I am the pastor of a "small church" (defined as having a worship attendance of 75 or less) and grew up in a small church. While in seminary, I wound up joining two larger churches; one with a worship attendance of 500, one with a worship attendance of 250. This wasn't intentional; it just happened. However, I knew that my first several appointments (if not all my appointments) would be to small churches. With that in mind, I took a course called "Evangelism in the Small Church." By the end of that course, God had given me a heart for small churches and a desire to be a small church pastor.
I believe that many lay people, pastors, denominational executives, and church growth theorists support the concept of "bigger is better" when it comes to churches. They assume that small church = dying church and large church = growing, vibrant church. I don't believe that's true. The size of a church does not matter how effective it is.
What's most important in assessing whether or not a church is effective is its health. Is the congregation growing spiritually? Is it actively serving the community? Is the membership representative of the community? Are most, if not all, of the members involved beyond Sunday morning worship? Are people coming to faith in Christ because of the witness of the congregation (individually and collectively)? Basically, is the church fulfilling the Great Commission?
I believe that my small church (average worship attendance: 40-45) in Danville, Virginia meets the above criteria. So does our former church (average worship attendance: 250) in Lexington, Kentucky. One is small, one is medium-to-large. Both are making a difference in the kingdom of God. Naturally, there is always room for improvement. We can always be more effective in our ministry. Complacency should never be an option. However, I think that small churches deserve more credit than they receive. They're doing the work of the kingdom, too!
No comments:
Post a Comment