Bigger is better?
Recently I've been thinking and reading about church. And then I found out that Hannah has written an excellent post about what she's been thinking about church recently. I wasn't sure whether I should carry on writing the post, as I don't want to seem like I'm stealing her thunder, but what I've been thinking about is a little bit different. If any of us end up leading or starting our own church in the future, what would it look like, and would you aim for a big church, or a small one?
What I've been thinking about is the relative merits of big and small churches. Is a big church better than a small church? I work for a church that isn't massive, but is growing, and hopes to be about 1,000 before we think about splitting. But then on the other hand a lot of my friends (you guys) are going to small, kind of cell churches. I can see real positives and negatives in both styles of church, and there's always going to be a certain amount of 'different strokes for different folks', but is one better than the other at all?
posted by Tim Lovell @ 1:49 am
5 Comments:
I do like your posh new blog design.
I think I agree with your interesting 'different strokes for different folks' analogy.
Personally I prefer smaller congregations where people miss you if you're not there and everyone has a chance to contribute.
I feel compelled to join the others in commenting on the profound lushness of your new blog skin mate.
In response to your post I find myself grappling with definitions of 'church'. I believe the NT writers were writing to the church of a specific geographical area rather than to a specific congregation. I can struggle with how church should look and how it should be run but I always react against people stepping outside and saying 'the church should be more like this...' etc. By acknowledging that we are all church the debate becomes positive and constructive. That's why I like what you and Hannah have posted.
If we are all 'church' then we are just meeting in different ways and therefore so many different styles are valid - hence 'different strokes for different folks'. Having said all that the large congregations that I have seen working well have all been based on small groups because they affirm our need for belonging and community.
I am sure that many of us have been and are part of 'churches' that fulfil our desire for corporate worship, edification and practical activity but that our real sense of Christ-centred community comes about in a considerably more informal and fluid setting.
If this is the case what do people see as the fundamentals that we can only get from a more formalised meeting point?
Can't you change the comments page too?
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of fundamentals. All church expressions are contextual and will reflect the culture and beliefs of the people that make it up.
I have an idea about what I believe to be important and practices that I and my community find useful but to make any of them fundamental would be taking them too far.
If pushed hard, I would probably have to say that a church is a Christ centered community that is part of a very rich and varied ancient tradition. Any more than that would be pushing it.
The sally army don't take communion or baptise either, does that mean they aren't church?
Hey Pete, hope you are well, say hi to Becca for me.
Agreed Kiera. I think there is something really precious in experiencing ancient traditions and customs passed down through generations of worshippers but I guess the key word is 'need' - do they need to happen within a formal church setting?
Maybe another way to look at the question is to turn it around? What would we miss out on if we utterly rejected formalised church and would it be possible to compensate?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home