Where to… for The Salvation Army?
It’s the time of the mega church. Heck, even emergent churches are only successful if they’re mega! Well, at least that’s what general opinion would have us believe.
I don’t believe it for a minute… OK, you’ve got me… Sometimes I believe it, then I argue myself out of it. But then I wonder if I’m only doing that because I’m either jealous or even simply at a loss as to how some churches can grow just so quickly. But that’s not really the issue. You see I know that mega churches are neither good nor bad because of their size. Likewise, smaller churches can’t be categorised so simply either. However, in the Western world The Salvation Army, (and other traditional protestant denominations), are declining in numbers of disciples and converts. At the same time, mega churches appear to be growing.
So the real question is this: If, (and that’s a big word), mega churches are the way of the future how can we respond?
You see, The Salvation Army is, by definition a “small church” model. We have congregations very close to others. In the church I’m blessed enough to lead with Raewyn (The Salvation Army Johnsonville) we have other Salvation Army’s north (7 minutes drive), south (10 minutes) and east (12 minutes). And each of those churches are in similar positions.
Obviously there are benefits to this model:
- As a “social justice/incarnational” organisation we are closer to the coal face and to those we are called to help; and
- It is much simpler to look after people pastorally (to name just a couple).
However, there are negatives too:
- It’s easy to get stuck in a comfortable mode where we are all inward focused and the great commission gets forgotten; and
- It isn’t always particularly good use of Kingdom money to pay officer couples to run smallish churches. (once again to name just a couple)
I’d absolutely love to hear people’s views on this matter (approach it from any angle you like!)
God bless
Paul
One might argue that the mega-church is 20th century … With peak oil and an increasing focus on justice (not just social) and green practise it makes more sense to have small local gatherings commited in their community but with an international perspective and accountability.
One might argue that…
The question I have for that model (and I hate the use of the term “model” in this discussion but I can’t think of a better one at this stage) is “How do you make sure you keep an appropriate emphasis on the great commission?”
From my experience, most churches don’t seem to be able to keep a good balance. Let’s face it, that’s whats happened to The Salvation Army. We got really good at social work and forgot how to do social justice and salvation (IMHO)
How about we try and follow Jesus example? I’m sure others will quote other verses but Matthew 9:13 [MSG] sums it up quite well for me:
“Go figure out what this Scripture means: ‘I’m after mercy, not religion.’ I’m here to invite outsiders, not coddle insiders.”
It is especially pertinent given who Jesus is talking to and what was being said before Jesus said it.
the challenge for me is not to try to understand it in terms of mega v big v small
it doesn’t seem right to me to say that at a certain size we’ve hit the optimum, which implies we should stop inviting new people, which implies we largely drop our evangelistic fervor at that point … that simply doesn’t gel with my understanding of the purpose of the local church which must include evangelism as one of its primary purposes
that we should always be reaching more and more people implies numerical growth to me, not because numerical size is the goal, but because we should be continually adding more and more to our community
and, as we grow we should also be motivating those who join us to be serving both within the church and within the community, and to be growing in the depth of their personal walk with the Lord
the goal at any point in time is to find the balance, for that time, among those purposes
Mark, I’mn struggling to understand your comment.
Jesus was a single/celibate itinerant preacher who did not lead a local church.
How, according to your comments, are we who do lead a local church supposed to “follow Jesus example”?
Gavin – I believe that to follow Jesus we must exhibit justice, mercy and faithfullness. All of these qualities were overflowing in Jesus life.
His comment about wanting mercy and not sacrifice while spoken to the pharisees could equally apply to me today. My sacrifice is going to church, attending a small group, being in the music team etc. Jesus says I want you to love people the way I did.
Possibly not explaining myself too well but hope that gives some indication.
hi Mark — where I’m not understanding your comments is they seem to relate more to our personal walk, rather than to how we organise ourselves collectively, which is the context in which I understand Paul’s original post, and in which my response was made
I dont know how many people from SAJ have been to a church that has over 700,000 members ,and 34500 pastors , but a few years ago I went to a service at the worlds largest church in Seoul Korea ( Yong gi Cho — Full Gospel church )
Well , it was an experience . 9 services on a Sunday — each seating 40,000 . One could feel lonely in the crowd . You could be attending the church faithfully for years and years , and not one of the pastors would know who you are .
It is no wonder that they promote cell groups so heavily .
I certainly could not feel genuinely welcome in that church
There is a huge difference between a larg/ish church like SAJ , and a megachurch . My guess is to why the SAJ is currently at its size is the quality and relevance of the teaching and worship , as well as the social welfare work
God is blessing SAJ accordingly ….
but once a church gets more than , say , 500 (?) people per week on regular basis , the church has to seriously plan
how to keep itself from becoming too big and impersonal .
I guess thats where home groups come into the equation .
Mega churches might appear to be growing , but they are not able to stop a steady trickle of people from falling through the cracks or leaving through the back door ….. they have no real way of knowing who no longer attends their church
I found this out from personal experience — the pastor of a large church in Wellington was unaware that I no longer attended his church for at least 18 months …
Give me a smaller church where I can have opportunity to share my resources , recieve ministry , and commit myself to fellow brothers/sisters where we can build a relationship with — rather than a huge mega church where nobody doesnt give a care .
Having been in both sides of the camp in my tumultuous history , I am not impressed with mega churches at all
@Mark
I too think you may have misinterpreted my post a little. However, everything you’ve said, I would agree from an individual point of view. Even to the extent that, using different words and often different scripture quotes, that’s a lot of what we try and encourage our congregation to do.
@Ben
I agree with you about the possibility of becoming too big and impersonal. But how do we go about continuing the emphasis on evangelism (the great commission) at the same time? Interestingly, from my experience of cell/small groups, they’re not the panacea that many would have us believe!
@Gavin
Thanks for your comments too
I think one of the reasons TSA doesn’t have any mega-churches is because we don’t plan for them and to be quite honest, I’m not sure we want them. From my observation of megachurches (mostly in Sydney), the structure is in place for growth well before it happens. And the structure grows exponentially according to growth. We just don’t seem to think like that in the Army, for good or for bad. From a divisional perspective, most of our corps struggle to accommodate a small handful of new people in their corps, let alone large growth. And for many of our 30-60pax congregations, growth beyond these numbers means a considerable change from familiarity to not as much (ie you might not know everyone’s name on a Sunday).
In saying all this, I’m not sure TSA is designed by God to have mega churches. I’d lean towards a no on this one…no particular reason why, but I’d agree with your comment on the positives of the ’small church model’ Paul – we’re closer to the coal face and it’s more pastorally accessible. I also think that in terms of evangelism it’s potentially easier to communicate the Great Commission and get people on board in a smaller setting, despite the challenges I mention above. Once it becomes the norm, it’s easier for the ball to roll.
I think Gavin touches on an interesting point – evangelism is about reaching people, not necessarily attracting people. I’ve been challenged again recently about the models churches use for evangelism – attractional or missional. According to some recent statistics I heard about, only 20% of NZers will ever walk in the door of the church. So it’s not to say we shouldn’t continue to try and reach the 20%, but what are we doing about the 80%? It certainly makes me focus again on Jesus’ commission to “GO”!
Finally…Paul, I’m interested in your final comment about cell/small groups – that they’re not the panacea that many would have us believe. I’ve experienced the contrary (and continue to do so) and think that in the 21st century, the intimacy of a small group is the foundational tool for a Christian community. Can you explain your reasoning for this statement please?
let’s put this in context … churches of 50-60 people and mega churches are so fundamentally different it is almost a non-conversation to try and compare them … and equally, even talking about mega-churches in NZ is almost a non-conversation – at most we have a few large churches, no mega churches … SAJ, my church, which is currently one of the larger SA Corps in NZ is not that large a local church by international measures – at approx 400 regular attenders of which approx 250 are there on any one Sunday
my reason for participating in this discussion, as I tried to articulate above, is not trying to determine how small/big we should be … but I struggle to settle the following paradox — if at a given size we think we have to give up too much in terms of community/intimacy/connectedness then how do we continue to be evangelical as by definition if we are effective in evangelism we will continue to grow which most people seem to assume will cause community/intimacy/connectedness to diminish further
so surely the strategic challenge is how do we continue to foster community/intimacy/connectedness as we continue to grow?
yongi cho’s cell groups are quite different from what most NZ churches try to achieve as cell/home groups, and even with understanding those differences I am not convinced they are culturally relevant to a NZ setting
my experience includes being a member of cell/home groups of various types, being a leader of cell/home groups of various types, leading the youth cell/home groups ministry at Wellington South in the late 80s when we had over 10 youth home groups, and leading SAJ’s early attempt at a cell/home groups ministry
I’ve been in, and observed, good cell/home groups and groups that are not so helpful to my christian walk … the distinguishing feature was not that I was/am in a home group, but the nature of the particular home group, the connectedness between its members, the purpose for which it meets, etc etc
I’ve also found christian community/intimacy/accountability/etc through other means – these things are not the sole preserve of cell/home groups
I suspect that sort of thinking is what Paul was alluding to with his panacea comment
ie I agree community/intimacy/accountability/etc are critical elements of a maturing christian walk, but these things are not the sole preserve of cell/home groups which are just a particular programme that attempts to provide these things
gavin