Tuesday
Nov252003
Why the big gathering?
Tuesday, November 25, 2003 at 2:48PM
A lot of the modern church's efforts center around Sunday big-group gatherings (Sunday services), featuring music, preaching, and programs for the entire family. Others see more intimate gatherings as being more effective. They meet in homes, and still do a lot of the same things (encourage, teach, pray, read the Word, share the sacraments), but in a less institutional way. I'm talking about the whole house church movement. Some try to by a hybrid. They retain the big gatherings, but emphasize what happens in the house churches. I've become more convinced that big group gatherings aren't enough. You need what happens in a more intimate setting. The problem with retaining the big Sunday gathering, though, is that it inevitably overshadows and displaces the more intimate gatherings in almost every example I can think of. I have some honest questions, but not necessarily the answers:
If doing church in a big gathering is less effective than doing church in smaller gatherings, why do we spend so much of our resources on the big gathering? What do the big gatherings do that the small ones can't? If you believe the small gatherings are more effective than the big ones, why keep having the big ones?Update: Bill says it well in the comments section:
Here's what I wanted to know: Could a small (20) group of people do church? If that size group could do everything a church was supposed to be doing, without programs or buildings or big gatherings then why add those things?This is the big question for me. Why the million dollar rooms that are used an hour a week? Why the 40% or more of staff time to pull off an event that isn't as effective as one that takes place in a living room? It doesn't hurt to ask.
Reader Comments (21)
Good questions Darryl. Our staff meeting this morning was on this very subject. Our big gathering (I affectionately call it "The Show") out resources, out mans, and out prioritizes our discipleship efforts. Wasn't always like that...but the last year or 2 we have definitely slipped into this. It has a way of seducing you. I guess balance is what we are looking at. How do we tame the sunday morning gathering so that it doesn't suck the time, $$, and people out of the rest of the churches mission? Or is the sunday morning doings even part of the churches mission? Or is that what you asked in the first place? Sorry.
I think you need both. Nothing really compares to worshipping with a larger group of believers. The larger group also provides a measure of anonymity that a seeker might... seek. The worship and preaching should combine to be a powerful spiritual and motivational experience. You know our church doesn't have it all together yet, but this is my goal for "the show". But the big group isn't enough. You'll never grow closer to Christ by staring at the back of someone's head for an hour a week. So we've adopted small groups as our means of disciplemaking. So far, so good, but it's a long-term committment to develop a structure that works. Resource-wise, our church spends a good chunk of change on their small group ministry (my salary). Our big service is time for big celebration and motivation. People feel connected to a real movement when it functions like it should. They leave pumped up. The dynamics are obviously different. Some might say worship in a small group is more authentic, but it's not the same as our Sunday worship. It's not so much focused on music, but it's more focused on prayer and personal time; you, a few close friends, and God. House churches may have their place, but the lack of accountability, trained leadership and narrow focus create huge question marks in my mind. Churches that do not provide small group environments, in my opinion, are not true disciplemaking churches at all.
I don't know, Brian. I think the big gathering is at best optional. It sure didn't exist for the first part of the church's life. Is it without merit? No. Is it essential? Again, no. So I don't think you need both. I'm not sure the problems you mention with house churches are always going to be present (lack of accountability, leadership, and focus). At least any more than they are with the church at large! So here's the question for me: does it make sense to put so much energy into the big gatherings?
What I'm shooting for is a reformation of the big gathering. Less of the "spectator" orientation (central pulpit, inactive spectators), and more free participation and real celebration. I like the outer court/inner court model of worship used in OT times. I honestly think we expend too much energy producing a service that will keep the "frozen chosen" happy. I think a "service" like 7:22 or Willow's midweek program hits closer to the mark -not stuffy or pretentious, allowing the Spirit room to breathe. (minus the barking dog, rolling in the aisles foolishness) Whether a church like yours or mine can make that transition remains to be seen - but if I had the chance to do something new, a big gathering would be part of it. As far as house churches go, I've had at least two bad experiences with them. I ended up living in one for my first year at CBS. The "pastor" was a Watchman Nee fanatic. Not that everything Watchman Nee espoused was bad, but he had some whacked disciples of his own. I still think it's both/and, with both being very different than what is common in churches today.
You said, "The problem with retaining the big Sunday gathering, though, is that it inevitably overshadows and displaces the more intimate gatherings in almost every example I can think of." I'm not sure you can say that this is inevitable. In our setting, almost 60% of our church membership are in small groups. Through consistent training and experience, they are seeing their purpose; to provide the intimacy Sunday AM cannot. We couldn't revert to pre-small group days if we tried. Our big-group supports the goals of our small groups, and our small groups enjoy feeling connected to a larger movement expressed in the big-group. It's 1:00am. I'm going to bed!
Perhaps its a matter of perspective. I have begun using the phrase 'primary community' to describe what we do in smaller groups. I will not use home group, small group, house church or any other similar phrase - but I will use the phrase 'primary' because it says exactly what I want it to. This is primary - the rest of it (big gigs etc) is fine, but it is secondary - and quite honestly if you don't attend that's fine too! Its simply an inversion of what we have, but if we take it seriously it could free us from a lot of wasted time and energy
I may have mentioned this before, but Ed has commented on a new book ( The Search to Belong: rethinking intimacy, community and small groups ) that might have something to contribute to this discussion. Any input Ed? I am about half way through it, and Jordon Cooper has posted a brief review at www.jordoncooper.com2003_11_01_archives.html dated November 20. If Myers is right, even half right, rethinking this will mean implications. d
Are big gatherings worth it? That depends. What are their goals? Are those goals being achieved? Most of my best community and relationship experiences have been in small groups or home churches. Most of my best worship experiences have been in big gatherings. Is the "big gathering" worth it? This question probably weighs more heavily on the minds of those who spend a lot of time preparing for the "big gathering" than it does for those who simply show up on Sunday morning. As a teaching/preaching pastor, you spend hours each week preparing your messages. Unless you can see direct results (i.e. life change), it must be hard to justify the time and energy that's spent each week in preparation. Other participants -- especially musicians and singers -- have some of the same concerns about the time and energy they spend preparing for big gatherings, but may have more "job satisfaction" during their contribution to the worship. (That's my experience, anyway.) How do you evaluate the value or "success" of a Sunday service? Figure this out, and you'll be able to make the right changes or eliminate your "big gatherings" altogether.
Realistically, you and I both know we could never eliminate the Sunday service. Not if we want to remain employed. But like we've said, we're not in this for the money, right? Dying churches are led by dying pastors.
Yeah, staying employed isn't my primary goal here. Sandy's point is good: what is the big gathering for? I doubt we could all agree on that.
Well, we know what it's NOT for (intimacy, disciplemaking, etc). So that's a start. In know what it's for for me, but if I asked 20 of my people what it's for for them... 20 answers, all probably legitimate.
First let me say you'd better be prepared to go where these questions lead you. I did the show (worship pastor/programming director) for 8 years. I've got some definite, passionate thoughts about that paradigm. My challenge is that you keep asking the questions of that event. Why? Why? Why? Don't settle for pat spiritual answers. Keep digging. For instance, any talk of doing it for seekers means you better be seeing results. If seekers aren't becoming followers week-in and week-out then how do you justify the cost? My hunch is you will have to drop the seeker justification based on a cost/benefit analaysis. Here's what I wanted to know: Could a small (20) group of people do church? If that size group could do everything a church was supposed to be doing, without programs or buildings or big gatherings then why add those things? NOw, I can come up with a few scenarios in which adding those things might be good but they would NOT be representative of the typical church. They would be exceptions rather than the rule. One last thing, Brian, I have no doubt that you had a bad experience in a house church setting. No doubt there are wackos among us (the whole church) but the criticisms you bring up are so old and worn out. They are straw men and apply equally, if not more so, to the typical Sunday driven in a building with lots of programs churches. Thanks for inviting me to butt in.
Good comments, Bill. Can I call you Bill? Despite my admittedly negative experiences with house churches, I wouldn't discount them altogether. Maybe I haven't seen enough of them actually working effectively enough to give up big gatherings. Most of the house churches I have known are led by people who couldn't work within the structural confines of a traditional church. They didn't want pastoral or elder oversight. They didn't want accountability. They didn't think theological education was important. Obviously, not every house church functions this way. I just think that they, for some, offer a coward's way out of dealing with the real issues and challenges that "church" represents.
Without a doubt there are control freaks, manipulators, dangerous teachers, and troublemakers in the church. Some find their place in a house church setting. Some find their way into the traditional church setting. Isolation is bad for a church of any size. Accountability is needed in any situation. This kind of person can hurt and poison large numbers or small numbers of people. Is that a reason for doing church that way? (specifically the big gathering every week) House church problems aside you're still left with 'Why do it that way?' "Structural confines of the traditional church" That sounds odd doesn't it? Roll that around in your head for awhile. Should structures confine? What confines the church, traditional or otherwise? Having been in both settings I can assure you that if there is a coward's way out it is in dealing with a faceless crowd. It is in church leader's handpicking the cream of the crop to spend time with (a.k.a. leadership development)and sending the difficult people all to the same special group or counselor. It is in creating an environment where people can consume spiritual experience without any cost, maintaining a detached but polite relationship with those sitting around them. You got me riled up with that comment. I'll leave you with a quote at the end of my comment regarding this notion. Again, I commend you for asking good questions. You will be better for it regardless of the outcome. I apologize for the length of this post. This is a conversation that pushes the limits of the commenting function. ************************ It would be wise to acknowledge...that the house church is one of the more difficult forms of human associations to realize. If we should decide to move in this direction, careful thought, much mutual consultation, and above all the guidance and grace of God will be needed. For persons of all background and all degrees of maturity and immaturity, for people marred and scarred by sin, crippled by egotism, often grossly lacking in wisdom, to come together in a primary group where the accent is on sharing and caring is fraught with problems. In such a close association one quickly discovers why history is characterized by wars and rumors of wars, and why it is that the Bible says that our righteousness as human beings is nothing to be proud of. There are definite reasons why the house church movements of the past have again and again died out in favor of looser, less demanding, ..."colder" structures of congregational life. The house church as a form of congregational life can and will survive only so long as there is the vision and will for it. Unlike the sanctuary church, it is not an institution with survival power beyond the strong commitment of those who are involved in it. And in general ... this commitment remains alive only so long as there is a living faith in and experience of that one who first stimulated the house church movement of early Christianity: Jesus of Nazareth. (John Miller, "Church Reform and the Missionary Congregation in the 1970s," a study document prepared under the auspices of the Council of Faith, Life, and Strategy of the Mennonite Church)
At a small group of under 20 guys, (we've been meeting for almost a year) one guy noted tonight that he had come from a background of very small churches. When he first came he wasn't sure if he was going to like it; we are, by Canadian standards, a big church being in the 900 to 1000 mark and growing. Then he commented that he has never felt more connected than now. He has never had a greater sense of spiritual growth, service, friendship, relationship than in this church. Yes, we have large services but we also have real and vital small group experiences at every level. It is a misconception to think that big must be equated with impersonal, commercial, etcetera. Small is not good. Small is not bad. Large is not good. Large is not bad. It is not about size but integrity, relevance, relationship with Christ, with one another, with gift based service and so many other things. It is not about size. I come to the discussion late but thanks for the opportunity to post. thrive!, O
Bill... apparently we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, and my apologies. It wasn't my intention to get you riled up. I tried to point out the problems of only some house churches, not all. Likewise, I won't assume you're thinking that my church is as dysfunctional as you've made a traditional church out to be. But I do agree that this is a threat... "It is in creating an environment where people can consume spiritual experience without any cost, maintaining a detached but polite relationship with those sitting around them." We will fight this no matter the type of church gathering we call home. P.S. We better "play nice" or Darryl will send us to our rooms.
I don't tolerate abusive or inappropriate comments, unless of course they're directed at Brian.
Can't you just feel the love in the room?
I don't know what the big deal is. All I said was that their beer sucks.
Brian: You state: "Most of the house churches I have known are led by people who couldn't work within the structural confines of a traditional church. They didn't want pastoral or elder oversight. They didn't want accountability. They didn't think theological education was important." Perhaps a slight over-generalization, but never-the-less probably more true than not. However, there are those of us who would love to be able to contribute in ways other than teaching Sunday School, or being an usher, or cleaning the church, or what have you. Persons such as myself who do have some theological education, who are willing to submit to pastoral/elder oversight, and who do subscribe to being held accountable. I cannot speak for any of the others, but in my experience, it is almost impossible to break into that inner circle and receive any meaningful discipleship in a large group setting (ie. The Sunday Service.) What happens to people who do not quite "fit the mold" for whatever reason? Maybe they work shifts, and are unable to attend Sunday Service or even mid-week meetings regularly. Maybe they have needs that the larger groups aren't meeting. Maybe there are issues with which they are dealing that are not addressed on Sunday morning or Sunday evening. Where do they receive affirmation and/or discipleship? What if they either do not have the desire or are not called to pastor, or teach, or be an elder, but have leadership capabilities beyond being the custodian/usher? What if there is a genuine calling on their lives, but all they really need is a venue in which to explore their calling and abilities? Do we ignore their talent and abilities, and allow them to fade away in their frustration? I am well aware that there can be tremendous problems with personalities, egos, control freaks, manipulators, dangerous teachers, and troublemakers, but these problems are not limited to small groups...remember Jonestown? Wako? Even established "mainline" churches and ministries sometimes experience problems with the leadership going astray...Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker are a couple that come readily to mind. (Forgive me...I do not mean to appear judgemental here.) If we allow these problems to be reason enough to hesitate to endorse small groups, maybe we should just throw in the towel altogether. (God forbid!) Forgive the length of this post. A bit of an insomniac, with the gift of gab. That's me.
P.S. I realize that this is w-a-a-y late in that this thread seems to have died out. Like I said, though...a bit of an insomniac....a slow one, too.