Why church must be small (Clarified)

Thankful for Tim's balancing effort and having been thinking that some clarification might have been in order, I am glad with the opportunity presented to do just that. First of all, the (arguably catchy) title came from the full article to which I linked. My short quotation of it, did not to refer to a total church size, but to the size of its primary mode of expression. Hence, my question was not "what total church size is preferable" but "(at what level) church primarily happens".

The way I understand the full article, it does not pertain to a small church. After all, I think we would all agree, that it is primarily the smaller churches that are more prone to suffer from a (we need to be a) "bigger church" mentality, just for the sake of numbers. The author's concern, seems to be, that our primary focus is on a mass gathering on Sundays, while according to his understanding, much of what the Bible describes as constituting church, is very difficult to do in that setting. He notes the practicality that Sundays will always be the most attended "service" of the church and wonders what our response should be in light of the realization that "church" primarily happens within a (necessary limiting) sphere of intimate relationships. So, his basic question is how is one to respond faithfully and pragmatically in what could call forth a dramatic paradigm shift in our mentalities.

The notion of the church's primary expression needing to be small, is hardly revolutionary to our way of thinking. In the most basic terms, it simply highlights the fact, that if each member of the church cannot live out the biblical ideal within the sphere of his/her most intimate relationships, (2-3) why should they be expected to be able to live it out within the context of the extended church family? (200-300) Simply put, I have never heard of anyone leaving a church because "everybody" did not care for them. On the other hand, I have frequently heard people leaving, because after a long time, eventually, they did not find anybody to care for them, so as to allow the building of a mutually constructive spiritual fellowship. So, as far as they were concerned, in the most fundamental sense, they were never a part of that particular local church, to begin with.

Interestingly enough, it was the world's largest churches that realized (through painful experience) what is being lost with a primary focus on the mass gathering, thus kick-starting the whole "small group", "one-to-one" movements. Given that, as far as I know and apart from a few exceptions, most Greek churches do not even see a formal need for either and while constituting a 0.2% of the Greek population has us prone to "minority syndrome" mentalities, I would think that the pitfall of "wearing smallness as a budge of honor", however applicable it might be in countries with a long evangelical tradition, it is still probably a very long way from becoming an issue, in this particular national reality.

"Small-church"...?

In response to Theo's recent post on 'small-church'. Perhaps for the sake of balance, it might be worth considering point Two from the below post by Kevin DeYoung:

http://www.revkevindeyoung.com/2009/02/6-questions-for-potentially-crusty.html

I don't think the battle is between large and small churches or auditorium and house-churches. These are all false dichotomies. The real battle is how exactly we are to make each individual local church the best and most appropriate and relevant expression of the universal church of Christ for its local area.

This is why the church is so diverse - because the world is diverse and each community is essentially unique with its own character and needs. This is why different 'models' of church all seem to be working in different places.

Why church must be small

"Why, on earth, would one leave the capital (and all its ministerial needs) to isolate themselves to a small and remote vicinity?". "Why would one take the "bread" from the mouths of many, to help feed the mouths of the few?". After all, isn't this, strategically unwise (at best) or even sinful, (at worst) to chose one's suboptimal, or even second-best service, as an offering to God?

These are the questions I have been frequently called to answer, ever since I decided to leave the big city, for the sake of a small church in a remote, but strategically located area of my country. I believe these are important questions that we often, too quickly, think as having been sufficiently answered. I believe these are questions to which we must come back again and again, especially if we are to ever attain or maintain, a holistic approach to ministry.

After a most fruitful church business meeting, with many thoughts crossing my mind, I would like to share what follows and invite your comments. Where exactly does "church", primarily happen? Is it in a mass gathering of loosely connected individuals, or in the intimate bonding of few brothers actually carrying out the series of "one-unto-another" commands? Surely, our lives are often more busy and fragmented (especially in the big cities) than they ever should be, but how realistic is the expectation of a full-scale application of what a fully-fledged brotherhood means, in light of Jesus' spending His time progressively, with the multitudes, with a crowd of disciples and with the chosen twelve, out of which He shared His most private moments with His hand-picked three?

Reposting follows:

Backyard Missionary Andrew Hamilton blogged recently on ‘Why church must be small:’

In church life it seems that ‘bigger is always better’ but is it really? Perhaps it depends on what we are trying to do… On this day we will try to convince you that for the church to genuinely accomplish its mission its primary expression must be small.

His whole post is worth reading.

Reposted under permission by Facing the Challenge

The Holy Mountain

The Holy Mountain (a.k.a. Mt. Athos) is a mark of Greek culture, primarily because of its presence on Greek territory, but, secondly, because of its attraction to worldwide Christianity. It has come to function as a sort of a stargate to another ancient holy divine era. Madingley Hall, Cambridge has just hosted the conference “Mount Athos: Microcosm of the Christian East” [20-22/2/09].
I was able to attend the final lecture given by Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia who spoke on “the Universality and the Uniqueness of the Holy Mountain”. His talk began by stressing the beauty of the mountain and the surrounding nature as a medium of God’s presence. He noted that when one is alone on the mountain, creation becomes a sacrament, uniting the believer to God. However, what is unique about the mountain, more than Mt. Everest or other religious sites like Jerusalem or Mt. Sinai, is the ecumenism of the mountain. Of course, ecumenism in this context is simply the union of people from many nations under the Eastern Orthodox umbrella of Mt. Athos. The presence of Serbian Orthodoxy, Russian, Georgian, Romanian, as well as the presence of some Western converts, give this mountain its universal, ecumenical character.
This holy mountain is not always welcoming to non-Greeks, however, and this issue was brought up and discussed during the conference. Metropolitan Kallistos rightly stressed that this xenophobia, regardless of its roots and perhaps justified causes, should be gradually overcome and the nationality of monks on the Mountain should not be an issue.
Peoples’ opinions on Mt. Athos are dramatically varied, whether one is Greek Orthodox, non-Greek Orthodox, Greek Christian of another denomination, or esp. Greek Orthodox feminist!
Nevertheless, what stood out at the conference, a shared value that rose to the surface and was acknowledged by all is that all nations have, and should have, equal accessibility to a holy mountain. Mt. Athos is not the inventor of this notion. This was spoken of Mt. Zion, the symbolic mountain of God’s throne which would be lifted up above all other mountains and be accessible for all nations to stream to (Isaiah 2; Micah 4). Mt. Athos displays the human need to grasp and solidify this truth. It reveals the human endeavor to fix this mountain and localize it on the map. This truth of God’s mountain finally being indiscriminately accessible to all humankind is deeply embedded in all of us. Some see it in Mt. Athos, others will not stop there. They see the mountain itself spreading out of its locale and taking over the entire earth (Daniel 2:35).

What kind of church?

‘To what kind of Christian, to what kind of Church, does the future belong?’

‘Not a Church that’s lazy, not a Church that’s shallow, not a Church that’s timid and weak in its faith, not a Church that expects blind obedience, not a Church that’s fanatical in its loyalty to one question or another, not a Church that’s a slave to its own history, always putting the brakes on, suspiciously defensive and critical of others, not a Church that’s quarrelsome, not a Church that’s impatient, not a Church that’s unfair in dialogue, not a Church that’s closed-minded. In short, the future does not belong to a Church that’s dishonest. But the future belongs to a Church that knows what it does not know, to a Church that relies upon God’s grace and wisdom and has, in its weakness and in its ignorance, a radical confidence in God, to a Church that’s strong in its faith, joyous and yet certain that it can be self-critical and survive, to a Church that has the courage of initiative, to a Church that has the courage to take risks, to a Church that’s completely open to the world in which it lives. The future belongs to a Church that is completely committed to Jesus Christ.’

- theologian Hans Kung

Reposted under permission by Facing the Challenge

Equality-Challenged...

“Religious minorities continue to face difficulties which relate to the legal status quo. . . . Religious freedom is a basic area in which real and tangible progress is urgently needed and specific action is demanded concerning the adoption and implementation of an appropriate legislation, in accordance to the European Convention of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, as a unified and indispensable part of what the European Union represents.”

(http://www.kbatzeli.gr/index.php?/plain/content/view/full/1285)

This is how passionately our Greek member of the European Parliament, Katerina Mbatzeli, argues for the position and treatment of the Orthodox religious minority in Turkey! Are we really in a position to point fingers at other countries and oppose the introduction of nations with such anti-european mentality into the EU?

Should we not put our own house in order first and show to the world how religious minorities are supposed to be treated, in accordance to the European Convention of Human Rights?

Yesterday’s event on religious minorities in Greece, organized by the Greek Evangelical Association, had Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran representatives among others (http://s09.divshare.com/files/2009/02/03/6471615/6471615-23d.swf). The minister of Education and Religion assured, in his absence, that he is an active supporter of these efforts. Albeit, the outcome of the meeting was a firm diagnosis of the seriousness of our country’s impairment: not only are we equality-challenged, but also far-sighted!

Religious Minorities

Why do the Catholics and Evangelicals rage, and these people devise a vain thing . . . against the Annointed Ones?
This rereading of Psalm 2 is echoed in some Orthodox reactions to the conference held on Monday, February 2nd 2009, in Athens:
http://ellinorthodoxosxr.blogspot.com/2009/02/blog-post.html

The greatest churches of the Western world, the Catholics and Protestants, have no legal standing in Greece and any attempt to request such recognition is viewed as an attack against the state Church: "new attacks, not only from the Christian heretics but from the pseudo-progressive ones as well."
Currently, the Greek Constitution formally recognizes only Jews and Muslims. In the light of this meeting, the Orthodox are now called to take their positions for this imminent battle.
It will be a long road before every Greek will be able to feel at home in his/her own country...