Over the Summer, I was fascinated by this article in the Telegraph not long before I spent the best part of a week accompanying our young people to Soul Survivor where we worshipped in a tent crammed to the gunnels with 11,000 people – 98% of whom were in their teens.
The Telegraph article explains how the US government is exploring a scheme by which overly large, sprawling cities that have fallen on hard times will have large areas bulldozed and returned to nature as forests and meadows in order to make what remains of the city more sustainable.
Particularly in the US where big is always seen to be better, the scheme feels counter-intuitive but is giving places like Flint, Michigan, their first interesting chance of a new economic start in quite some time.
It sounds like a really interesting scheme. I’m keen to hear how it works out over the long-term. However, it did start to make me think about what this might tell us in terms of church life as well.
The idea of the ‘Mega-Church’ is pretty much an American thing. Apparently, you have to have over 2,000 people attending your church to be ‘Mega-Church’, but that is an American definition. So downsized to the UK a bit, the British church scene is pocked occasionally by the odd ‘Mega-church’ of 1,000 or more people but we have very, very few of those indeed. However, I think for the most part, British evangelicalism seems tortured more by being desirous of such size than they are by actually having managed to realize it in reality.
Nevertheless, I know too many churches, I am too familiar with the New Wine movement myself, and see too many leaders where big is always seen to be better. Listen to a few of their clergy and other church leaders talk and before long, they are ‘willy-waving’ about how many services they run on Sundays, how many people come to their services and so on as their measures of success.
In my opinion (and as I’ve said before), Britain is in cultural harness to the United States. We import constantly from television, cinema, the media, the Internet and much much more. Many evangelical churches do likewise with American speakers and leaders, mission strategies and theology… never thinking of its appropriateness, and we end up with this bigger = better equation gripping our every move.
I can understand it easily enough from a gospel point of view, a biblical point of view. Of course, we want to see more people become Christians. If we don’t desire our churches to grow numerically (as well as in spiritual depth), well then we die. We are always one generation away from irrelevance and then death. The current state of the Church of England is, in general terms, a testament to that. So of course, therefore, bigger is better… more people, more conversions, more hearts turned towards Jesus.
But what if bigger isn’t better in terms of congregation size? What if that desire to see more people converted and following Christ is not best channelled into massive congregations. What if it would be better channelled through many, many, many smaller congregations. Is what makes a Church community ‘sustainable’ and viable in the long-term greater intimacy, greater community, greater flexibility in mission… all of which are the preserve of the small over the big?
If I was to take over a big church, would the Kingdom of God, would those people be best served by me deliberately presiding over the break-up of their massive church? I doubt it would win many friends… but maybe, just maybe, it might be a better reflection of what the church could be in each and every place.
5 Comments
Just a thought, but don’t many of the uk mega churches have an active programme of planting smaller churches? Maybe I’m totally wrong on it, but I know of some that either plant or more significantly, send people out into small community churches that do not have the resource (by which I mean people) to reach out and support their community. That seems like a less self-interested model for growth.
Well done for using the term willy-waving!
Thanks for that Ali. I don’t think you could spin it so positively toward the mega churches. Sure, they plant out smaller congregations but is the aim that those congregations stay small? Generally, no. They expect and want them to get as big as them… well, maybe not quite as big. Few pastors could handle bigger willies outranking them.
But anyway, it seems to me that the mindset is still that big church is the goal.
You could also mention the way in which a number of big churches and their churchplants utterly ignore existing struggling small churches in the areas they plant into. I can name one or two not a million miles away from this diocese. I’m not sure what that says about their strategy and mindset as to what they are aiming to achieve.
There are some ‘minster model’ types who invest in and resource smaller existing churches to try and give them some impetus and, personally, I quite like that model. But anyway I’m still wondering about whether big is better.
David,
The main argument about “Mega-Church” or “Meta-Church” is that you need both -large celebration and small group/cell. There are supportive arguments -e.g. how best to get resources in etc. In fact the argument (see Willow Creek literature is that you can’t grow without creating a small group culture.
Some of our biggest churches are in fact networks of congregations. Especially those with multiple services.
Also, there is some flexibility about expectations for plants so for example I think you’ll find that the plants from Christ Church Fulwood and Knighton Evangelical (Leicester) are planning t plant much quicker.
Some churches have a deliberate policy of setting a ceiling at 150 in the cong.
I think comissions tend to plant at about 150.
The Plant in Manchester is a network of small congregations and Crowded House Network are all small house churches.
So actually there is quite a rich diversity of approaches which is exciting to see.
Also -there has been and is an ongoing recognition about what to do with the smaller churches in the area question. I know of two churches doing that kind of resussitation approach right now. It isn’t easy -it takes patience and humilty on both sides. Sometimes it isn’t possible despite all best desires.
Besides -there are enough fish out there and I wonder whether a plant bringing new life can’t bring new impetus and raise the game for other churches!
Thanks Dave – certainly it’s good to see a rich diversity of approaches.
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] Green, plunged into the deep end of a parish interregnum, wonders about numbers, and characterises a lot of clergy boasts about their church / congregation / numbers of services [...]
Post a Comment