Smaller Churches

It's budget time at our church and Tim Keller's words are painfully evident.  Ugh.

The smaller church by its nature gives immature, outspoken, opinionated, and broken members far more power over the whole body. Since everyone knows everyone else, when a  family or small group of members express strong opposition to the direction set by the pastor and leaders, that small group’s misery can hold the whole congregation hostage. If they threaten to leave, the majority of people will urge the leaders to desist in their project. It is extremely difficult to get complete consensus from a group of 50-150 people about program and direction, especially in today’s diverse, fragmented society.  Yet in smaller churches there is an unwritten rule that most everyone must be happy with any new initiative in order for it to be implement. Leaders of small churches must be brave enough to lead and to confront immature members in spite of its unpleasantness.

Tim Keller, "Leadership and Church Size Dynamics"

Comments

[ScottB]

Have you read Shane Hipps's book on electronic culture? One of the things that he mentions in the book is that his church practices decision making by congregational consensus. I think their reasons for doing so are intriguing in that it gives everyone a voice, but I keep getting stuck on the fact that this is both a good and a bad thing for exactly the reasons that Keller mentions. Food for thought.

[Pete Williamson]

good word.

[Dustin]

Unfortunately, in large churches, a small group of men dominate ALL the decisions, regardless of how the congregation reacts.

Trust me, I know from experience. At times, it seems just as negative and horrible as what you're describing. If only there was a better way, but the Church is run by human hands and will always have these type of problems.

I wish you and your church the best during this difficult time.

[Ken Sorrell]

Spirited dialogue and disagreement can be a blessing and curse in a setting such as a house church. One of the ideas that has been effective for some, is prior to one of these incidents occurring or as the young church develops, is to create a document or agreement that states how situations like the one Keller describes. For example, if no consensus can be reached, then we will do "X". "X" can be anything from the pastor makes the final call, to majority rules, to we wait for more consensus.

It has also been my practice for many years never to be held hostage by the threat or ultimatum of people leaving. Folks who will threaten to leave every time they do not get their way will rarely be catalysts for unity and growth. Still, this is huge and challenging issue.

[Mark DeVine]

Some pastors gain a significant increase in influence from two factors: longevity and/or growth. Longevity provides time for trust (or mistrust as the case may be!) to develop. Both growth and longevity (because of attrition due to moves and/or death)tend to leave the decision-making turf more in the hands of the pastor since, after all, it seems to belong more to those who have been there than to the new comers. Both longevity and growth can increase the percentage of members who view the decision-making turf more as the pastor's than thier own. When ministers leave difficult pastorates (as sometimes they should) they ofen find that they must "start all over" as it were building trust and influence.

[Matt Snowden]

This post hits way to close to home for me. Thanks