sbc IMPACT!

By Chris Hilliard on May 2, 2008 at 7:08 am

Every church in the SBC is too small. As long as there is a lost soul to be won to Christ, your church is too small.

By Bob Cleveland on May 2, 2008 at 7:15 am

Does the bible say how big a church should be?

I don’t think so. I think we’re wrong to. there are tasks placed before a church, and the body can get together with others to accomplish them where one body really can’t (think IMB et al, ideally).

When man gets involved, it gets messed up because of ambition, pride, etc. And I don’t buy that any churches are “too small” even where there are souls to be won, as there’s nothing IMO to say that when someone gets saved via the actions of a local church, the new believer is supposed to join THAT church.

By Tony Sisk on May 2, 2008 at 8:19 am

Mrs. V,

Wow, you ask a lot of questions here!

An initial observation; is there anywhere in the Scriptures that says a church should embrace its death? I don’t think so. The only church that was pronounced as dead was the church in Sardis (Revelation 3:1-6). However, Christ held out to them the opportunity to repent! That suggests that some life was left in them, enough that Christ was ready to resuscitate them to new works.

“I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain.”

I believe it is arrogant, to say the least, to call any church dead. Only Jesus has the authority to declare such. I think we are too quick to pronounce our churches dead and often we do so because they do not match what we want to see as “church life”.

Our attitude should rather be that of the Apostle Paul (2 Corinthians 11:28), “…besides these things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches.”

By Kevin Peacock on May 2, 2008 at 8:48 am

There are times when God said to His people that He would go away from them until they repent (e.g. Hos 5:6, 15), in other words, unless they repent, their light is going to go out (Rev 2:5). James S. Stewart says, “‘Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world’ — was not unconditional. It was firmly placed in a missionary setting. Only in conection with missionary fidelity is the promise valid. Christ will not remain in the midst of a Church that neglects its missionary calling, nor continue to grant His presence to a Christian who shelves responsibility for evangelism. . . A Church that is content to remain isolated in sanctified seclusion from the world around its doors and the clamorous problems of the age has no right to bear the name of Him who chose to dwell with publicans and sinners” (”Thine is the Kingdom,” 35, 45).

When is a church no longer a church? When When it has departed from Christ and His mission — revealing that He is no longer the head of the body. A church exists for the purpose of mission. If it refuses to be involved in God’s redemptive mission, then it can no longer rightfully be called a “church.” This has nothing to do with size. It has everything to do with purpose.

By Rob Ayers on May 2, 2008 at 9:06 am

Selah,

Thank your for the intriguing and thinking post. You have caused me to set and ponder for a while.

I don’t believe that I have been “overly” critical of the large or “mega” church. I have not been desirous necessarily of a “larger” church - just to be in the center of God’s will. I have desired my church to “grow” for the purpose to expand the Kingdom of God, and not my own kingdom.

I have been critical in the past to what I believe is the tendency to creep in to what I have called the “corporate” church whose polity model is not scriptural, but based on the corporation model with hierarchies and little input from the common believer in the pews save to possibly pass a budget once a year.

I do have concerns about “exclusivity of leadership” in Southern Baptist life. It has been assumed that larger church pastors have the benefit of their experience more often than not than small church pastors – therefore they have been delegated the majority of leadership positions. Here are your assumptions: a)all small church pastors do not have experience necessary to lead a convention of churches and b)all small church pastors want to become large church pastors. I believe that these are as false as “there are some churches that are too large.”

Now conversationally I believe that if a Pastor does not know your name, then he is not being a Pastor – and if a church has 5000 members, then that Pastor does not know every name or family. I really do not know a good number – I will propose 300 as a good sized model of both a church able to fulfill her mission of outward reach well, as well as being small enough for Christian community to be effective internally.

I look forward to our conversation.

Rob

By Keith Price on May 2, 2008 at 9:51 am

SelahV:

Great questions and a lot of them! I think the answers to a lot of those questions falls out of a discussion and answers of the foundational principles of the church. First off, I believe that we must emphatically, unequivocally, loudly, obnoxiously state that it is not about numbers. Kevin is absolutely correct when he states that it is about mission. But do not fall into the trap of making numbers the mission. Numbers may point to God’s Spirit moving (success as we call it) or a good job of marketing in the current local culture. So what is the mission?

The mission is to make disciples. If we are about the business of making disciples then the church is being a church whether it has 2 or 20,000 and whether the growth is very slow, fairly fast or even downward. Therefore I believe that the purpose of the church (other than the standard Sunday school answer “to glorify God”) is for that community or body to be built up by the teaching and obedience to God’s word, so that this community gives its life in ministry to God, to one another and to those around us.

This is my desire…not baptisms, not evangelism, not more members. If we make disciples the rest of those numbers may come and probably will come. But if we put baptisms, evangelism or more members ahead of making disciples, then we wind up with a lot of “missing” believers.

When should a church “get the axe?” That is God’s decision. I suppose that it is about the time that they are no longer about the mission and refuse to repent. A couple of years before I became pastor in our church it was down to five members and no pastor. They talked of closing the doors. Ultimately they did not because they felt led by the Spirit to do otherwise.

I agree with Rob. Large numbers to not necessarily prove “good” leadership in the way we would want or desire leaders in the convention. In fact they may be anything, but good, biblical leaders. Again, this is an area that numbers deceive us. Say for instance that a church has 50 people on a Sunday morning. That guy must not be a good leader. But, that 50 people accounts for 1.5% of the population in a 25 mile radius. Proportionally, that church would have as much influence 15,000 member church in a big city.

Sorry, you struck a cord. I’ll shut up now…

By Lee Saunders on May 2, 2008 at 11:04 am

Good article, well said.

We’ve gotten real good at creative, entertaining worship with great music and great preaching, and we can come up with a slick, well-packaged, well marketed program to solve just about any problem we have. We’ve gotten so good at it, as a matter of fact, that we have left out the one element that the scripture teaches us not to leave out–The Holy Spirit. We’re afraid of the change that He brings.

By David Rogers on May 2, 2008 at 12:14 pm

SelahV,

My views on this may be a little hard to grasp from a more traditional point of view, and easy to misinterpret. Actually, I’ve been mulling over a post of my own on this, so I may be preempting myself a bit here. But, here goes…

I think that biblically, in addition to individual congregations that we normally call “local churches,” there is a sense in which all the believers and “local churches” in a city make up the “church” in that city, or the “city church.” I am not saying here merging everyone together in one big happy organization. But I am saying a spirit of fellowship, and mutual cooperation, and recognition of everyone as being part of the same team, working toward the same basic goal.

In this sense, the goal should always be for the “city church” to grow numerically. When Acts 2 says that “3,000 were added to their number that day,” I believe it is referring to the growth of the Jerusalem “city church.” At the same time, the members of the “city church” met separately in smaller groups in their homes. We could argue about whether the home meetings were more “cell groups” that were all under the supervision of a larger “central church” and their “pastoral team,” or if they functioned as separate “house churches.” Since the Bible uses the term “church” for both home meetings, as well as the “city church” as I have described it here, I think it is likely that the home meetings functioned with a certain degree of autonomy, as separate “churches,” if you will, but in close fellowship with all the other “house churches,” much like what we would call a “house church network” today.

Under this paradigm, I think the closest parallel of most Southern Baptist “local churches” is to the individual “house churches.” Though, in another sense, most modern-day congregations are also like an entire “house church network,” with many different smaller groups all coming under the same organizational umbrella.

Looking at it this way, I believe it is important that we are continually multiplying the number of small groups, or evangelistic-discipling units. In our context, these may take the form of Sunday School classes, discipleship groups, cell groups; or new mission points, and house churches.

What is important, as Keith Price alludes to above, is that discipleship is really taking place, and that people, and their individual needs, are not falling through the cracks. There are different ways of grouping together these small groups/evangelistic-discipling units. It is hard to prove that any one is necessarily more biblical than the other. We should be concerned, however, that in the way we group them together, we really are being good stewards with the resources God gives us, in order to make the most strategic contribution to the evangelization of the lost around us, and the effective discipleship of the believers in our midst.

I know this probably opens up a big can of worms. But, that’s the framework from which I see the questions you ask.

By Keith Price on May 2, 2008 at 12:33 pm

David:

Good words. But, I think we do and will get a lot of resistance when these “groupings” do not fit into our standard molds.

If you are ever near eastern OR I’d like to take you to dinner to pick your brain (Whoa, that sounds kind of weird! Pick as in an intellectual sort of way and not in a cannibalistic sort of way!

Keith

By Keith Price on May 2, 2008 at 1:00 pm

SelahV:

I did not read your original post to mean that all pastor of all large churches are good leaders. I agree, the size of the church should not matter in regards to convention leadership. :)

By Keith Price on May 2, 2008 at 1:10 pm

SelahV:

I like David’s ideas also. I think we will (and maybe have?) gotten resistance when these groups do not look like what we have traditionally seen in SBC churches. I talked to a pastor who was very concerned about a church in their association “going to small groups.” It wasn’t SS and he just could not see how that it would work.

I also like the idea of a combination of Sunday school and cell groups. Each of them offers different things. SS can be especially effective with children and as a draw to families with children.

Keith

By doug munton on May 2, 2008 at 1:42 pm

What Chris said.

By Keith Price on May 2, 2008 at 3:01 pm

SelahV:

Agreed…and I’m kind of friendly with Pollyanna myself. But, when it comes to putting those folks in convention leadership, are not those that do things a little differently looked at with some suspicion?

Keith

By David Rogers on May 2, 2008 at 3:06 pm

SelahV,

I am giving away even more of the idea of my upcoming post (if indeed I decide to post on this), but here goes again…

In the Bible, I see the overarching description of “church” as the composite of the saints of all the ages. All the other “churches” that exist are essentially reflections and expressions of this “One Church.”

I see basically 5 main expressions of “church.” One is the “Church” down through the ages made up of all the faithful. Another is the “church” made up of all the faithful of all nations, and denominations, currently on earth today. Another is the “city church,” as I described it in the comment above. Another is the congregation, or what we normally call the “local church.” And, finally, the “house church,” or the day-to-day fellowship of people who actually know each other, and interact on a regular basis, carrying out the “one another” admonitions of the NT, holding each other accountable.

As I alluded to in the comment above, the lines between these 5 expressions of “church” are not always clearly spelled out.

Here is what could meet with resistance: I see that we have over-emphasized the congregation or “local church” to the detriment of the other expressions. We have also placed a lot of emphasis on denominations. I don’t consider a denomination per se, as being a true expression of “church,” but rather a grouping of “churches.” This, in and of itself, is not necessarily good or bad, provided that it doesn’t contribute to the division of the Body of Christ.

What has been neglected is the worldwide “church,” the “city church,” and the “house church,” for lack of a better name (the “house church,” as I am describing it here doesn’t necessarily have to meet in a house; it does have to be small enough to maintain a real “one another” accountability relationship among the various members).

“Cell groups” can be a good expression of this. So can “house churches.” Whether each small group remains under the supervision of a “congregation” or “local church” or not depends on the particular situation.

The important thing is that we all together, as Christ’s Body, are working together for the edification of that Body, the evangelization of the lost, and the discipling of believers.

By Keith Price on May 2, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Yes, resistance…but Polly and I can see some good things happening…we just have to learn to trust.

By David Rogers on May 2, 2008 at 5:20 pm

SelahV,

I should probably add that the relevance of all this for the actual questions you are posing here on your post is that:

When you think of things from this perspective, the actual size of the “local church” is not all that important, neither whether “local churches” are growing, or declining, or maintaining in membership. What is important is that the “city church” is growing. And that the number of evangelistic-discipleship units are keeping pace with the need for discipling the new believers. This is related to Keith’s last post. If the “church rolls,” at either the “city church” or “local church” level are growing, but the number of people actually being discipled is not keeping pace with this growth, you have an important underlying church health problem that is eventually going to come back and bite you in the foot.

So, should you close down “dead” or “dying” local churches? That all depends if they are getting in the way, or facilitating the overall church health of the “city church,” and the discipling of believers in general. Also, you have to take into consideration the contribution they make the growth of the worldwide church through international missions giving, participation, etc.

Also, you must take into consideration, the actual lives of the individual believers who have much time and emotional energy invested in these local congregations. How will they be affected? We can’t just make pragmatic decisions, without taking into consideration the actual feelings of the people affected.

By Oloryn on May 2, 2008 at 8:47 pm

I can’t help but think of a quote from the United Methodist church’s Bishop Will Willimon

A couple of years ago, a District Superintendent paid me one of the greatest compliments I’ve ever received. He had told a pastor of our interest to move him to a different church. “I can’t do this,” responded the pastor. “That church is dead. It’s been dying for years and now I hear it’s really dead.” The DS replied, “I’ll tell the Bishop but let me warn you, this guy really believes that Easter is true. To tell him a pastor or a church is dead means nothing to him. He just sees death as an opportunity to see what Jesus can do.”

By Tony Sisk on May 2, 2008 at 9:36 pm

Oloryn,

Beautiful quotation. Thanks.

By David Rogers on May 2, 2008 at 10:15 pm

One more thought…

I think there are churches that are “big, fat, and self-centered” and also churches that are “small, fat, and self-centered.” Then there are churches that are “big, lean, and missional,” and churches that are “small, lean, and missional.”

That’s what I mean when I say the size of a local church, and whether it is growing, declining, or maintaining, is not so important. I will add, though, that I think the tendency is that churches that are “lean and missional” will tend to grow, and those that are “fat and self-centered” will tend to stagnate. However, many churches that are “lean and missional,” just because they are “lean and missional,” are quick to give away their people and resources, and thus may not grow as much as some “fat and self-centered” churches.

So, if a church finds itself in a stage where it seems like it is “dead” or “dying,” it is important they don’t become content with being “dead, dying, and fat.” They need to seek out ways to be “lean and missional” with the resources and people they have.

This is where the local association, or other churches and pastors in the city, can play a helpful role. While taking into account the emotions, time, and energy the people have invested into their church, they should lovingly challenge them, and assist them in being more “lean and missional.”

By Shadrach on May 4, 2008 at 4:32 pm

First, let me quote this from Kevin in comment 4: “When is a church no longer a church? When When it has departed from Christ and His mission — revealing that He is no longer the head of the body. A church exists for the purpose of mission. If it refuses to be involved in God’s redemptive mission, then it can no longer rightfully be called a “church.” This has nothing to do with size. It has everything to do with purpose.”

Now let me move more toward David’s comments. I disagree that the focus should be on the city church, but agree about the importance of cell groups or house churches or whatever you want to call them.

Traditionally we see that a church grows to a certain size relative to its surroundings and building and a few other factors and that the focus of the ‘church’ moves from reaching the lost to maintaining its membership. Some try to stop this plateau affect through planting other churches or through occasional membership drives. Others just give themselves up to it as an inevitable occurance.

I think the problem comes down to the focus on a building. We try and focus much of the church’s activities in and around the building and that, of course, limits the growth possibilities of the congregation. In the NT, the pattern we see is of the Church meeting in large and small groups wherever it was plausible. This began both in the Temple and in local homes.

I think the church needs to ‘decentralize.’ Basically, we need to focus outward rather than inward. Not every rural church can build a $5+ million building to house a massive congregation, but almost every church can go meet in a park. In the NT, we don’t see discipleship and evangelism being done at the Big level, it was done one-on-one.

I think that if the church decided what its purpose was in light of the NT, it would find less and less purpose for its building. Now we come back to David’s comments-one of the purposes of the ‘city’ church is helping keep the ‘local’ church healthy and growing. I don’t know if you are specifically going inter-denominational here, but the point is that within our Convention, our leaders should be those who have demonstrated the ability to care for the larger body and the smaller one. These should be men who can use their positions to assure the health and growth of the ‘city’ and the ‘local’ church whether they take a mega or rural form.

As to the axe-there are many apostate churches here that I wish God would Divinely axe, but I think our Conventional axe should be a withdraw of fellowship. That axe should be reserved for those churches who refuse to abide by Scripture as understood in light of the 2000 BF&M. I add that part because it is our Convention’s standard for fellowship.

peace and sorry for the book.

By David Rogers on May 4, 2008 at 7:03 pm

Shadrach,

Probably the whole discussion of the “city church” is a bit beyond the scope of this particular discussion here. I brought it up as a way to give some perspective to the main point I was trying to make. Given the reality and context of our churches as we now typically know them, I think your comment here is on target and basically complementary to what I have been saying.

By Steve on May 4, 2008 at 7:06 pm

but.. who decides what church should exist or be closed?
I came from a small church that had been troubled with liberalism, and division over many years. The Lord sent Revival and it grew to nearly a thousand.
6 pastors came from that revival.
Should that small church have been closed as not doing Kingdom work?

By David Rogers on May 4, 2008 at 7:10 pm

Steve,

Good point. The book “Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire” by Jim Cymbala is a good example of the same thing. The Brooklyn Tabernacle was down to 26 people, and apparently on its last daying embers, when God moved in, and amazing growth and blessing happend as a result.