Why I Don’t Hate “Big Church” Anymore
All right—truth be told, I never really hated big church. But I was always a little suspicious. I mean, after all, could a big church really “do community”? Not likely, I thought.
Prior to my time at Harvest, I served on staff at a smaller church in Fremont, Nebraska.A great church in so many ways. We had an average attendance of around 250 people, and I still think back with fondness to the fellowship and relationships I had there. In many respects, it felt like one big rocking-chair-on-the-front-porch-after-church-pot-luck sort of thing. It probably wasn’t that idealistic, but that’s how I remember it anyway. Regardless, great memories to be sure.
So when my wife and I moved back to Chicago, we were skeptical about attending a large church like Harvest. We tried a smaller church in the area, but for a variety of reasons we decided to give Harvest a try. Early on we joined a home group, got connected with a great group of friends, and immediately felt like we belonged.
Now I can’t speak for every large church in America. Nor can I even speak for every person whose tried to plug in at Harvest. But having been at Harvest as a lay person, and now as a staff member, I can say that community is one of the things we do pretty well. In fact, the depth of relational interaction my wife and I encountered through Harvest’s small group ministry matched—perhaps even exceeded—that of our smaller church in Nebraska.
On the surface, one might think that a smaller church would more naturally lead to relational connectedness. But I’ve since come to realize that intentionality—more than anything else—is the key to robust community. At Harvest we don’t just hope a sense of community develops—we plan for it. And our small group ministry is the backbone of that plan. Small groups aren’t just another ministry at Harvest. Everything Harvest does is some form of a small group. Our Men’s Ministry, Women’s Ministry, Student Ministry, Recovery Ministry, Sports Ministry, etc., etc., are all built around the small group model. To participate in a ministry at Harvest is ultimately to participate in a small group. And to participate in a small group is to participate in the lives of fellow believers. As James has remarked on more than one occasion, “Everything at Harvest is a trick to get you into a small group.” Indeed.
Our small groups at Harvest begin with a time of study, which is followed by a “break-out” time where the men and women separate for accountability and prayer. Let me tell you, a lot of really serious business gets taken care of during these break-out times. Nothing brings people together like walking alongside one another in the midst of our common struggle to live in a way that honors our Lord. And community care also takes place via our small group ministry. Just yesterday I learned of a young couple in our church (not in a small group) going through a very difficult time. The wife lost her baby (would have been their first) on Monday due to a viral infection, and she is now in critical condition herself. I sent an e-mail to four of my small groups that live in their area and within hours we had a team of people mobilized to pray, bring meals, send cards and visit as needed.
In some ways, I think a smaller church can be lulled into a false sense of security when it comes to community. Just because you know everyone’s name doesn’t mean you know what’s really going on in their lives. Biblical community doesn’t just happen on its own, regardless of size. It takes intentionality, and a gracious “pressing into” of those around you. To be sure, this can happen outside the context of a formal small group ministry. I’m not saying Harvest’s way is the only way. But I do know that a church can’t just go with the flow in this area. As with all things vital to the Christian life, the flow of our world isn’t going the right direction.
I’m neutral on whether a church should be big or small; it should be no more or less than what God is blessing. But I do believe that every church, regardless of size, needs to be intentional about creating a context for meaningful connectedness. And I’ve experienced the reality that a big church—just as much as a smaller church—is capable of providing such a context.
Categorized as: Church, From Gerald, Ministry
February 18th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Great point Gerald that the smaller church needs to be careful not to confuse small size with intimate, intentional, intimacy. Connection is not about numbers, larger or small, but about relationships that are modeled after our Triune God.
February 18th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Good word, Gerald. Size isn’t (necessarily) determinative of effectiveness. Small churches can miss out on (or be effective in) God’s mission just as much as big churches. I would be curious to know your impressions of Randy Frazee’s treatment of authentic, biblical community in The Connecting Church, if you’ve read it. If you haven’t read it, i HIGHLY recommend it, particularly b/c he deals with making community happen in suburban areas (which many books on community pass over). He also ties theory into practice, from the perspective of his own church in which he implemented his model. He does raise some very important points requiring consideration, regarding necessary attributes of authentic, biblical (gotta have both) community.
Re: small groups, i have to confess that, despite my involvement in them, small groups have not contributed significantly to my spiritual growth or nurture. And my perception is that the same could be said for the others in the groups i’ve been a part of. That said, they’re better than no community at all. They offer “a place to belong” for those feeling disconnected. But i don’t think they’re doable for everyone, particularly families with certain numbers and ages of children (particularly ages 2-15). The hectic pace of urban and suburban life of families with school age children is simply prohibitive for most of those families being committed to a small group (unless perhaps they are hosts). Between the typical long commute, picking kids up from their after school programs, sports, etc., helping them with their homework, and getting them a decent night’s rest, there simply isn’t time for weekday evening small groups. When you get to the weekend, and families finally have a chance to spend some quality time together (as well as take their Sabbath), as well as get caught up on chores and errands, attending a small group then becomes counterproductive.
Now, for those families able to live on one income, small group participation becomes much more feasible. But what percentage of urban and suburban families can afford this? Do you all know how many Harvest families (with kids) have one vs. both parents working? Not sure how you’d track that, but just curious.
Anyway, this is something i’ve been thinking through a lot lately, and a very important issue.
Blessings,
matt
February 19th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Matt,
Thanks for the book recommendation. Yeah, I think the suburbs present a unique challenge to community. Both the rural setting and the inner city seem to have a relational connectedness built right into the fabric of their cultural. That’s not the case with the suburban context. Suburban churches have to be a lot more intentional when it comes to community.
And I appreciate your comments about the difficulty of small group participation and young families, double incomes, etc. No easy answers there, and there certainly isn’t a “one size fits all”. But as a general rule, I think small groups are working very well at Harvest, and go a long way to combating the suburban isolation.
blessings,
Gerald
February 19th, 2009 at 10:27 am
[...] Why I Don’t Hate Big Church I enjoyed this article by Gerald Hiestand. It explains how he overcame his aversion to “big church.” “On the surface, one might think that a smaller church would more naturally lead to relational connectedness. But I’ve since come to realize that intentionality—more than anything else—is the key to robust community.” [...]
February 19th, 2009 at 11:02 am
I have several thoughts which you may or may not care to hear:
(1) I was raised in a small church (ca. 75-80), spent 12 years teaching in a megachurch (5000+) and now pastor a small church (ca. 100) and it seems to me that the small group ministry often turns a large church into a collection of smaller churches. For example, I was told when I became the leader of a small group that it was like pastoring a small congregation, and when I came to pastor a small church I found that much I had learned in leading/teaching a small group translated perfectly. This is neither criticism nor approval, simply an observation.
(2) I don’t believe that smaller churches are necessarily better (more holy, more right, more healthy) than large churches just because they are small. Though some do believe this (many of them small-church pastors), I don’t think there are many who do.
I also don’t believe larger churches are necessarily better (more holy, more right, more healthy) than small churches just because they are large. I point this out because there are many who do believe this. Those who believe this are misguided.
This is why I am glad to hear Matt say what few will say: that small churches can be effective for the kingdom.
(3) Considering my background, I can say with authority that your point about intentionality applies equally to any church regardless of its size. The church must work to welcome those who are new and to help them become part of the community. But the church can’t be responsible for it all: One must intend to become part of the community in order to be part of the community.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Michael,
Great thoughts. Appreciate your insights here.
Gerald
February 19th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
[...] I Don’t Hate ‘Big Church’ Anymore” Gerald Hiestand, Straight Up (HT: [...]
February 19th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Michael,
As an aspiring church planter, I have been told by several different ministry leaders that leading a small group is a foundational experience for someone who wants to plant and pastor a church. Guess your experience confirms that. Thanks for sharing.
I personally believe that we as a church have a greater responsibility to facilitate genuine biblical community than setting up, coordinating, promoting, etc. small groups. It can still be done in the context of a large church, i think, but the level of intentionality has got to go way beyond a weekly meeting. In general, Frazee insists that we need to be encouraging and helping people to consolidate their numerous, disconnected worlds into one—as he says, “move toward one main circle” (p. 34-35). “Biblical community,” he says, “cannot be limited to the small group experience but must extend to the full experience of life together in the body of Christ” (p. 91).
Frazee lists three broad criteria for authentic, biblical community (my wording modified somewhat from his):
1. Centered around and committed to a common purpose, including: submission to an agreed upon authority structure, adherence to a common creed, community traditions, common standards, and a common mission.
2. Experienced in a common place, characterized by: spontaneity of interaction, availability to one another; frequency of interaction; and geographical proximity.
3. Interdependence, characterized by: common possessions (not communism, but care), intergenerational life, mutual responsibility, personal sacrifice.
My experience as well as my study (both of Scripture and of sociology) affirms each of Frazee’s conclusions above. It’s a hard sell, but you and I know someone who’s especially gifted at making hard sales.
Some potential solutions:
Decentralize what it means to be and do church. Put ministry into the hands of smaller, geographically organized groups, with flock leaders exercising pastoral care and oversight (as well as, perhaps, Christian educational instruction).
Preach sermon series on what it means to experience genuine biblical community, and exhort the congregation(s) to be obedient. This could be a huge series, emphasizing the biblical case for each of the three main criteria mentioned above. What an impact it could have if we gave people a vision of a Christian walk that extended beyond personal piety and familial harmony (which is a big enough issue, i know)… a vision that encapsulated their entire way of life.
Anyway, just a few thoughts. The book provides plenty of good nuts and bolts to go along with the theory. Hope this gets some wheels turning for you.
Thanks again for the dialogue.
Shalom,
matt
February 20th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Reading, I thought back to the church we grew up in and my times at Harvest. And even though I have not gotten plugged into Harvest in the capacity I would like, I know I have not been lost in it’s size. It might also be that most of our old church familiy is plugged in big time to Harvest.
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:43 pm
[...] a speech about abortion, and read Mike grappling with the issue. I’ve thought more about big church thanks to Gerald and seen that many English students don’t know the Bible (and from experience lecturers [...]
August 25th, 2009 at 11:16 am
I agree with what you are saying. What I`ve experienced in most of the churches(big and small) that I`ve attended is a lack of intimacy and true concern for others.Most people are caught up in their “narcissistic world” or you have to beat to their drum to be accepted in their circle. I think that most pastors are in great denial of this.Their answer always seems to be is that no church is perfect.I believe that it is the sign of the times like it talks about in 2Tim 3