise needs to be challenged: "churches are small because they reject change". That may well be a cop-out. Granted, churches, like people do not change easily. In fact, being more complex than individuals, one would expect to find churches more difficult to change. Several ideas should be considered:

    - Change is more likely to be accepted when those who are affected by the changes are involved in the process.

    - Stable, trusted leadership that has developed significant relationships (both among themselves and with the congregation) are more likely to succeed in bringing about change. This leadership must be willing to honestly examine motives, fears, assumptions, attitudes, etc.

    - Change within the church will more likely happen when there is relative stability in the lives of the principle members in relation to other areas of their lives, i.e. family, work, school, community.

    - Small steps toward change are more likely to be successful than revolutionary upheavals.

    - A clear goal must be in mind, as well as ways to periodically check to see what progress is being made.

    - Informal, as well as formal lines of communication need to be pressed into the service of the desired change.

    - Resistances to the proposed change must be honestly faced. Those with opposing points of view must be convinced that their views are heard.

    - The process of change must be thought out as clearly as the substance of the change itself. Time must be on the side of the proposal. Sudden changes are not comfortable.

    - Some changes are best accomplished by having a trial period, with the people involved being convinced that a final decision will be reached after the pilot and a discussion of the pilot. (Example: service time change)

    - A lot of information sharing must be going on, so there is adequate understanding by all involved.

    - In some cases, a firm form of accountability needs to be set up to monitor the situation. Has there really been a change?

    - Care must be taken not to advocate change for change sake, or just to relieve boredom.

    The reasons churches are slow to change (for the better) is because some of these factors are overlooked. We're not merely talking about change in terms of taking on new ministry or replacing programs. But rather, we're speaking of change in the basic ways we view the church, our relationships with each other, policies that affect decision making, expectations, and how it is that we go about accomplishing the basic purposes of the church.

    Talk of church development may come as one more burden on the Pastor, due to the fact that there has not yet developed a sense of shared ministry. That then may well be the first item on the agenda.

    CHURCH GROWTH DOGMA QUESTIONED.

    Church leaders (pastors) are inundated with input from sources such as the Church Growth Institute, denominational communications, periodicals, and seminars. There needs to be non-defensive discussions of some of the premises. This discussion may include the following:

    - Lack of numerical growth suggests there's illness in the church.

    - Leadership style associated with growing churches (proactive - "workoholic) may not really be best suited to a faithful church

    - The homogeneous unit principle seems to fly in the face of the church being like an extended family, which in today's world may be one of the greatest assets of the small church, as well as the benefits that diversity brings.

    - Churches with members who do not want to see the church grow beyond a certain size should not be judged as being anti-evangelistic.

    - Perhaps numbers are not all that helpful in evaluating the local church. We must be willing to come to the place where we can reject numbers as an all important evaluative tool. (But what of "head counts" in the Bible?)

    - Often the analogy is made between the church and a baby. We are reminded how horrifying it would be for parents to realize that their child is not growing. However, it may be better to see most churches as teens. Their physical growth is not as noticeable, but parents are concerned how they are developing in terms of their social interaction and in the development of their talents and life sustaining resources.

    CRITERIA OF SUCCESS, EVALUATION.

    Small churches need to have a clear understanding as to what it is that makes a church successful. This means, in part, that there must be an avoidance of the preoccupation with size. Churches need to develop ways of doing evaluation of church and leadership. Surveys may be useful, but on the other hand, in small congregations they may be resisted as being out of character. (The assumption is that everything that can be known about the church and its people is known already.) On the other hand, to undertake serious evaluation must presuppose a clear understanding as to what will be done with the information gained, and a strong commitment to follow through. A list of criteria may include the following:

    - The core group of members/workers having an awareness of personal and spiritual growth.

    - The Pastor feeling challenged, but lacking a feeling of carrying the entire load.

    - The perception of shared ministry, with the Pastor identifying himself as the person who helps others find usefulness in Christ's Church.

    - Attention given to the needy, first of all within the congregation, but also outside.

    - Decision making that includes a number of representative people, with openness of discussion, and with conflicts and differences being handled without breakdown of relationships. (Representative here means that the major concerns of the church are included in the discussions.)

    - The Pastor feeling comfortable with the level of acceptance, and adequately supported spiritually, emotionally, and financially.

    - An interest in World Missions, as well as participation in some form of collective evangelism training and projects.

    - An awareness of the congregation's purpose and role in the world in general, and the local community in particular.

    - A realistic assessment of the congregation's strengths and resources.

    - Worship that is Jesus focused, Holy Spirit directed, Biblically guided, and providing a satisfactory experience for the congregation.

    - A balance between deep care among members, and a willingness to accept others who are considered strangers, not viewing them merely as prospects.

    - Bruce Reed's description of a "functional religion" might be useful.

    - Items included in "Re-Inventing the Corporation" might also be of interest here.

    - And certainly the Biblical witness needs to be understood better.

    There needs to be discovered, and implemented, a way of doing evaluation in the context of the small church, both for the congregation, as well as for the Pastor - a two way critique. Once the criteria has been set, then we can measure the church against an acceptable standard, instead of comparisons with other churches. (The most visible ones are the larger ones.) Also, pastors have few opportunities for honest feedback. If the local church could learn how to do this, then the Pastor would feel better about his ministry, and consequently be motivated toward further growth.

    Pastors, especially of Pentecostal, and even Evangelical churches tend to be not too reflective. They're working so hard making the church grow. This is similar to that experienced by small business leaders.

    DIFFICULTIES OF SMALL CHURCHES.

    There needs to be an honest appraisal of those things that represent legitimate roadblocks for success in the small church. Some starter items may be:

    - Continual anxiety over limited financial resources.

    - Too much preoccupation with "what we could do if only...".

    - People with leadership gifts that would be appropriate in large settings, or in more institutional settings may be frustrated. This may include those folks who have recently come from a larger congregation where these gifts have been utilized.

    - Special interest groups that seem to need a "critical mass" in order to function, (such as teens, single adults) will certainly suffer.

    - When meeting in a larger building, there will likely be more attention given to the empty seats than to the folks present.

    - Pastors who have personal financial concerns may tend to use the small church as a stepping stone, thus resulting in a steady parade of short term pastorates. And for some pastors, the challenge will not feel to be sufficient.

    - Denominational leaders generally are transferred most recently from larger churches; the programs are planned by leaders from larger churches with large church procedures and expectations. The thoughts and ideas of leaders from small churches are not considered to carry as much weight.

    - When pastors from larger churches speak up they are listened to with more readiness than pastors of small churches.

    - Many people in our society seem to prefer anonymity, which is more available in the larger church. Attention also needs to be paid to the difficulties that will be encountered when small churches begin to speak of themselves in a positive frame. In other words, it may be hard to convince members (and especially pastors) that it's O.K. to discuss smallness. For example:

    - If there is a "congregational self esteem problem", it will be hard for those who for so long have thought negatively to change those thought patterns

    - Many churches believe that their size (or lack of it) is due to some spiritual lack on their part. "If only there were more prayer, commitment, soul winning, or anointed preaching, etc."

    - Some might think that talk about smallness is an admission that there is a lack of faith, or desire to grow, or disobedience of Christ's commission to evangelize.

    - There's this knawing suspicion that when all is said, all that really matters, all that will be recorded, is whether or not the church has grown numerically.

    - It sometimes appears that the people who join small churches are themselves in most need of care, and not of sufficient stability to do the hard thinking that this whole matter requires. Or to put it in the form of a question: Are there enough resources (or energy) in the small church to both do the tasks of ministry as well as think and talk about meaning and value, goals and process of that ministry?

    EVANGELISM AND MISSIONS.

    Pastors and other leaders who eagerly want to fulfill Christ's Great Commission, need to understand how that can be done in the context of the small church. One question that needs to be raised is, if they are successful at evangelism, does that mean they will cease to be small? Perhaps it then becomes counter-productive to be evangelistic. On the other hand, evangelism must not be confused with recruitment. A broad definition of "mission" needs to be adopted, one that includes evangelism overseas as well as significant efforts at ministering the Good News to the needy in one's own community. Does the church only do this by encouraging its members to be involved in personal evangelism and good works, or by also doing helping things in a corporate way?

    GOVERNMENTAL PROCEDURES.

    How decisions are made in the small church need to be clearly thought out and owned. Discussion of the entrepreneurial model can be included here. Questions also arise concerning the usefulness of committees and parliamentary process. The temptation is to do most of the decision making in an informal way, and thus deny the participation of the very people who are most affected by those decisions, including newcomers. The matter of membership, as it is related to voting, needs to be dealt with. Each one should be given the privilege, but not the duty of voting. This may well be one of those areas where the culture sets the agenda for the church. "Incorporation" (society's expectation) demands that there be voting membership, and officers. Perhaps a distinction can be made between fulfilling Caesar's demand, and being faithful to God's. There needs to be other ways to assess people's assent and willingness to participate in a particular ministry or program, or movement, rather than voting. Also, the democratic model needs to be examined, without swinging to the other extreme, sometimes called "theocracy."