Multiply the Small
Sometimes this small, informal group works out well. The group is close and new people feel like they can really connect. The group grows little by little until, eventually, it's hard to fit everyone into one house at the same time.
So there comes a time when practical decisions come into play. Should the group band together to create an official church group? Maybe rent a suitable office space for meetings, or use the gym at a local public school? If that happens, should the group be registered as a charitable group? How will they pay for the building rentals? Who will lead this group and how will it be organized? What will the goals be?
At this point, this group is following the same patterns that a small business goes through. A small business is often started out of a home. Family and friends might pitch in to help. Customers tend to come by personal referrals. The progress from a home business to a small business, from a small business to a big business, and every stage in between...it all comes with similar questions and challenges. (I previously wrote about this as Small Church, Big Church.)
What's more, an experienced business consultant is quite capable of predicting and explaining the growing pains at each stage. Likewise, an experienced pastor might be very able to predict the normal challenges that a growing church will face. The patterns and parallels here are numerous.
The trick is, we tend to assume that we will simply have to get bigger. Bigger building, bigger crowd, bigger financial requirements, bigger everything. Just because we automatically see this happening, that does not mean that this is the only route to take. Big can be good, as I wrote here, but it might not be necessary.
A small business can also sprout sister businesses. If Tim Hortons becomes successful, we don't necessarily need to make a bigger Tim Hortons. We just start another Tim Hortons a few blocks away. (Or even on the opposite corner, sometimes. Heh.) In the same way, a thriving house church does not need to become bigger. Instead, it can sprout sister house churches at another location.
The comparison to franchising a business falls apart quickly enough since we don't want every house church to be identical. I'm just pointing out that staying small is a viable option. It still requires diligent work and foresight to pull this off, just as becoming a large church does.
Multiply the small. Small can be beautiful.
12 comments:
Yes but in the small you can't hide and people will want and need your input.
Cool analogy. The only problem I see, and I use that word loosely because it's a matter of perspective, is that while a Tim Horton's doesn't need to get bigger to expand, it also provides a product that generates a revenue that is self-sustaining: getting bigger won't necessarily produce more revenue; owning a second Tim Horton's will. One new Tim Horton's can go from zero to breaking even or turning a profit in less than a year, because Tim Horton's already has universal appeal to Canadians. What you get at one TH's is the same as you get at another one down the street.
And that would be excellent if that could really work in the church setting. It would be great if the experience at one church was the same as at another, and size was irrelevant, since it would indicate real unity. But what happens when one group wants to do something that requires resources far larger than their own group permits? This is where the analogy really stops working. It doesn't take long for one group down the street to discuss some new concept or principle that causes that group to adopt a different viewpoint than another, and decisions like: is alcoholic wine acceptable; are women allowed in ministry; is it ok to play with cards; start coming to the forefront, and start affecting the underlying beliefs.
Soon, the semantics get in the way of the core belief system, and eventually become part of the core beliefs. All of a sudden when one group has an idea to help the community, but doesn't have the resources to do it, they have to turn to another group that might consider their dream to be not in line with their own belief system. The result is disunity. The coffee shop down the street becomes a Coffee Time instead of the Tim Horton's it started as, and now instead of working together, they compete for customers. So while a franchise structure works for Tim Horton's, the reality is that every TH is part of a bigger governing body that has absolute and final say over how each TH must operate. Failure to do so means getting shut down. That governing role is Jesus' "job", and the bible is supposed to be that final authority. But how many times does everyone agree on the same passage of scripture fully? Two people read the same passage, one believes one thing, the other believes the opposite. Both feel their opinions are scripturally sound, and in line with God's will. Both may be right - and God still uses that diversity to accomplish his will either way.
In the end, a franchise is a great church metaphor in theory, but in practice it would fall apart from the goal of unity in the church. We're all supposed to believe and obey God's word, yet as physical human beings we have a reliance on the physical world in which we live, so we wind up having to put larger structures in place, governing bodies, and denominational authorities that we can work with first hand in order to guide us in the areas that, if left to our own human understanding and weaknesses, would fall apart just like a Tim Horton's that starts selling products that differ from those determined by their head office. The result is Tim Horton's, Coffee Time, Second Cup, Williams and Starbucks. The result is Baptist, Pentecostal, Anglican, United and Free Methodist. The result is tons and tons of little home churches, each with their own missions and goals and dreams, and limited pockets of resources to reach the world.
Steve,
What if they continued to love one another even beyond their homes and simply recognize the body of Christ as the unifying factor?
They are not allowed to separate on the basis of theology, spiritual leaders, worship style, prayer style, special ministry, race, socio-economic status...
(By the way, these are the reasons that denominations use to define unity.)
As far as resourcing could 20 people who are not paying for buildings, salaries and programs do something of some significance with the $50,000 that they would have from their own resourcing each year.
Your words say exactly what I was driving at. You said, "They are not allowed to separate on the basis of..." which is what I was referring to about the idea of a "head office". Who determines that they are "not allowed to separate" at all? After all, they really are their own group. If that group simply decides to do otherwise, they will. And that's my point. If they decide to do their own thing, then the very disunity that the smaller groups are forming to avoid, is the very disunity that they would create. What would stop a group from simply deciding to separate?
Who defines the rules under which a group is considered "part of the team"? Obviously, Christ: They're part of the team if they accept Christ - that's really all there is to it. But what happens if the group does wind up with a theological debate, and they WANT to separate from the other groups around them, because they believe the other groups are being led astray by their own theological stand? They aren't rejecting Christ, therefore they're still part of the team. What happens when their theological position is opposed to that of other groups? What happens when one group calls something a sin that another does not? We can't say "so what, it won't matter, they're still part of the body of Christ" because that's not really how we think. We don't feel that way about other denominations now, so why would it be different if we switched from large structures to small structures? There is no unity between two groups that each believe the other group is acting with sinful practices.
If the group forms, and answers only to itself, then they're already separate. If they answer to the first group that formed, then that group just became their leadership or their denomination. Those are just examples, for argument's sake. Of course, the correct thing is that they only answer to Christ. They only answer to the Word, and no one else. But human nature defines that each group will interpret the Word differently, and will wind up being separated from every other group anyway, no matter how much we try to avoid it, because "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
I wasn't suggesting that the concept isn't biblical; in fact, it's very biblical. But as Jamie has said in a few of his posts recently, show me the evidence. We've seen evidence of the institutional church structure being the cause of some problems, and evidence that the institutional church structure has also solved some problems. But in this day and age, do we have evidence that a series of smaller churches is the answer to all the problems? Obviously, the early church is significant evidence that smaller churches work, however, the early church also didn't have the New Testament as their only source of knowledge. Many of them were personal witness, or indirect witness to the events that we can only read about... they lived in the times that we have only the bible to refer to. Will 100 individual groups really produce stronger, more faithful Christians, than 1 big one? Will they continue to produce the same, 10, 20, or 40 years from now? Or will those groups simply have different problems than the big groups? If the problems are just "different", then what does the home church "structure" do that the large structure cannot?
Just an extra comment... my point in my first response to this post wasn't to agree or disagree with the concept of home church at all. I believe there are lots of ways to do church: big groups, small groups, home church, institutional church, at the local coffee shop, and in the back of a moving truck helping someone who needs a hand. My point, overall, was to comment on the analogy itself. I liked the analogy because, of course, it tied Christianity and Caffeine together. :) But after reading it, and recognizing the wisdom in the analogy, I also saw the potential for the analogy to warp a viewpoint into the opposite of its intention.
Stephen Covey wrote a couple of books that are full of real-life examples of the 7 Habits in action. But at the beginning of the books, he mentions that he doesn't really like using story examples, because no matter how good the story is, humans have a tendency to focus on the story and the actual example, rather than the underlying principles that were rooted in the story. Just like how we look at Jesus' parables and try to apply the parable to real life situations, instead of learning from the guiding principle. Really, that was my point: the analogy is good, but if taken too far as an example, it can be either a great example that inspires people, or an example that goes against the very core of its purpose.
I agree if people choose to leave then no one can stop them, whether it be big or small. It's not really about size as to relating to one another. With that in mind small does seem to make more sense.
You're also right in that 1st century Christians had access to first hand experienced teachers which is far superior to just the written word. Not that they had it necessarily easier as they couldn't communicate quickly with key leaders who moved on to other fields.
As I'm trying to comprehend Jesus building His church, I'm moving away from the terminology of house church and now I'm thinking more about the body of Christ. This includes those who are in large settings as well.
But I think it can best be lived out with the number of people that I can realistically know. I think 2 or 3 will likely be too small to generate any kind of critical mass and numbers above 40 will likely generate apathy.
I also see opportunities for large gatherings to celebrate together in uproarious worship. Large picnics and rented halls would do nicely for these times.
I'm trying to appreciate the interconnectedness of each member doing its part. We're so used to a few doing much and people being lazy or disengaged, that it is hard to hope for people laying aside their own agendas for each other.
I don't think this will come easily or even naturally as we carnally fight for our own rights and choose to walk in our own divisiveness.
As in any idea that might even be birthed in the Spirit, we do have an enemy that will try to deceive us into wrong emphases. eg. prayer is important, therefore let's pray 100 hours a week. Small is good so let's attack anything that doesn't fit my definition of small.
A friend is uttering the same words as you. Show me where this is working. I'm only reading about it and dreaming these days.
Nevertheless the body functioning with vitality and openess is what I'm praying and hoping for.
Totally... that's definitely a lot clearer, and certainly more in line, I think, with the purpose of Jamie's analogy in the first place, especially with the comment that "if Tim Hortons becomes successful, we don't necessarily need to make a bigger Tim Hortons...". The key words are "if", "successful", "necessarily" and "bigger".
If: in other words, it may or may not work. Thus, evidence of it working is necessary.
Successful: what defines success? If another group branches off, and then separates themselves from the "collective body", was the original group really a success? That's a key.
Necessarily: that's a big word, literally and figuratively, because it implies that both the old way and the new way can still work, even in light of new successes, and even when it feels like a new success is "the only way". As the old saying goes, "nothing fails like success". Even a great success will someday become a failure, because progress is made, and a success will only succeed for so long, before it needs to be changed.
Bigger: one critical factor with every coffee shop is that bigger is actually not better; the coffee shop is rooted in being small, cozy, and welcoming. It's why coffee shops are scattered in a mall, and not combined with the rest of the food court: those that know coffee know that location, interpersonal closeness, and relevance to regular daily activities is critical. The coffee shop is mixed in with the rest of life--with the rest of the shops in the mall--not jammed in with the places people go to eat; because coffee shops aren't about eating... they're about fellowship. So now, we arrive at the flipside of the analogy, and probably hitting on the whole point that Jamie was going for in the first place.
Though, Jamie... I should add one comment that you'll shake your head at, and probably think "geez, Steve, can you hog any more of my blog space????".
"Starbucks" might be the better example to use. Yeah, I said it. Here's why:
1) Starbucks is bigger than Tim Horton's, and is in more countries, just like Christians;
2) Starbucks tends to put two right across from each other on the same street, which is a great way to spread out, and still stay in touch; heck you can even share food
3) Tim Hortons actually plants itself in the food court of a mall, while Second Cup, Starbucks, Williams, and other real coffee shops know that they belong elsewhere, because Tim Horton's really isn't a coffee shop... it's a donut shop that serves coffee (hence the original name, Tim Horton Donuts, which was shortened to just Tim Horton's). They don't actually know coffee... they know donuts and snacks.
But I think this deviates a little from your message. LOL sorry buddy.
To add my own two cents, this kind of "house church" concept is the only thing that even works in a country that persecutes Christians. Big churches simply don't exist in that kind of environment. Consider big churches to simply be a blessing of living in a free country.
That's a good point. So here's a thought... it's necessary in a country where persecution exists... which is also what the early church experienced. So how does that model apply to a society where persecution isn't a factor? I'm not suggesting that it doesn't apply, but rather posing the question because perhaps, in a society where persecution doesn't apply, large churches and church buildings is the natural progress of home church.
At the same time though, while I don't want to minimalize the tragedy of persecution, I think that North American culture persecutes Christians just as much, but in a different way. Instead of beating us, or throwing us in jail, we wind up simply melting into the people around us, barely distinct. Instead of our "trials" strengthening our faith, they're weakening it. Our bodies aren't persecuted here, but our minds sure are.
grass roots movements are neat but never last they either become a solid "church" building and all or they fritter away into history. lokk at the lasting denominations. or businesses all expand and grow, even tim hortans has a big head office.
If open, active participation and equality is maintained, I don't think the size matters.
But I don't think the early church chose houses as a means of escaping persecution. Paul when he was Saul went into their homes and dragged them away. I think it was just the best place to experience the body of Christ with Jesus as the head.
Post a Comment