I have recently agreed to help a friend, Les Puryear, who has called to our attention an important need and emphasis within the life of the Southern Baptist Convention. The need is set forth in what Les has established as the SBC Majority Initiative. This is a movement to encourage the smaller in attendance churches in our convention, which comprise approximately 83% of the 40,000+ churches of the SBC, to greater involvement in leadership within the ongoing work of our entities and trustee boards.
In addition to awakening our national convention to the need for our smaller churches to be more involved in leadership, those involved also hope to provide news about resources to help our churches more fully and faithfully carry out our Great Commission calling and ministries.
SO, if you haven’t already, please go check out the following opportunities to get connected to the SBC Majority Initiative:
Web Page
Blog
I’m not sure there is a small church in America that is healthy. I am sure there aren’t many if there are any. The SBC is led by pastors of big churches, because those are healthy churches. I’m sorry if that makes small church pastors mad, but it’s truth.
It’s not that health = numbers, it’s just that America is so free and has so many people, that if you ARE healthy, you WILL grow. It’s just the truth.
Nate…the largest church in America is Joel Olsteen’s church. And I would not call that a healthy church. Size and health have little if anything in common. Some of these “small” churches are in SMALL communities. These small churches in small towns, cant muster the “large” numbers that SBC churches in larger metro-areas can. To equate the health of a church to size is oversimplification of the issues involved. A church who on a good week have 40 in service, which is located in a town of 500, has just as a good of a chance of being healthy as a church that averages 1000, in a metro area of a few million.
I have had the opportunity to pulpit supply for a church that averages a packed house of just under 100 each week. It was wonderful to see how much that that church cared for its congregation and its small town. I compare this to my former church that was in the STL metro-area which averaged over 800, and is struggling. Size does NOT matter in terms of health. And when I hear misconceptions like this, I see the long journey that Bro Les has to go to change this denomination.
So Nate, are you suggesting that Lakewood Church in Houston is a “healthy church”?
While I agree that healthy churches grow, let’s keep things in perspective here. The shepherd of a church in Dumont, TX is NOT going to grow the same as the shepherd of a church in Dallas, TX. Not because the church isn’t healthy – but because there aren’t many more than 40 people in Dumont (but it IS a great place to be!)
The SBC is dominated by the mega-churches because they’re the ones who have the budgets to send the messengers to elect their people.
By the way, I am not saying that all mega-churches are bad or unhealthy. I just don’t agree with your premis that smaller churches are that way because they’re somehow unhealther than the larger ones.
Grace Ya’ll
Wes
Ahhhh, SMuschany – you beat me too it! Blessings on your work
Grace,
Wes
Of course not all large churches are healthy. One could make the case Lakewood is not a “Christian” church at all.
But speaking in large generalities, which is what we are doing here, you’re using outliers to prove the norm. Sure, in a town of 500 a church of 50 is great. But that’s a complete outlier to what we’re really talking about here. There are LOTS of 50-100 member SBC churches in my major metro area, and they all must be unhealthy. That’s what we’re really talking about, and you need to be honest about that.
Nate,
Your attitude of “small is bad and big is good” is exactly what we’re fighting to change. It just isn’t true. I’ve devoted a whole blog to countering such small church bias. We’re making progress because there has been much more talk about the value of the small church in the past three years than I can ever remember. But when I read comments like yours, I know we still have a long way to go.
Les
Scott,
Thanks for partnering with us.
Les
Nate,
Please send me your mailing address and I will mail you a free copy of my booklet “The Beauty of the Small Church.” You can email me at lespuryear@hotmail.com.
Les
I’d like to see some numbers so that I’m not speaking out of ignorance, but I’m pretty sure I’ve seen statistics that a large majority of Americans and SBC churches live in relatively heavily populated areas, so as to negate the outlier “small church in a town of 1,000″ from the argument. Those are few and far between. Most of the churches that Les is talking about in the “majority” are small churches that live around lots of people, but still aren’t growing. And in THOSE cases, yes, I’m saying they aren’t healthy.
Also, the whole idea of the SBC majority is based on poor ecclessiology. Yes, the SBC is made up of churches. But churches are made up of people, so the SBC is in fact made up of people, so small is not really the majority and should not have a bigger voice. Small churches need to learn from the healthy bigger churches.
A SBC/MBC church plant here in the KCMO metro-area is geared towards reaching the baby boomer rocker generation. They have a hard-rock praise band, that would make most SBC folks cringe. Their weekly attendance is less than 100 each week. But they are hitting a group that would not darken the doors of any other SBC church in the area. Or what about the SBC aligned ethnic churches that may not reach 100 in size. Their size does not matter to either their health or their importance, even if they are in a major metro area.
SMuschany,
You’re once again using outliers to prove the norm. The hard-rock church probably isn’t going to be at 100 for long if it’s healthy. Ethnic churches are obvious outliers. Most of the small churches we’re talking about don’t have all these special circumstances, they are just old and dead. I’m sure that Les is at a great small church and has some examples of great small churches. Conceded. But has anyone else like me not visited those churches of 50-100 that are cold and dead? Why are we building a majority around those. My point is throw THOSE churches out, and your “numbers” don’t look so great anymore.
Pingback: Tweets that mention The SBC Majority Initiative :: SBC Today -- Topsy.com
Nate,
I will thank you for one thing. Thank you for demonstrating the bias which we are working against.
Les
Well, Les, even if some do not agree with your project, they can’t say that you are tilting at straw men, thanks to Nate.
(I don’t know if this project is important or not. I’ve been a member of very small and very large SBC churches, and there have been good people in both. My biggest concern would be pastors getting overly involved in convention business to the detriment of their congregations. Since small churches are often one- or two-man shows, this is a bigger threat than a situation where there are six or nine-teen associate pastors on staff. I do hope you’ll address this concern for the small-church and bi-vocational pastors.)
Doc B,
Thanks for your comment. Nate has really done us a favor by expressing the attitude toward small churches that exists throughout the leadership of the SBC and within SBC megachurches.
Thanks for the advice. We will certainly try to address that potential issue.
Les
Nate,
What makes for a healthy church beyond numbers? Just curious. You have made a bold statement here. Would love to hear your basis for the statement.
Les,
I’m glad to be on board!
Nate,
I believe it is you who understand not the Baptist ecclesiology and basis of cooperation. We are a convention of local churches which have partnered together for the sake of a strengthened witness to a lost world dead in trespasses and sin.
We are not a convention of individual believers partnered together.
SG!
Believe it or not, but some of us believe that the small church is not just the majority, but is actually the best model of the NT church. Healthy churches do not have to grow numerically. They can plant new churches. I believe the SBC fascination with mega-churches and their leaders is to our shame, not our credit.
I don’t know how much commenting I’m going to get to do on this – we’re in the middle of vbs this week soooooo …
Scott, thanks for catching that about the Convention being an assocation of churches and not individuals. No one individual is a member of the SBC and each person who attends and SBC is an elected messenger from one of the cooperating churches. So, the Convention is about churches, not individuals.
Secondly, Nate, I pastor one of those “dead” churches you’re talking about – no doubt about it. So yes, there are dead small churches. But by the same token, there are a lot of dead “big” churches too. “Life” is not determined by size – I don’t care what your “outliers” are. And I think I would challenge you on the vast majority of small SBC churches being in metropolitan areas. Do you have stats that will back that claim up?
I’ve preached in churches as small as 10 and as large as 1500 people – and as the brother said earlier, there’s some good people all around. There’s also some pretty bad people all around. I agree that healthy churches are going to grow – but growth is not always numerically. A healthy church grow according to the soil – and the God who has called it into being. It’s a pretty cold statment to through a church out just because they don’t meet your standard of “growth.”
Grace,
Wes
Bill Mac – BINGO (oops, sorry we’re Baptists – “at a boy!”)
My personal perspective is that when a church starts running between 250 and 300 – take 75 to 100 of them and start a new church! Sure beats spending millions on a new building to hold all them sheep.
Grace,
Wes
I second Tim G’s motion for data and raise it six new steepled Ed. buildings and three Family Life Centers.
Nate “see” Tim G, or “fold” your hand.
“Nate,
What makes for a healthy church beyond numbers? Just curious. You have made a bold statement here. Would love to hear your basis for the statement.”
WesinTex,
I could not resist the poker lingo after you yelled Bingo. :-)
So you have given us a large number of…how did you put it…”outliers”. So small country churches dont count, ethnic churches dont count, cultural specific churches dont count…before long you will have no churches that are “unhealthy” to prove your point.
I do want to thank you though. When Bro. Les first started to talk about this issue in SBC life, I was skeptical. Until a few months ago I was indifferent. Now because of you, in your first two posts, and your two responses to me, I am a supporter of the SBCMI. BTW, my church is a “large” church according to Les coming in at a 240 average weekly attendance. But seeing as Pastor and the rest of our church are not that active in SBC/MBC politics, Bro Les does not have to worry about our church further impacting the problem.
Fellas,
Please don’t be too hard on Nate. I suspect we know what he’s talking about. I’ve seen the dead small churches he’s referring to. Lots of them. He’s not saying big is better. He’s saying growth should be natural for healthy organisms and one can usually feel the barrenness in small churches in populated areas. Is it a generalization? Yes. Could we learn from it? I think so.
On the other hand, Nate, you shouldn’t assume that Les and the others are trying to pattern a convention on unhealthy, ungrowing churches. God is responsible for the harvest and he alone knows who his elect are, and more importantly where they are. As God told Paul concerning Corinth, “I have many in this city who are my people.” I have also seen big churches who are full of consumers, and if church discipline and any kind of expectation was placed upon the membership, “and your “numbers” don’t look so great anymore.”
Is a church whose pastor does not know the names of his congregation “healthy”? Is a church that is so big the congregation virtually has no say it what is going on besides voting on the budget “healthy”? Is a church whose pastor makes enough money to support 10 full time missionaries “healthy”?
Bill Mac,
I’d answer your questions, respectively, ‘possibly’, ‘usually’, and ‘rarely’.
“God must like small churches because He made so many of them.” – John MacArthur, T4G 2010
Nate and others- The final measure of the health of a church is the percentage of regenerate membership living coram Deo, not numerical growth or numerical stagnancy.
Healthy believers will always be about evangelism, but that doesn’t always translate into significant local church growth…the new believers may join another church for example. In some small communities, there may be few left not either already a churched believer or inoculated against the gospel. One does not see many baptisms in that kind of situation, but a faithful body can still exist there.
Not all healthy churches have vibrant worship nor interesting sermons. They do, however, all focus on the gospel, faithfully proclaim the word, and fellowship together. Not all churches that have vibrant worship and interesting sermons are healthy. These usually focus on felt needs or the social gospel. Size and growth rate are not tied to either of these situations in a one-to-one ratio.
What else am I leaving out?
No problem CB, I like me a little “Texas Hold-em” every now and then :D
Grace,
Wes
I am hearing a lot of either/or talk in here which just won’t work for healthy church growth. Churches that are healthy will grow in both depth and number. This is a challenge as many churches that claim to be growing in depth will often do so at the detriment of boldly living out the mission of Jesus and gathering as many as possible who would follow Jesus. There are also large churches who have neglected depth for large numbers and this is of course a problem as well. The solution to both I believe is as follows, the small churches that aren’t growing (not talking about ones that are sending out members out to plant) must ask if they are truly doing all they have been commanded to do to live out the great commission.
The large churches need to ask if they are challenging their people and caring for their people so that they grow to be more like Jesus instead of just filling a seat. Large churches can be cared for well with proper pastoral staff and organization.
The biggest question we all need to ask is are we going to the places where the name of Jesus is not being held high? There are many large areas in America that the SBC could have a huge impact in and often times we are satisfied with our 50 member congregation in Nowheresville, KY. This is unacceptable. The gospel of Jesus is too precious and the price of people’s souls too high.
I believe this is what Nate may have been referring to.
Again…Tell me why a 50 member church in a town of 400 is bad. It is naive to think that that church, in that town, should be running 400. It is even more naive, and a bigoted problem that Les and others are fighting, if you are keeping that 50 member church out of SBC politics because it is not a 400 member church.
I do NOT believe that Les is suggesting that a Pastor or other leader of a small “unhealthy” church, be the one that we take and place on SBC boards. What he IS saying, is we need MORE small church representation. We should be vetting ALL nominees for SBC board positions. If they are leading an unhealthy church, whether large or small, they should not be leading.
But for the last time, size has little if anything to do with determining how healthy a church is.
Smuchany,
thats cool, they should get more involved in SBC issues for the benefit of the gospel.
I only said that we need not be satisfied in that. That church should encourage its members to live out the mission and many times unfortunately they do not. I have experienced this first hand in traveling for 7 years at many different SBC churches.
And once again, healthy churches WILL grow in depth and size. We should always be expanding the kingdom of God.
BTW, if we’re going to suggest that the pastor of a church running 50 in a town of 4000 is somehow unfit to serve in SBC leadership because his church is “unhealthy” (which has as of yet been left undefined), then what of that pastor whose church has 20k members but only averages 2000 in attendence?
Just wondering – shouldn’t a person’s participation in the SBC be determined by their faithfulness to the Kingdom? (No, not calling the SBC a kingdom)
Grace,
Wes
Nate, I think somewhere, said “show me the numbers or statistics” that I am wrong about a healthy church being larger. It was something like that. Feel free to correct me Nate. I’m just using this a a jumping off point.
I began my ministry in the heated era of the “Church Growth Movement.” I was taught by some of the major players of the time and actually had a class that studied representative churches for a semester.
Purpose-Driven came on at the tail of that period and we know that story. Organ music. Out old people out. Invitations out. Hymns out. And the list goes on.
I’m not here attaching any judgment to “church growth principles.” I am only using that to give a context for this question:
“Did the church growth movement” lead to significant church growth Kingdom wide with healthier churches?” The statistics seem to indicate “NO” WRIT LARGE.
In fact, I think you could make the argument that “church growth principles” applied to most SBC churches resulted in train wrecks across the convention. I’m not sure we have recovered.
Please do not take offense at this post. I’m willing to be challenged and I’m not taking any personal shots.
Looks like we are seeing the surface of the width of opinions on this topic.
Wes,
For the last time, the example of a church in a town of 4,000 is an outlier. 80%, yes 80% of the US population lives in metropolitan areas. An even higher percentage than that lives in areas with much more than what you’re talking about. Why do you keep bringing up something that has been conceded? Yes, in a real rural area a small church might be healthy. Fantastic. But when the Majority Initiative uses statistics about small churches, those cases are not the norm. Most (not all) of the small churches, sadly, are simply not reaching their community.
The real issue here is that we should be MOST concerned with reaching large metropolitan areas with the most souls. And I think that does require growing, healthy churches – churches that both plant churches and grow. And so I think electing leaders of those churches is the absolutely right way to go. Even if a small church is healthy, the leader of that church isn’t the right leader for a convention where 80% of the people live in metropolitan areas.
Thank you, Darby, for your comments. You’ll at least be honest and admit that you understand my point, as I suspect the others do as well but just won’t admit it. And I appreciate your comment as well.
I agree with Doc B’s comments above too. OBVIOUSLY size isn’t the determining factor of a healthy church. I concede that God may simply have a healthy church in infertile ground. We can find exceptions to everything. And of course there are very large unhealthy churches.
My big issues is American is a metropolitan land where the fields are ripe for harvest. And I will say that in those areas most healthy churches are going to grow as the people become disciples and evangelize. That’s what we need for leadership.
I’ll be frank. If there is a healthy church in a small area that is “tapped out,” that leaders should train someone to replace him and move to an area with a larger population. Plain and simple, I want our leadership to represent thriving churches in major metropolitan areas.
QUOTE For the last time, the example of a church in a town of 4,000 is an outlier. END QUOTE
This statement seems to imply that metropolitan areas are “monolithic” and homogenous and because the area is large it requires large churches to reach them.
This is the fallacy of the church growth movement in my opinion. Metropolitan areas (I’m in the LA/Hollywood area of CA) are actually a conglomeration of small “burgs.” My theory is that many small neighborhood churches in friendly cooperation will accomplish more for the Kingdom than a few mega-churches.
I do not believe, in my opinion, that the fact of 80% of the population being in cities (which I agree) implies we need mega-churches to reach them. It is not a city-big/rural-small argument in my opinion.
QUOTE as I suspect the others do as well but just won’t admit it. END QUOTE
I think I do understand your point and I completely disagree. Of course, unless things change, we will never know how our Convention could benefit from having leadership from a typical SBC church.
Your proposal seems to say, “Your monies good enough, just not your leadership.” Mega-churches have been leading the Convention for years (from all theological persuasions), and we don’t seem to be doing all that well. This should at least cause us to consider making a change.
[Quote]I’ll be frank. If there is a healthy church in a small area that is “tapped out,” that leaders should train someone to replace him and move to an area with a larger population. Plain and simple, I want our leadership to represent thriving churches in major metropolitan areas.[/quote]
This is one of the greatest problems facing the pastors of our churches. The idea that you must keep moving up and forward. I am sorry to say, but this is sick. My pastor has been a pastor of our church for over 17 years. Before he was called here, he was a pastor of a church for 12+ years. The mark of a godly pastor is not the size of his congregation at all! Some men are CALLED to minister to the SAME congregation for their entire ministry! Further, small church’s in this denomination are STRUGGLING, because attitudes like YOURS Nate, are telling young pastors that those small churches mean NOTHING.
BTW that 80% number you cited Nate…That lists “urban” areas as anything over 2500 in population. Frankly, to me any “metro area” less than 50,000 is “urban” in my book. Take Hannibal Mo, where i graduated from college. In this town of aprox 18000, there are around 10 SBC churches within the city limits, and more in the area surrounding it. Most of these churches run below 200. But each of these churches seem to target different groups in the community (older generations, poorer class, college group, ect). Who are YOU or anyone to say that those churches are “unhealthy” because they are below 200. Who are YOU or anyone to say that those pastors should up and leave for something better?
SSBN,
I appreciate your comment because it’s at least an honest point. We can disagree there, but I understand your view. I do think that a healthy church that is discipling and evangelizing in an area like you’re talking about won’t stay a small neighborhood congregation for long. True, there are some that will do a good job of sending out plants, but even those “typically” grow beyond the small church the majority initiative is talking about, even if they aren’t mega-churches. I put “typically” in quotes because of course all we’re doing here is generalizing, but that’s ok.
Nate
For the last time, just because you call something an outlier doesn’t make it so. Saying that 80 percent of the US population lives in a metropoitian area is not the same as saying 80 percent od the SBC churches are in those areas. I find your concern for smaller churches (let the pastor leave for greener pastures) to be very concerning. Yes, we must reach the cities for Christ, but you don’t do that by ignoring the smaller churches.
But then, I’m just a small church pastor so what do I really understand about evangelism an growth?
Grace,
Wes
SMuschany,
I would say that the example I gave is a pretty rare one, as most places in the country are simply much larger than that and I think not “tapped out.” I just had to give that example since it was the argument that keeps getting brought up.
But, it also sounds like you are more in love with church business than reaching lost people. We’re all called to the same thing, reaching as many people as possible with the Gospel. If a “calling” conflicts with that it’s not from God. That means we need to make the hard choices, and YES, often move from smaller areas to larger mission fields. YES YES YES. We’ve got to move beyond all the small minded thinking I see hear. I think my generation gets that, and thank goodness I think the leadership is starting to also. We have to be willing to take the Gospel seriously to make these hard choices.
Of course we can’t abandon people, but it all goes back to how this whole thread started. Our focus, our leadership should be towards the large populations and I contend thus larger churches, and NOT the “majority” initiative. I guess I’m done now, good day everyone.
SSBN, WIT, & SMuschany,
Thanks for getting it.
Nate,
Thanks for finally giving up your crusade here. I honestly hope your mindset dies within our convention.
The purpose of the SBCMI is to motivate small church congregations to encourage their pastors to be involved in the ongoing ministry work of the SBC. Upon encouraging smaller in attendance church families to this end, we would like to be certain that the door of opportunity is there for those pastors to be involved in trustee boards of our convention entities and convention-wide leadership.
The SBCMI is not about an antithesis of Great Commission living and the establishment of biblically-based local New Testament churches in BOTH rural and urban areas. For anybody to say that this is a distraction from or detriment to that end is completely unaware of the motivation of Les and the rest of us who have chosen to encourage and support this initiative.
Sola Gratia!
Nate #40: I agree with you about growing if you are healthy. I’m saying my model is grow and plant, grow and plant, grow and plant with a target size somewhere around 150 to 500 per neighborhood.
But, here’s a thought: even a typical pastor in an unhealthy church may have a great vision for our Convention. Most of churches are healthier than pundits give them credit for. Remember: even small people can be healthy :)
I’m just saying: let’s not set an arbitrary church size requirement for leadership.
Scott, your post made me thing (and that hurts).
The quickest way to revival in our nation is to support the typical SBC church to fulfill the mission. This will not happen without the input of those represented by the SBCMI.
The Big Boys have been driving for some time now and we don’t seem to be any closer to where we want to be. The Myth of the Mega-church Movement has hurt, not helped the SBC, in my opinion. It in fact may have done more harm than good. I know that is controversial but I’ve been saying it for years.
The idea that a church’s numerical growth equates to the leadership skills of the senior pastor is a very narrow, short-sighted, and incorrect proposition. “Unless the Lord builds the house,” it is man’s house not God’s.
Regrettably Nate is gone. Regarding issues like this, we have to remember that God is sovereign over the life of Christians. This means pastors, the churches that God places pastors over, and the Christians that God leads to these churches. The idea “since this is America with so many churchgoing people, small churches aren’t doing a good enough job evangelizing” totally ignores two things. 1) American culture has turned its back on its (outwardly) observant past, even within the “Bible Belt.” 2) More important, God is sovereign in producing LEGITIMATE conversions and sending them to churches. Ignoring 1) assumes that there are all these people who want to attend church in the first place and would if only there were people “with a heart for evangelism” to ask them, and ignoring 2) assumes that humans are completely in control of the conversion process.
We have to remember the parable of the talents. In it, God gives each servant a number of talents ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY. Not every pastor legitimately called by God is able to run a large church in a Biblical manner. To those pastors, God gives small churches. Similarly, not all Christians will spiritually mature in large churches. There are Christians who need small churches, and God sends those Christians to those churches and the pastors who run them.
Then there is Revelation 2 and 3. Several of the churches in those passes were small and struggling, others were large and successful. Not all the small churches were condemned, and not all the large successful ones were praised. Instead, quite the otherwise. For instance, many people assert that the Laodicean church reminds them of a lot of modern megachurches.
Claiming that “because this is America few small churches are healthy churches” relies upon a strange view of scripture and a man-centered, man-driven theology that presumes American cultural virtue.
Me in love with church business? HA! Lets see, I want little if anything to do with the MBC after how they handled the situation with The Journey, and then went on to attack and kick out all Acts29 churches period. Furthermore, the fact that the MBLA (Missouri Baptist Layman Association) was allowed to spew its hate speech at the 2009 Convention in Louisville, I have had wanted little to do with the SBC itself as a whole.
Simply wanting and supporting fair and equal representation for ALL SBC churches is not being “in love with church business”. It is the same struggle that the American colonies faced in forming this country. Do you go with equal representation, or based on state size? Unfortunately the American solution to that problem wont work in a convention setting.
Finally, let me say a few more things that some have touched on. First the SBC is a convention of CHURCHES, not a convention of individuals. Secondly, maybe the reason why, if Nate is right, that so many small churches are “unhealthy”, is because no one is representing those churches at the national level, and thus their concerns are not being addressed. Just food for thought.
Or, why dont we all just articulate what Nate is really suggesting in here…that all Pastors, who pastor small churches in non metropolitan areas are failures…stupid…not really doing God’s work…lack talent and ability…and really just dont get it.
Nate, you really need to read the Bible a little bit more, instead of listening to all the Church growth, emerging, missional guru’s at your Starbucks and hot, herbal tea meetings.
Peace out,
David
Nate,
I have not yet read all the comments here, but I have to jump in. You said, “There are LOTS of 50-100 member SBC churches in my major metro area, and they all must be unhealthy.” Based on this statement, I must conclude that you believe unhealthy = small. This may be true, at least in a generalization, but I must point out that the contra position (small = unhealthy) is not necessarily true, from either a perspective of logic or experience. From logic, I will simply point out that all cows are four legged animals; but not all four legged animals are cows.
From 1986 – 2004, my ministry was to dysfunctional churches. They ranged from a rural church with about 60 in attendance to a small city church with close to 200 on Sundays. There are certain characteristics they share in common: immature leaders, a degree of self-centeredness, and a rigid attitude, along with highly polarized cell groups. Only one of those four churches was shrinking, while two were stable (or stagnant if you prefer) and one actually achieved some growth, although not at the same rate as its community. Failure to grow can characterize dysfunctional churches (though not in every instance), but there can be other reasons a church remains small. Aside from those churches which lack a population base which would allow significant growth, my experience (backed up by research I did some 12 or 15 years ago when working on a doctorate) is that many small churches are niche churches, which serve a specific and somewhat narrow segmant of population, even if in a large area. These include language and ethnic churches (often found in metropolitan areas), but also include family chapel churches (usually not found in metropolitian areas, but possibly can be), and churches which focus on specific points of theology (i.e., charismatic, King James Only, the liberal church in a conservative town or the conservative church in a liberal [often college or university] area, the landlocked church [some churches have been seperated from neighborhoods they once drew from by interstates or other barriers, and there is a principle of architechural evangelism also: a church will almost never exceed 80% of its seating capacity, and some lack the means to expand their plant], even a lack of vision, and others too that I cannot think of at this moment). And some communities, especially outside the South, are simply resistant to either the Gospel or to “Southern” Baptist churches. To assume that because a church does not grow numerically, it is unhealthy is just that: an assumption not born of data.
Finally, you seem to be equating “growth” with growth in numbers. Some churches are so missionary minded that whenever that reach a certain attendance, thet initiate a church plant and seed it with their own members. This is probably a small number, but it does happen. And a church can grow without the growth being reflected in numbers.
John Fariss
Vol,
You need not do that. The only credible evidence Nate has thus far supplied is not that small church pastors are in any way stupid. Rather, the only credible evidence that Nate has supplied is that he is stupid. And any and all who think like he does are stupid. Naturally, that is with the exception of the “outliers” of his research. His outliers are only simi-stupid which in turn, gives absolute that he is fully stupid.
In other words, Nate fulfills the description of stupid as defined by Forrest Gump’s Momma, who said, “Stupid is as stupid does.”
That should have been:
His outliers are only simi-stupid which in turn, gives absolute “credible evidence” that he is fully stupid.
I omitted what is probably the most significant organizating principle in many small churches, which is socio-economic. Simply put, “birds of a feather flock together.” That “flocking” may be based on numerous attributes, even found in various combinations: one of the largest is racial, and/or social class-distinctive, they may be occupation-related (i.e., blue collar, white collar, gray collar, even groupings of various blue, white, or gray collar jobs), they may even be employer-specific (i.e., the mill church), as well as neighborhood-specific. I will grant that the genius of the early church (that of the period of the Book of Acts & Paul’s letters, and the era shortly after the close of the New Testament canon) was that they found a way to incorporate numerous social and ethnic groups within single churches, which typically the western church has not been able to do. But again, the lack of this genius does not necessarily equate to unhealthy, just to not being as heathy as was the early church.
John
I am so encouraged by how many of you actually understand the value of the small church (except for Nate). You have provided great encouragement for this movement. Thank you.
Les
Les,
I think I have adequately covered the primary source (stupid) of Nate’s inability to get beyond the “outliers” and come into the “innards” understanding the purpose, ministry and needful existence of small and medium size churches in American culture.
Therefore, let me encourage you, my brother, to keep going onward and upward in your quest to help small church pastors everywhere to see their inherent worth in God’s gospel orientated economy till Jesus returns.
Man!! I just read my last comment.
I am ROLLIN’
Bring on the Wild Geese. We shall dine on roast goose tonight!!!
Tim Rogers, can you bring the dressin’ and the mashed ‘taters?
CB,
I do agree that Nate is wrong but why call him “stupid”. That won’t show him where he is wrong. David suggested That Nate go and read scripture, and he very well should to get a good picture of what the NT church lookes like. However,I suggest that you, CB, do that as well. Start with Ephesians.. Chapter four is a good place to start. Though I think for full context the whole book is good.
Jeremiah
Jeremiah,
Uh oh…I think you may be the roast goose.
Les
CB,
I’ll get the fire started! :-)
SG!
What I am gathering from these blog comments is, if you have an opinion that is challenging and different this is not the place to express it.
That is too bad. Its too bad that we can’t graciously listen to each other and consider what we are saying.
cbscott, calling people stupid is immature and childish.
scott, its disappointing that you would allow comments like this on the blog.
Good day to you, enjoy patting each other on the back, while ignoring and insulting views that are different than your own.
James and Jeremiah,
Stupid is a fine biblical word. it was used by the Apostle Paul to express the opposite of having “walking around sense.”
But if it makes you two feel better I will edit my comment:
Vol,
You need not do that. The only credible evidence Nate has thus far supplied is not that small church pastors do not have walking around sense. Rather, the only credible evidence that Nate has supplied is that he does not have walking around sense. And any and all who think like he does are also without walking around sense. Naturally, that is with the exception of the “outliers” of his research. His outliers are only almost without walking around sense which in turn, gives absolute credible evidence that Nate does not have walking around sense.
In other words, Nate fulfills the description of not having walking around sense as defined by Forrest Gump’s Momma, who said:
“He who has no walking around sense is one who should not walk in heavy traffic.” That line came from “FORREST GUMP II: THE EARLY YEARS.”
BTW Jeremiah, I have read Ephesians. Do you think Paul wrote Ephesians or did one of his admirers write it later using Colossians as a source document?
James,
You said, “Its too bad that we can’t graciously listen to each other and consider what we are saying.”
I have a question for you. How can any of us graciously listen to another person and at the same time consider what “we” are saying at the same time? Seems to me one of us will have to hush and let the other of us talk. I tell you what James. To advocated that we all talk at one time is really, really immature and childish. Anyway, that’s my opinion.
Sarcasm… Should have known.
btw…who does Eph 1:1 say?
Jeremiah,
I am pretty good at it too. Don’t you agree?
BTW, Eph. 1:1 is how I always answer that question also. But for some strange reason, some people still don’t believe Paul wrote the Letter to the Ephesians.
James:
“What I am gathering from these blog comments is, if you have an opinion that is challenging and different this is not the place to express it.”
Nate’s comments were not challenging or different. Rather than being different, they are common among certain strands of evangelical Christianity. And rather than being challenging, they simply contradicted scripture in a plain, explicit way. For instance, how would YOU apply the parable of the talents to Christian life? What about the teachings of Paul on members of the Body of Christ? It is plainly evident from scripture that some pastors – many pastors – are not called or gifted to lead large churches. So, how should we treat a person who is not only plainly wrong according to scripture, but adamantly and belligerently so, and makes accusations that pastors who don’t lead large churches either don’t know how to evangelize or don’t care to?
Basically, it falls down to this: does God control churches, or does man? Nate takes the opinion that churches are controlled by man, and that men ought to be able to use their human talents to run and grow them. That is treating a church like a fast food restaurant. Or a Las Vegas brothel.
Job is on the mound and bringin’ the Heat!!
Job,
What you said in comment #64 brought a tear to my eyes. I’m so proud of you at this moment.
David
PS. James and Jeremiah, please understand that CB is an old war horse, who was born into this world on a briar in the cotton patch in Alabama. He has never gotten over it. But, we love him, and we appreciate that he walks and talks straight. He’s not the tallest fella that you’ll ever meet, but he walks tall…as we say here in this part of TN. :)
OK, OK then,
I will be politically correct on behalf of James and Jeremiah.
Nate is dysfunctional. It all started when he was in first grade and all the other kids in his class sang this little song to him.
Its too late for Nate,
Nate won’t never be great,
cause his brain,
got hit by a train,
in the cold, cold rain.
now its too late,
for poor, poor Nate,
He is forever half baked.
James and Jeremiah,
You guys should not be using the names of prophets and apostles because you guys are too postmodern.
You guys should call yourselves Jomongo and Jockomo. Your names will still start with J and you will not be mistaken by your other postmodern friends as biblical characters.
Vol,
You said I “was born into this world on a briar in the cotton patch in Alabama.”
That must make me a Boll Weevil.
Vol, Did you know they built a monument to me, Boll Weevil, down in Enterprise, Alabama? They love me down there.
If you define postmodern as believing and following scripture you caught me… I’m postmodern. Secrets out.
Post-modernism involves the REJECTION of ‘objective’ truth.
The trouble with people throwing the ‘post-modern’ label around on others, is that they can, in certain circumstances, end up wearing that very sticky label themselves. All it takes is a situation where the visible evidence of truth is something so very uncomfortable for some to be examined openly.
So they proudly and conveniently deny it,
without every having seen it.
“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” Flannery O’Connor
Thank you Jomongo.
L’s,
Postmodernism does involve rejecting objective truth. That is for sure. But that does not alone define postmodernism.
But one thing is sure. You do reject objective truth. You reject the obvious truth of the biblical gospel. You have time and time again revealed to anyone who seeks to live in a manner worthy of the calling with which they have been called in Christ that you reject that there is one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father who is over all and through all.
You are lost L’s and on your way to a devil’s hell unless you repent and believe the biblical gospel. You are darkened in your understanding, you are excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in you because of the hardness of your heart. You have become callous, and have given yourself over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.
L’s unless you lay aside the old self, which is is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self which is the likeness of God and be created in righteousness and holiness of the truth, you will go to hell with no hope of escape.
L’s you must be born again. Therefore, repent and believe the biblical gospel.
L’s,
Your veneer has become too thin. People are catching on to your game.
For some reason, you hate biblical Christianity. You quote Scripture, but you do not believe it to be fully authoritative. Frankly, you are in rebellion against that which constitutes the Roman Catholicism you say you embrace so lovingly. Your true and foundational theological base is a hybrid, liberal Catholicism saturated with Liberation Theology and Mysticism with a great big dose of Humanism thrown in for good measure.
You try to come off as a caring person, but you are not. You are a bitter individual. I think some of it has to do with your family situation, but I am not sure. The truth is we do not even know who you really are. But, I assure you that what you write reveals enough for some of us to see behind the “curtain” and know you are not the all knowing “Wizard of Oz” of faith that you like to portray. Lydia and Paula have seen through you as have I and a few others.
(There are some who see through you also, but are too tied up in the desire to be politically correct to challenge you. So they bite their tongue and tell you how sweet you are and how much they appreciate your heart. I must admit that I take some of the things you say as helpful. But in reality, I know it is all a facade.)
You travel through these Baptist blogs and fuel your venomous hatred of biblical Christianity on the unsuspecting hearts and minds of the biblically deprived, emotionally destitute and theologically deficient.
You make comments about biblical Christians, calling them Islamophobes and various other names you have in your arsenal of hate weapons.
You are a miserable and lost person L’s. But it does not have to be so. If you realize you are a lost sinner before a just and righteous God, you have opportunity to repent and believe the biblical gospel.
I realize the weak kneed, seekers of political correctness among us will now challenge me and say I am too harsh with you. Well, I don’t really care what they say or think. I know I have told you the truth. Repent and believe the gospel whoever you actually are before it is too late.
Hi C.B.
That ‘biblical gospel’, the way you describe it, sounds so unlike Christ and His teachings.
“As to the ‘deep waters’ of the Holy Scriptures,
I, like Peter, must reach out my hand to Our Lord for help:
“‘Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.’
29 He said, ‘Come.’ So Peter got out of the boat, started walking on the water, and came towards Jesus.
30 But when he noticed the strong wind,* he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, ‘Lord, save me!’
31 Jesus immediately reached out his hand and caught him”
from the Gospel of Matthew 14
I guess that O’Connor quote upset you, from your reaction.
It shouldn’t.
The quote says it ‘the way it is’. ‘Straight up.’
And for you, a Christian blessing:
‘Through the Resurrection of His Son, God has redeemed you and made you His child.
May He bless you with joy.’
BTW L’s,
Flannery O’ Conner said, “Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.”
That is true. She was right.
Here is another one just as true.
cb scott said, “Truth does not change even if we do have the ability to stomach it.”
And you have heard the truth and you can stomach it, yet you reject it. So having the ability to stomach the truth or to not having the ability to stomach the truth is of no consequence in your case. You are on your way to a devil’s hell because you continue to reject the biblical gospel. And that is the truth, stomach it or not.
Lastly, In all likelihood, Flannery O’Conner may have had some great one liners, but she never revealed a biblical relationship to Christ in her lifetime in all of her writings. Actually she constantly attacked men who wrote from a biblically sound theological worldview. Were you related to Flannery O’Conner? You do have some things in common.
Here’s another one for you L’s:
“Wolves who live their lives masquerading as sheep in this life receive the same reward as goats in the Day of Judgement.”
Seems like you have that one in common with a lot of people also L’s.
Here is one more for the road tonight L’s.
“Some people can stomach the truth, but it never makes it to their heart.”
That’s you L’s. That’s you.
C.B., you need another blessing, just for good measure:
“A Franciscan Blessing
May God bless you with discomfort at easy answers, half truths, and superficial relationships, so that you may live deep within your heart. Amen.
May God bless you with anger at injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people, so that you may work for justice, freedom and peace. Amen.
May God bless you with tears to shed for those who suffer from pain, rejection,starvation and war, so that you may reach out your hand to comfort them and to turn their pain into joy. Amen.
May God bless you with enough foolishness to believe that you can make a difference in this world, so that you can do what others claim cannot be done. Amen.
And the Blessing of God, who Creates, Redeems and Sanctifies, be upon you and all you love and pray for this day, and forever more. Amen.
Hello L’s,
Here is a blessing for you:
A cb blessing
May you be so convicted of your lostness that you cannot sleep.
May you see the filth of your sin in such a way that you cannot eat.
May the filth of your sin smell in your nostrils that if you do eat, you will puke ’till the muscles in your abdominal wall feel like they are on fire.
May your silence in confession and repentance of your sin and your rejection of the biblical gospel cause your body to be wasted away through your groaning all day long.
May your vitality be drained away as with the fever heat of summer ’till you acknowledge your sin to God and your iniquity you do not hide.
May you repent of sin and believe the biblical gospel unto the salvation of your wicked soul.
May you then be glad in the Lord and rejoice, you righteous one; and shout for joy, you who are upright in heart. For in the day you do repent and believe the biblical gospel you shall have a new heart and you shall be a new creature in Christ Jesus. And the angels of heaven shall rejoice. And so shall I.
L’s,
Let’s get back to Flannery O’Conner for a moment since you brought her up.
You know what she said about the apostle Paul and his conversion from a lost religionist like you, L’s, to becoming a born-again Believer in Jesus?
She said:
“I reckon the Lord knew that the only way to make a Christian out of that one was to knock him off his horse.”
Have you been “knocked off” of your horse yet, L’s? Do you see your lost condition before a just and righteous God?
If not, I am praying that you will be very soon.
BTW, did you read “A Good Man is Hard to Find” by Flannery O’Conner? If you did do you think you identify as having a similar heart with the character in the book who called himself “The Misfit”?
You are a good person at heart, C.B., I’ve known that for a long time.
In a way, you remind me of the kind of person O’Connor might write about, and I mean that kindly. You have had difficulties that have left their mark, but you have been ‘touched by grace’ and that grace is working itself out in you. Being ‘rough around the edges’?
Not a sin. Just means life has not been always kind.
Hold on for the ride, C.B. God is not finished with any of us.
We are all of us ‘works in progress’, and the working out of grace in our lives is sometimes painful. It has to be, I think, to do any real good.
You won’t soon forget that O’Connor quote, I hope?
And next time, (and there WILL BE a ‘next time’), pause for moment, and think about that quote for a while, before you go forward.
Don’t worry about what ‘others’ think about you so much. Find your center in Christ. Those ‘Gospels’. Go back and read them again, especially the Gospel of St. John. And the Psalms. It will help you.
L’s,
It is at this point that most folks will say, “OH, L’s, I really know you are nice and I thank you for the compliment. And I was just kinda jokin’ all the time L’s. So let’s be friends and share the love and sing Kumbaya.”
Well L’s, I ain’t most folks. Everything I said in the comments above are true and in your heart you know it.
In your comment above, much of what you said is true. The world is a rough place and the weak at heart have it rougher. Life ain’t always beautiful, but it is a beautiful ride. And on and on and so fourth.
But some things you said in the comment above are simply not true.
I am not a good person at heart L’s. There is nothing about me good. I am a rascal who has perpetrated evil on many people in many places. Nonetheless, God has saved my blackhearted soul and made me His child. I am seeking to walk worthy of the calling with which I was called, But I still stumble often.
You are just as evil as I, but your blackhearted soul is still in its lostness before a just and righteous God. You have yet to be washed in the Blood of the Lamb and you are condemned already to a devil’s hell, unless you repent and believe the biblical gospel.
That’s the difference between the two of us L’s. I have been saved by the grace of God and you are still lost in your sins.
BTW, O’Conner would write about people like me because she is as I am a product of the Deep South and wrote of people of her culture. Frankly, that is why I know her writing. And I also know it was a surprise to you that I knew her work.
You thought you were dropping a “you are an uncultured dummy bomb” on my head with the O’Conner quote. Well L’s, sorry but no cigar this time. I have read O’Conner. My opinion is that she died as lost as you presently are. Therefore, I say to you repent and believe the biblical gospel while there is hope.
A gift for C.B., with love from L’s
Enjoy the video and praise His Holy Name:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POm7_WBMJTI&feature=player_embedded
I disagree with Nate that small religious institutions are unhealthy just based on that fact. But I have to say I have seen a lot of unhealthy small institutions.
A small town I have relative in had one Baptist church. This is a town of 1000 residents at least 90% over 60 years of age. There is little economic opportunity so at 18 years of age the children flock off to find it elsewhere and that has been going on for at least 30 years. Anyway this Baptist church had a conflict. Some of the members wanted to fire the preacher because he wasn’t drawing in new members. So they did. And the old preacher started a new church with the people of the congregation who liked him and were unhappy with his dismissal. So now there are 2 Baptist churches in this small town. While I’d like to report (because I like people of faith) that these 2 Baptist churches grew like gangbusters afterward, well, not exactly. The old congregation is barely holding onto its building and full time preacher by the strength of its endowment and its 50 members. And the other congregation (@30) has a small building and a bi-voc pastor. They both have pretty much the same folks they started with the new preacher hired to bring in the new converts apparently not being any more successful than the first preacher. And of course, because of the hardness over the final splitting, merging the two churches again probably won’t happen on this side of eternity.
So how do small churches avoid getting cliques strong enough to split the church? I’ve never heard of a mega-Church actually splitting into two parts, seems like the members just melt away and find existing congregations for themselves when disagreements arise.
QUOTE I’ve never heard of a mega-Church actually splitting into two parts END QUOTE
It happens all the time. It is not as noticable because the two “halves” are still quite viable in regard to numbers.
Also, the split is less visible because members in most mega-churches have little or no say in the operation of the church. Their only option is to fade away — usually unnoticed by anyone.
I hardly see this as an improvement on the anecdote you offered.
It is patently obvious that an overwhelming majority of small churches take their lead from the larger churches. Otherwise, small church candidates would actually stand a chance in the election cycles.
And considering the motions or resolutions that come out of the small churches every convention, I’m happy that there isn’t much political clout for these small churches too.
It amazes me that people still listen to Wiley Drake too, but that’s a different matter altogether.