Little Flock - The way forward for smaller fellowships?

A vexing question for smaller churches is that of growth. How does a small church witness to the local community in a way faithful to the Scriptures and that results in conversions that add to the church?

This question has perhaps led to an examination of some traditional methods. Is it enough to have sound preaching and teaching, and are these important elements enough to attract outsiders?1 Does it work to have special events (carol services, etc.) or door-to-door visitation or tract distribution? Where can the church find a 'niche' in which it can relate to and attract non-believers?

Strong and weak groups

One proposal has been that of the larger church with a multi-ministry approach. It has been argued that in such a diversified culture as the UK the church must think in terms of diversified ministries. One of the more interesting aspects of modern western culture is that of the change from the strong-group orientation of biblical times to the weak-group orientation of today. The greatest dishonour to members of strong-group societies is to bring disgrace upon the family, or clan, or religious group.2

In weak-group cultures the individual is primary, even above family, village, religious or national groupings. Personal rights are held to be sacred, and individualism, personal identity, and self-sufficiency are highly valued. Obviously British society, with some exceptions, is weak-group orientated. This orientation has created problems for the church in that we have sometimes not fully recognised the change in culture. We still think in terms of evangelising the nuclear family - a married couple with children - because of the stability that such families can bring to the church. The typical married family has been seen as the 'backbone' of society and has been seen traditionally the same in the church. Although the nuclear family still exists, society is increasingly becoming fragmented and individualised. Many older couples now have adult children who have chosen to live with their partners rather than marrying them. There is also the increasing problem of divorce and single parent families. A certain kind of tribalism has taken hold in many people's lives, such as belonging to clubs (health clubs, judo clubs, etc.) and social institutions which also reflect society's drive towards individualism.3 Since weak-group orientation is becoming the norm with its individual emphasis, is it proper for the church to tap into this phenomenon?

Specialise

One proposal is the multi-ministry church. Instead of a church with one minister, the multi-ministry church has several staff who specialise in one or two areas of ministry such as youth, university students, evangelism, etc. This, of course, is nothing new, but perhaps more serious thought needs to be done concerning this approach, particularly in urban areas like London. The advantage to the multi-ministry church is that it is geared more towards the need of the individual, which again reflects modern society.

There are, however, serious objections to this larger church or multi-ministry view, including the following:

1. The church building syndrome. Ron Bennett in Telling the Truth cites several problems when he says: 'When looking at the evangelism strategy of most churches, I find little that is planned... outside the walls of the church... So much of a church's resources have gone into the structure that we feel it's a shame not to use it... We still operate in the church today as though we lived in a society that is largely rural and illiterate; our method is 'come and listen'.'4

2. The impersonalisation sometimes inherent in larger churches. Recently someone confided to a friend of mine that he went to a larger church so that he could hide in the background and not be bothered.

3. The emperor syndrome. Larger churches can sometimes mean larger power, which can have a corrupting influence on those in leadership.

4. The community orientation of the church, which some would say negates against individualism. The thinking here is that there is too much emphasis on individualism in society and that the church falls into worldly thinking by pandering to individual needs.

The call to community

This is an important point because there is no doubt that Christ calls us to community. It is interesting, however, that sometimes Jesus supported individual actions over family, social and community norms. Both Matthew 8.22 'Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead' and Mark 3.31-34, where Jesus disregards his physical family for the sake of his spiritual brothers and sisters, would have been deeply offensive to the culture of that day.5 The individual decision to follow Jesus was more important than the individual's commitment to social community and family. Hinkson and Gansale, in critiquing Rorty and Foucault, write about the opportunities that modern culture presents for the Gospel. 'Another feature of a Foucauldian frame of reference that can afford the evangelist opportunity is the fact that its central theme is the emancipation of the subject. This dovetails nicely with a major axis of the Gospel: being set free'. They further state, 'There is agreement (in modern society) on the need to be set free. The disagreement is about the nature of the bondage and what it takes to be set free.'6 The nature of this bondage often exhibits itself in individual ways, such as divorce, loneliness, addictions, etc.

Mutual support

There are other reasons to consider a multi-ministry approach. There is the advantage of having a ministry team which creates a mutual support group. There is also the advantage of having a higher profile in a given community. A multi-ministry church growing in numbers would more likely be able to create and to sustain (partially or fully) new churches in a given area. A multi-ministry church would perhaps be more equipped to train and prepare its members for ministry, plus larger churches would seem to offer more opportunities for prospective pastoral training.

The purpose of this article is not to argue that multi-ministry churches are essential in every part of the UK. They could be, however, a solution for some of the smaller churches in an area like London. At the present time there are a number of smaller churches within Greater London that are experiencing difficulties in growth for various reasons. Is there any potential in exploring the combining of smaller churches? High property prices mean that the sale of one building could conceivably finance a team ministry and more. To mull over, consider the following:

1. Is there any merit in thinking along these lines?
2. What are the practical problems of such a scheme?
3. No one doubts that the smaller London area churches are going through difficult times and need help. Are there any alternatives to the multi-ministry approach?

Steve Gunderson, Kew

Notes

1 I grant that preaching and teaching are the main means of building up the saints already in the church. Yet, while attending seminary in Canada, the secretary of a large church in Toronto indicated to me that their new minister, because of his extraordinary preaching abilities, would soon fill the church.

2 In recent years there has been a large number of books, articles, etc. dealing with first century social issues, particularly in the area of honour and shame, including Bruce Malina and Jerome H. Neyrey, Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts, in The Social World of Luke-Acts (Jerome H. Neyrey, ed. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991); Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1992). An excellent work on first century social structures is Palestine in the Time of Jesus by K. C. Hanson and Douglas E. Oakman (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1998).

3 By social organisations I mean a community built around a theme. This can be anything from motorcycle clubs, travellers, punks, new agers, etc.

4 Ron Bennett, Authentic Church-Based Evangelism in a Relational Age in Telling the Truth: Evangelizing Postmoderns (D. A. Carson, ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), p.276. It should be noted that a large church does not necessarily have to own a building to carry its ministries.

5 See E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: The Penguin Press, 1993), p.225, for his comments on the sacredness of the family and burial.

6 Carson, Telling the Truth, p.87.

This article is not intended to be definitive. It is meant to stimulate further thinking and provoke response.