I get what you’re saying about history. I guess I was influenced to a great degree by a church history professor who, on the first day of class, stated that we are all children of the enlightenment, and as such, we often think that we’re more intelligent that those who’ve come before us when, in fact, that’s simply not the case. I’ve never forgotten that, and as a result, I often find myself wondering about the church, its faith and practice, through history. Nevertheless, I’m still a poor student of history.

The Pietist movement that you mentioned was a great example of what I was thinking about. My understanding of the movement was that it was a reaction to the Forty Years War when European Christians were searching for greater spirituality which is a concern and quest of my own and one that I believe our friend the i-monk is concerned with as well. And of course, the Pietist movement launched a significant missions movement particularly among the Moravians.

***

Mike,

Thanks for holding me accountable concerning my lack of clarity. As a preacher, I understand the need for care and clarity when it comes to the choice of words in the pulpit, and I know the conviction of the Holy Spirit when I become careless in my preaching. Unfortunately, in my comment, I was striving to be cute rather than clear. I’ll work hard to keep that from happening again.

BB

just so i understand your point, billy, i think you meant to say ‘static’, right?

m.r.

Great to have you out in the open. I could sense you lurking back there.

Anyway, great comment. Yes, I think what you say about church history and the 20th and 21st century is probably true. But, we should not let the realities of history and the culture around us define who we are as church.

From what I have read of church history, there have been some significant “revivals” of living in community from time to time.

Have you read much about the Pietist movement or Wesley’s “class meetings”?

I agree. The subject of congregational interaction throughout church history would make a great study.

This is my first comment here at SBC Impact; although, I’ve been lurking here for several months. Good article about matters that I’ve been thinking about for a long time. Currently, I’m concerned (consumed even) with seeing worship become the active experience I believe it’s suppose to be rather than the passive experience that it has become which may be no worship at all. Cultivating relationships among congregants is a bit of a challenge for today’s church. Between vocations and vacations and everything in between, the people I pastor stay on the move.

Often, when faced with issues like the one you’ve raised concerning group dynamics, I’ve wondered what the church has done historically. For example, what was the church doing in 1215 AD to foster interpersonal relationships among church members? I have a feeling that until the 20th and now 21st century, the western church didn’t have as many distractions nor were congregants as mobile as they are now. It could be that until now, the church hasn’t had to concern herself with group dynamics because until now, groups were… well… dynamic. Still, it would be neat if a gifted church historian (which I am not) could research congregational interaction throughout the church’s entire history.

Billy Belk
Macedonia Baptist Church
Monroe, NC

AMEN AMEN AMEN
Great Minds Think Alike!!!

Great minds have purposes, others have wishes. Little minds are tamed and subdued by misfortune; but great minds rise above it!!!

WASHINGTON IRVING (1783–1859)
Wayne Smith

Amen to all you say here! Thanks for the encouragement.

Les,

Thanks for your encouragement as well. The books you mention sound interesting. I have also been following your thoughts on small churches. I agree with you there is something to be said for a group of up to 150 in which everyone pretty much knows everyone else. But, even in a group like that, if you don’t break down into even smaller groups (10 to 20 people) on a regular basis, I believe it will be very difficult to experience the type of koinonia the NT describes.

Also, I believe it is possible to break down a large church into smaller groups, and facilitate this koinonia. And I believe it is good to graphically remind ourselves from time to time that the Body of Christ is bigger and broader than our little “homegrown” group. This can be accomplished by bigger gatherings of bigger congregations, and by joint gatherings of smaller congregations together with other congregations.

However one chooses to do this, though, I believe what must be avoided is anonymous, spectator Christianity. We must also, at the same time, avoid closed groups that are not open and inviting to new people.

Good words. I, too, have been studying group dynamics from a small church culture perspective. There’s an excellent book I am currently reading “How Your Church Family Works: Understanding Congregations as Emotional Systems,” by Peter Steinke. It touches many of the characteristics you’ve mentioned here.

Also, I think a book entitled, “The Tipping Point,” stated that the maximum size group in which relationships can really happen is 150.

Les

Les

Good thoughts…. It does appear in scripture that there is a very close relationship between believers throughout scripture, and for good reason by way of good news! The command in scripture for us to love one another is not optional, because we have now been made normal by the Spirit’s gifting to encourage, admonish, etc. where God receives all the glory.

Is seems most people these days view the “church” as primarily of a “place” full of people that come to feed off of the “it”.. to get refueled, or hear some good music, or just do their religious duty for the week,…instead of recognizing the church as a gathering of individuals that have been called out specifically by God as the people of God to be the people of God.

It is certainly less trouble, more professional, and semi-corporate (American) to have people recognize their church as more of a place and not a people. If someone is convinced it is a place, then “it” is much easier to ignore or leave. If someone is convinced it is a place, then it is much easier to gossip about others that simply go to the “place” or “it”. When a church is recognized as a people called out by God, it seems to lose its pride, because it is forced to deal with people and not the “it”.

I am encouraged today that we have courageous Pastors that are finally teaching their flock that the church is primarily the people of God. It is not yet a common teaching, but it does appear to be happening. Praise God!

Thanks for the insight,….

Blessings,
Chris

Welcome to our collaborative blog.

Our John Daly is a runner, not a golfer (as far as I know…) :>

I am just one of the contributors here. You can click the link on our contributors page above to know more about us.

Welcome to SBC Impact! We welcome views that don’t necessarily “toe the party line,” though we do encourage everyone to adhere to the stated standards (http://www.sbcimpact.net/standards/).

I think your comment points out the need in local congregations to seek a biblical balance between effective “one another” ministry, and wise, loving leadership, especially on the part of the recognized elders or “pastors.” Every member ministry, as I understand it, is not the same thing as spiritual anarchy. And one of the main responsibilities of these men is to watch over the flock to guard it from false teaching, and to help ensure that everyone’s participation is indeed contributing to edification and not destruction (Acts 20:28-31; Eph. 4:11-16).

Of course, there are always leaders who abuse their authority, and, for all practical purposes, become dictators. As in all things, we must find the correct balance in all of this.

Blessings.