Hope For The Small Church?

A wise elderly pastor once told me, “Small churches are small for a reason.” Now the reasons may be quite varied. For example, I’ve been in the farm country of Iowa, where there may be no more than a hundred people within 10 miles of a church. Also, a church may be in an area that is over-churched, or in a section of a city that is particularly resistant to the Gospel. Or, in many cases there is a lazy/uninspired approach to evangelism mixed with an “us four, no more” closed-minded attitude. Unfortunately, the church people in the last scenario may not think of themselves that way—they are blind to their exclusivity.
The question is, “Is there hope for the small church?” That is, “Is there hope for it to grow, to become an ever increasing force for the Kingdom in its area?” My answer is, no; there is no hope for the small church to become more than it is. But, let me qualify my answer. I’m not writing about the new church plant that may be small at this time but has momentum and energy for evangelism. I’m not referring to the small church that may be fortunate enough to be in a location that is growing and by “dumb luck” (not a theological term) finds itself increasing, too. I’m also aware that the Holy Spirit can do miraculous things, but the Spirit uses us, and too many in the church are not open to the Spirit working in their lives. The sheer number of small churches (plateaued or decreasing) is testimony to their resistance to the Spirit’s promptings. Again, this is not to say the small church is of no use at all, but if it has no mind to grow (anybody remember the great commission?) its usefulness to the kingdom is minimal at best. Unless a small church has a massive Spirit-filled renewal, there is no hope.
But, I believe the small church is small for more practical reasons. Its leadership.
Author Jim Collins in Good to Great (and its follow up monograph for the social sector) examines several companies that have made the jump from being good to being great and the principles/people/culture that got them there. As we cannot take space to review the whole book, I would encourage you to read it and make your own comparisons to the church. I only draw your attention to a couple items that may apply to the small church’s problem, that is, why it stays small.
First, good to great companies have “Level 5” leaders—“ambitious first and foremost for the cause . . . fierce resolve to do whatever it takes to make good on that ambition. . . . (and) a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will.”
Second, “those who build great organizations make sure they have the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the key seats before they figure out where to drive the bus.”
Third is a culture of discipline, “disciplined people who engage in disciplined thought and who take disciplined action.”
Herein lies the problem for the small church. Even if we assume the pastor is a level 5 leader, which may be a great leap of faith, the problem lies with the people on the bus (lay leadership in the church) and a more casual, i.e. undisciplined, approach to church leadership by lay leaders. The average small church has only one person whose job it is to think about the church on a regular basis. Even if we assume the pastor is a Level 5 leader, he may not have the right lay leaders on the bus much less in the right seats. And, even if he does, lay leaders do not have the luxury of putting in the time needed to move the small church toward something greater. The difficulty is compounded when there is resistance to leadership among the congregation.
Large churches on the other hand pay to have the right people in the right seats on the bus. There may be an elder board with oversight, but the paid staff moves the agenda (disciplined culture). And, with larger churches, come more people and volunteers interested in evangelism, discipleship, leadership and a seeker sensitive church philosophy. Any resistance to the direction given by leadership can be largely ignored.
The advantages of a multiple staff in the large church cannot be underestimated. The disadvantages of relying on lay leaders, distracted by their own family/work life, are enormous. The disadvantages are insurmountable if the lay leadership is not the right people in the right seats on the bus. The smaller the church is, the greater the chance of not having enough of the right people. Not everyone has a gift for leadership or evangelism. Small churches are small for a reason.
Now that we are either depressed or angry, and not wishing to contradict everything I have already said, let’s at least try to end on a positive note.
What can we say to the small church? Assuming a measure of openness to the Spirit, what can be done?
1. Start small. Focus on one thing at a time and draw attention to a small victory. Build on it.
2. Invest in leadership training.
3. If the church has been small for a length of time, consider erasing the chalkboard and starting over. How would we look if we were new? If we were a church plant? How do we break out of our church culture (inward focused, prideful, etc.) and meet the postmodern culture around us?
4. Think larger in the sense of merger. If three or four small churches in an area are supporting full and/or part-time staff, what might they do together? Co-Pastors? Leadership Team?
5. Collins, Good to Great, would add, “Retain unwavering faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, and at the same time have the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they may be.”
6. Realize that it is the work of ministry that is meaningful, not the size of the church; and . . .
What might you add? Do you even agree with the assessment or conclusions above?