Understanding the Small Church - Truly Different
Image
From Voice, Jul/Aug 2013. Used by permission.
When David arrived at his first pastorate, he was excited about the possibilities. The church was a small church located on the fringe of a large metropolitan area. David had received high marks in his seminary experience and he was well trained for ministry. Before and during seminary he had attended a large, nationally recognized church in one of the major cities of the United States. He had spent six months on staff as an intern in order to get a feel for developing ministries and leading the programs of the church.
However, upon his arrival at the small church he sensed things were vastly different from his large church experience. And after he had been serving as the pastor for several months, David fully realized that the small church functioned with a unique set of characteristics. At first he tried to change them. Following the recommendations of the latest writings on the seeker-sensitive model of ministry, he tried to bring the church up to the 21st century (at least in his estimation). After several frustrating years, he stepped back and decided that perhaps he first needed to understand his people and what they wanted the church to be and do.
He began to do some careful listening and realized that they had the same heart for evangelism, discipleship and worship that he possessed, only they expressed it differently. Rather than try to change them, he decided that he would change his own attitudes and actions. For the first time since his arrival, he accepted them for who they were and how they expressed their faith in Christ.
After a time he not only learned to accept their ideas, but he began to value their way of doing things. Pastor David acknowledged that while it would not work in the larger church from which he came, he found it was effective in this setting. It was not long until he discovered the people were genuinely expressing their appreciation for his pastoral leadership. Where his ideas were once quickly rejected, the people were now starting to listen. New ideas were implemented while the church remained committed to many of its core values. The people not only became excited about what was happening in the church, but they saw a new vision for what God could do in them and through them.
Being effective in the small church comes when the leadership first accepts the people for who they are and learns to value the way they express their faith. Too often new pastors come in with the idea that they must drastically alter things and drag the church kicking and screaming into the pastor’s ideas of what a modern church should be. This not only results in frustration in both the leadership and the people, but it involves a rejection of many of the key values that bind the small church together.
While spiritual change and spiritual growth are always vital in every church regardless of size, the small church pastor’s ministry should be built on preaching and teaching the Word of God and discipling people, interwoven with love and acceptance of the people. Accepting the small church begins by understanding the characteristics that undergird its ministry. The wise church leader needs to carefully consider the unique values, beliefs, customs, traditions and attitudes of the congregation. Every church has a distinct set of cultural norms and expectations that set it apart. To be accepted as a leader of the group a person must understand, share, and affirm these cultural norms, otherwise the person will be viewed as an outsider. Before a pastor has earned the right to attempt changes in the small church, he must first show that he values and accepts the people for who they are, how they worship and serve, and how they live out their faith in the context of a congregational community.
The small church is different from its larger counterpart. It worships differently, it views leadership differently, it understands ministry differently. Often, leaders mistakenly assume that the principles of leadership and ministry operate the same in every church regardless of the size. This results in the leader becoming frustrated that the people are not following, and the people becoming discouraged because the leader is taking them in a direction they do not wish to go.
Since the small church is different, we need to understand its characteristics and distinctives. Fifteen characteristics often mark the small church. Each characteristic is not present in every church, but there are often several which characterize a specific congregation, and in most cases there are several that are predominant.
(Tomorrow: Characteristics of the small church)
Glenn Daman Bio
Dr. Glenn Daman is graduate of Western Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and serves as pastor of First Baptist Church, Stevenson WA. He has published three books on small church ministry and is Director of the Small Church Leadership Network.
- 144 views
When you have someone trained and who accepts the large church/seeker sensitive format and then finds himself in a small church, that just isn’t a good match. The idea assumes the large way is right, but tolerate—if you will—the way the people of the small church do it, forcing yourself to understand and mold the way you were taught so you believe into something you aren’t and don’t really like. The article manipulates the words well, but that is what I think is really going on.
Unless the small church wants to change, it should look for someone who is like them in ecclesiology and their belief system. The example that was given sounds like the man’s parents went to that small church and convinced them that the kid was well trained. True, but was he well trained for their church? I like the fact that he was willing to change, but he has to climb uphill to do it. I think they would have problems with someone who was that different from them.
My bias goes back 48 years when I looked in the yellow pages for a church that stood by the Bible. Although I was only 31, I knew my worldly lifestyle wasn’t what God wanted for my life and that man’s opinions and entertainments weren’t what I needed to hear. Yes, the church I chose was a small church. It was very basic; simple Bible preaching without the flesh attractions that are important many churches today. Twelve churches later—some small, some medium, some large—I still look for a church that is like the one I looked for in the yellow pages many years ago. The church I’m going to is very much like that. It has about 300 in attendance and is growing, with many in various personal ministries. I work in addiction recovery and in prison correspondence. The church does expository preaching, hymns from a book, and a choir. The young people stay in the church when they grow up.
John J. Stewart
I heard someone say once that over 50% of all churches had less than 100 members. I don’t know if that is accurate or where he got the number, but there are a lot of small churches out there. One of the mistakes some seminarians make is to spend their college/seminary years in large churches where they only have an opportunity to work in small niche ministries in a large setting. While obviously the Lord does call some to such ministries, I think you would be better prepared to find one of those pastors of small works in your area and just go help him out. Do whatever he needs you to do. You will learn much more in that setting I think.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
There are, of course, different ideas of what “small” is. To me, 300 is a big church. Growing up, we attended a couple of churches a good bit over 100 in size, but the best years were in the spin off in Gaines when we could all fit in a three-car garage (or was it a two-car?). Small has always felt right to me (not that that’s any kind of standard). Hard to say exactly why.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
why our churches get so hung up on numbers is beyond me..but’s that’s off point.
Author seems to stumble on church leadership and plurality of elders/pastors. Anytime bodies of believers become convinced that solo leader guy is the right model, the train has already left the tracks. Doesn’t matter the size, a sharing of leadership and responsibility for the equipping of the church is the only sustainable biblical model. Without balanced leadership, you’ll end up with overworked solo leader guy burnout, puppet solo leader guy charades, dictator solo leader guy tirades, celebrity solo leader guy productions or revolving door solo leader guy dropouts.
It’s very hard for our churches, traditional or contemporary, to accept that American business is not the source of church structure. But time and again, even in churches with solid doctrine, you will find a corporation mindset with senior pastor as CEO.
With that in mind, the article doesn’t make much sense because it’s about a solo leader guy adapting to “small church culture.” It sounds like a Christian version of a movie like Dangerous Minds. Teacher with passion adapts to culture of a new school. Wins hearts and minds. Everyone hugs and cries. Roll credits.
Where does the office of bishop\overseer fit into your model?
[dmicah]why our churches get so hung up on numbers is beyond me..but’s that’s off point.
Author seems to stumble on church leadership and plurality of elders/pastors. Anytime bodies of believers become convinced that solo leader guy is the right model, the train has already left the tracks. Doesn’t matter the size, a sharing of leadership and responsibility for the equipping of the church is the only sustainable biblical model. Without balanced leadership, you’ll end up with overworked solo leader guy burnout, puppet solo leader guy charades, dictator solo leader guy tirades, celebrity solo leader guy productions or revolving door solo leader guy dropouts.
It’s very hard for our churches, traditional or contemporary, to accept that American business is not the source of church structure. But time and again, even in churches with solid doctrine, you will find a corporation mindset with senior pastor as CEO.
With that in mind, the article doesn’t make much sense because it’s about a solo leader guy adapting to “small church culture.” It sounds like a Christian version of a movie like Dangerous Minds. Teacher with passion adapts to culture of a new school. Wins hearts and minds. Everyone hugs and cries. Roll credits.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Ground floor. Corner. Lots of glass. :D
short answer - collective group of men sharing broad spiritual responsibilities for equipping.
So, you’re envisioning something akin to being the moderator of the session.
[dmicah]Ground floor. Corner. Lots of glass.
short answer - collective group of men sharing broad spiritual responsibilities for equipping.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[dmicah]short answer - collective group of men sharing broad spiritual responsibilities for equipping.
So how do you get plurals out of singulars?
NAU 1 Timothy 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
Man = indefinite nominative masculine singular
overseer = genitive feminine singular
aspires = 3rd person singular
work = genitive neuter singular
desires = 3rd person singular
“collective” and “group” aren’t very expositional
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
It’s very hard for our churches, traditional or contemporary, to accept that American business is not the source of church structure. But time and again, even in churches with solid doctrine, you will find a corporation mindset with senior pastor as CEO.
I wonder if you might have it backward here. Isn’t the American business model is the one with a corporate board made up of people (usually considered superior to others available) that makes virtually all decisions (at least major ones) regarding the organization, including recruiting and approving the CEO, and the CEO answers to the board? That seems to be closer to the church structure of an elder board that makes decisions, including the hiring and firing of the pastor, with little to no congregational input on these decisions.
The NT appears to be intentionally flexible on the number of elders in a congregation (I think we’d all agree that the NT couldn’t possibly be accidentally flexible!). Though we have lots of examples of plurality, and instructions to apostolic delegates to appoint multiple elders, two things are missing:
- Instruction that each congregation must have multiple elders
- How leadership is divided among the elders
Human nature being what it is, where you have a committee you end up eventually with a chair whether you want one or not. Someone leads the elders.
The “ceo model” (which Larry has right) didn’t develop randomly after all. There’s nothing sacred about it, of course, but it reflects something about how human beings in organizations naturally relate. There is never any such thing as a headless group for very long.
So, coming back to small churches, what are the implications? We do have qualifications for elders clearly laid down in the pastoral epistles. So add this up:
- Clear requirements for elder office, plus
- No specifications for number of elders-per-congregation
- A small church that does not have multiple qualified men for the role
Isn’t it pretty clear what you have to do? And this scenario is quite common.
In response to Don’s comment here though… Use of the singular there doesn’t teach that there should be one elder or even that there may be only one. When speaking of an office, it’s common to use the singular of the office even if it is one that is always shared. An analogy would be how we talk about the qualifications for “senator” or “congressman.” Singular terms. So the grammar there is not decisive for the plurality question.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Don Johnson]So how do you get plurals out of singulars?
NAU 1 Timothy 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
So are you saying this verse somehow means there can’t be more than one overseer (KJV bishop) in a particular local church? Strong’s seems to indicate that the word as part of its meaning of oversight, can include multiple “presiding officers”, but maybe you are thinking that applies to more than one church. At the moment, I’m failing to see how a man who wants that job is required do it to the exclusion of all others who want that job.
Edit: Looks like Aaron and I were posting at the same time.
Dave Barnhart
[Larry]It’s very hard for our churches, traditional or contemporary, to accept that American business is not the source of church structure. But time and again, even in churches with solid doctrine, you will find a corporation mindset with senior pastor as CEO.
I wonder if you might have it backward here. Isn’t the American business model is the one with a corporate board made up of people (usually considered superior to others available) that makes virtually all decisions (at least major ones) regarding the organization, including recruiting and approving the CEO, and the CEO answers to the board? That seems to be closer to the church structure of an elder board that makes decisions, including the hiring and firing of the pastor, with little to no congregational input on these decisions.
Larry, my original intent wasn’t tied to a publicly traded company model per se. And I think that is where your illustration took it. My business illustration argues that the pastor is not a bossman with a hierarchy beneath him, organized into neat little departments who report back to him. The Bereans weren’t studying the Scriptures and Good to Great.
Even if you use a public model, there’s no biblical argument for a chief executive in the church, governed by a board or not. Nor a COO, CTO, CIO, etc. Elders/Overseers/Pastors appear to be equal in authority in the church. (Not necessarily designated responsibility.) The board of a publicly traded company is not responsible in any way for the day to day operations of the company. They may meet quarterly or bi-annually to reassess goals and metrics, but they are for the most part figureheads. Not to mention, these roles are highly sought after for their prestige and a token amount of compensation. For those who contort elders into simply a “ruling body” and separate their work of equipping from the “operations” of the church/church staff, force an unnatural and corporate framework onto an organic body.
To tie it together, I’m simply arguing against the church as a business with a single leader at top. A business is about goals, vision, mission statements, metrics, budgets, brands, marketing, corporate communication, benefits, and of course, profit. From what I see in Scripture, the gathering of God’s family is far more organic. Not disorganized, mind you. We don’t need to wing it, have no plan, or abandon all organizational frameworks. I would suggest an elder led model with congregational input via public discussion and/or voting.
And for the record, this a touch too complex to hash out completely via forum. I hope you’ll accept this as a quick bareboned response.
Aaron, great points.
Don, I think your response was answered by others.
There is a great temptation to be sarcastic, but I’ll try to refrain.
However, two things to note. I am reacting to dmicah’s foolish interpretation of a singular overseer as a “collective group of men”. I am not saying that there cannot be more than one person filling an office of oversight in a church. As Aaron noted, when that occurs, usually one will be chief overseer or a chief will emerge.
But the second thing to note is that Paul uses the singular consistently in 1 Tim 3.1-7. Then, I guess he just got tired of using the singular for a collective so he decided to switch to the plural consistently in vv. 8 and following. But that doesn’t mean anything, eh?
Ok, I’ll stop. You can see a little sarcasm crept in.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
My business illustration argues that the pastor is not a bossman with a hierarchy beneath him, organized into neat little departments who report back to him.
Most “corporate church” structures are more like I describe than you describe. I have never heard any one suggest that a corporate or business model of the church resembles that of a sole proprietorship. Most businesses, of any size, are operated as they are for function. And most of them have departments of people who report to certain who report to others and so on up the line. That’s not unique to church. It’s a matter of practicality. But as you later suggest in your comment about equal in authority but not necessarily in designated responsibility, you seem to acknowledge that there are realms of responsibility in which accountability exists. In other words, it seems you still have people reporting to a bossman, who just happens to be the elder associated with that particular area of responsibility.
Elders/Overseers/Pastors appear to be equal in authority in the church.
Perhaps, but I am not sure where this appearance comes from. Part of it is that we have imposed a lot of things on Scripture that aren’t there, and we should be cautious with that.
I’m simply arguing against the church as a business with a single leader at top.
Right, but does Scripture forbid a single leader in a church? Nowhere that I am aware of. Again, I think there is a tendency to read things into Scripture that aren’t there. What we know from Scripture is that the congregation had authority in matters like selecting deacons and church membership. We know from Scripture that churches in cities had elders in churches. Whether or not that is distributive is something that would have to be argued. We do not know, from Scripture, that no church ever had a single elder. We do not know, from Scripture, what the working relationship between elders in churches was.
I don’t think it is all that complex at all, so long as we understand the distinction between the Bible and practical application. So my point is that if we are going to have biblical polity and biblical eldership, we are going to have to be clear on what the Bible says (either as directive or pattern), and what the practical outworking of that is in real life churches.
Discussion