The optimal size for community?
In this country bigger is always better, but I am not so sure. Even as I am trying to figure out worship and fellowship outside of institutional church, I still wonder why most churches are locked into a "church growth" model. Why do churches feel like they have to grow? When is enough enough? Why can't there just be many small churches, each building true community within itself? Is it our capitalist society that does it? Try and find many companies that say, "No thanks - we're big enough!" They're out there, but they're precious few. Since many people have remarked that modern American churches are built on the "corporate" model (including being in fact, corporations) I could see this being a valid explanation. Or maybe it's simply competitive gaming - "Our church is bigger than yours" is akin to saying "We scored more than you in the Convertolympics".
Sure, there are economies of scale but I am suspicious of using that as an answer since we're not called upon to build efficient factories churches that take unwashed heathen in by the pallet at the loading dock and extrude sparkling new Christians out the baptistery. In fact, any "economics" involved should be more those of microeconomics, hearkening back to the roots of the word "economics":
The term economics comes from the Greek for oikos (house) and nomos (custom or law), hence "rules of the house(hold)."
When one thinks of the first century "churches", which were basically extended households, we can see how "economics" in that sense could apply to intimate gatherings worshiping the Lord. But ultimately we are called to be in community, in fellowship, and frankly, I don't see how you can be "in fellowship" with a large group of people. There is a limit above which "the numbers just don't work". I wonder if that boundary is somewhere near Dunbar's number? It is an estimate of the "cognitive limit to the number of individuals with whom any one person can maintain stable social relationships"and is estimated to be approximately 150 (with some researchers thinking it may extend up to 300 - but not more than that).
For a funny but definitely NSFW (and also not safe for uptight people who don't like the gratuitous use of naughty words to make a point) explanation of Dunbar's number, see this two page essay about the "monkeysphere" by David Wong. Go give it a read (if you're not an uptight person who doesn't like the gratuitous use of naughty words to make a point). When you're done laughing, I think you'll agree there's something there to think about. And if we want to try to build anything beyond the size of Dunbar's number, Wong's T.R.Y. points at the end of the essay are probably a good start. But ultimately I think "church" should probably be below Dunbar's number, and when it is reached maybe it is time to start a new church?
And while you're at it and I'm feeling provocative, you may want to read David Wong's 10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On. It has been around the blogoverse before, but it's still a good read - at least if you believe in rational discourse with people with whom you disagree.
[And extra points to anyone who gets the really bad pun embedded in the monkeysphere essay and posts it as a comment here first.]
8 comments:
Jim,
I think we have missed the point with church growth. "Churches" don't need to grow as much as "THE church" needs to grow. In other words, our faith communities need to be more concerned with connecting people with God and His Kingdom than we are with getting people to join our clubs.
I haven't read the monkeysphere thing because I'm offended by naughty words. (Actually, it's because I'm a bit busy now. I'll get to it later.) :)
I missed the pun - so sue me - but I did have a thought about your post - and I'm afraid this might get long...and maybe off on a bit of a tangent...
I haven't understood the "growing" phenomenon either...but it seems to me over the last, well in my experience 25 years, smaller churches got to the point that they didn't feel they could be as effective alone...so they began to pool their resource (financial and otherwise) with other small churches (merging) in order to have a greater ability to impact the world. This strikes me as good in theory until they started worrying about who had the biggest, nicest church with the most paid staff and most expensive carpeting (in other words: until it became a competition and we ended up with megachurches where my Pastor couldn't say my name to save his life) ...rather than, say, pooling their resources to serve others directly.
I suppose it might be a case of "were they asking the right question", i.e. was the point to assimilate more people or impact more people? Or put another way, the difference between having people come to church or having church go to them....
So anyhow, I guess my question is, what do you think about, or how do you see, the benefit of shared resources (buildings, staff, funds, whatever) weighing against the benefit of having a smaller group of people? Because I have been thinking about this myself...in the context of starting something small but feeling at a certain tangible disadvantage to the larger, more resource-laden churches.
And I guess my comment ties in with your last post, as well.
1) Ego - Pride - Control
2) "Jeje, we're the monkeys."
3) I spend too much time on the internet.
Okay...jumping into the waters here...but what the heck....
I don't think there's anything wrong with big and what I mean by big is the fact that when you look at a big church, there is nothing inherently wrong with it..the Bible neither says it is right..nor says it is wrong...it's neutral...
My analogy is that when you look at a redwood tree, it is big, tall, majestic, and beautiful to behold. It is a large object. However, that large object is made up of millions of cells that sustain it.
Same thing with the church. If a church grows (which by the way we are not responsible for, God is)then it seems to me that we have a tremendous pattern of how that is supposed to take place by looking at cellular biology. Only when a cell is healthy, provided all the nutrients it needs, and has reached a point where it is capable of doing so, does it split to form two cells.
Multiplication of cells is very natural and those cells gathering together to form one large organism is a very natural thing and I would say a very purposeful thing. The problem comes when you try to form the bigger whithout having the smaller cells to support it.
I don't know if this makes any sense at all, but it is how I see it.
Jeff,
Precisely my point. If we talked to someone about Christ and that process ended up with them eventually going to church but not OUR church, that's still a win. In fact, there were two people who did just that for me, and neither have ever given me grief for not ending up as a Baptist, though both of them were.
Erin,
Per the pooling of resources thing, see the comment thread over on Glenn's blog (which I know you read). I think many of us are thinking about the same thing. As for being at a "disadvantage" when compared to larger churches, I am not so sure. I mean, it depends on what you're measuring. If you're measuring connecting with people on a one-on-one basis, then smaller is going to win - as you yourself said, in the megachurches you end up with pastor who don't know their parishioners' names. That doesn't seem right to me. Sure, Jesus preached to thousands, but those were one-time events, and He often tried to get away from the crowds. The model He left us via His talk with Peter was "Tend My sheep", and sheep herds are pretty small because a single shepherd can only handle so many.
Dave,
You win the prize for being the first to call out the bad pun! Maybe it's an age thing and only those of us old enough to remember the Monkees could've gotten it.
Marc,
I see your point. For ME, however, big is lethal. Because for ME, big makes it impossible to practice fellowship or feel a sense of community. For ME it means being "lost in the crowd".
Thanks for pointing to that post of Glenn's. I have been a little disconnected from the blogs this week and missed it.
Erin,
Completely understandable, and you're welcome.
Post a Comment