God changed me through both of these churches, but after several years in the community church I was struck by how deeply I believed that small community is the best expression of the Gospel; the most authentic and effective way to change hearts and provide a context for us to know, understand, and love one another; the most accurate reflection of our triune God, the methods by which Jesus led his ministry, and the way Paul and Peter constructed the early church.
I slowly reached the conclusion that maybe it is good for communities to be small. Maybe the best way for a church to serve its members, its community, and its God is to split when it gets too big.
I was very surprised last year when I found this idea staring me in the face in an unexpected place -- Malcolm Gladwell's famous, perspective-bending book, The Tipping Point. In chapter five, Gladwell explains how our minds and bodies are wired for small amounts of information. On average we can remember six or seven different categories before we start making mistakes (if telephone numbers were one digit longer, the number of mis-dialed numbers would go up exponentially). We each know about twelve people whose death would devastate us. And we each have the ability to maintain a genuine social relationship with a maximum of about 150 people.
That last one is called the Dunbar number, after British anthropologist Robin Dunbar. From the book:
"The figure of 150 seems to represent the maximum number of individuals whith whom we can have a genuinely social relationship, the kind of relationship that goes with knowing who they are and how they related to us." [Robin Dunbar]Wouldn't you know it, the Dunbar number is everywhere. Of the 21 different hunter-gatherer societies we have historical evidence of, the average number of villagers was 150. A religious group called the Hutterites (from the same tradition as the Amish and Mennonites) had a policy of splitting when their colony approached 150 members. The basic unit of military organization, the company, has roughly 150 soldiers. The company Gortex has built a very successful organizational structure which splits into new divisions to keep workers in groups of 150 people -- and do away with traditional management. John Wesley built one of the largest Christian denominations in history, Methodism, by creating small, independent communities. The average Facebook user has 150 friends (that one's not from the book, it's from the Economist).
After reading all this, my mind was completely blown when I reached the following money-quote:
If we want groups to serve as incubators for contagious messages, then, [...] we have to keep groups below the 150 Tipping Point. Above that point, there begin to be structural impediments to the ability of the people to agree and act with one voice. If we want to, say, develop schools in disadvantaged communities that can successfully counteract the poisonous atmosphere of their surrounding neighborhoods, this tells us that we're probably better off building lots of little schools than one or two big ones. The Rule of 150 says that congregants of a rapidly expanding church, or the members of a social club, or anyone in a group activity banking on the epidemic spread of shared ideals needs to be particularly cognizant of the perils of bigness. Crossing the 150 line is a small change that can make a big difference.There you have it. There seems to be great support in social science for keeping communities small. I don't want to go overboard applying pop-psychology to ideas of faith, but what is the Gospel if not a "contagious message," and what is the church if not an "incubator" for it?
Combining Gladwell's ideas with my own experience I've become pretty convinced; big churches need to split.
I'm not going to close without admitting that there are a lot of questions that come with this notion. What about the benefits of large churches, like missional evangelism or large-scale involvement in a city or other large community? What implications do small vs. big have for membership, authority, and accountability? If 150 is the maximum amount of total relationships we can handle, shouldn't churches be even smaller? That's just the beginning. I may tackle these questions in later posts. My goal here was just to start the conversation.
Image: Crossway.org
I just saw Gladwell speak at Catalyst this past week. He was incredible. I really want to read "Tipping Point" and "Outliers." (P.S. I met your sister-in-law at Catalyst. I recognized her from a picture Erin had on her site!)
ReplyDeleteFirst, you and I have similar convictions about congregational size. Second, I want to respond to the point about the large scale involvement, etc....
Isn't that what networks of local churches (what denominations are when they are at their best) are for? Small local communities can pool their resources and make these things happen. They can hire organizers and administrators to oversee the processes by which constituent member churches are moving out in mission with each other.
So jealous. I am a huge Gladwell fan. I have read The Tipping Point and Blink, and I would highly, highly recommend them both. I want to get into Outliers soon.
ReplyDeleteThat is so cool about Rachel. I knew she was involved in that conference and I knew you were going, I just didn't put the two together. That's pretty funny you recognized her from Erin's site. Awesome.
I think the point in your third paragraph is dead-on. Denominations are precisely what's needed for churches to pool their resources to accomplish goals that are broader than any one, small church can accomplish. They have the added benefit of providing accountability amongst churches as well.
This is one example of why I've come to realize that sociology is awesome, and if I pursue further education after my M. Div it will almost certainly be a degree in sociology.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny (in an unfunny way) how it seems there's so much reaction against denominations, though. I'm guilty of it, and I know I'm not alone. I think there's a lot of human baggage and "business" that a denominational approach carries... that doesn't mean I should chuck it out the window.
ReplyDeleteJust thinking out loud...
Very true, Liz. My experience with church #1 has kept me skeptical of the denomination-bashers out there.
ReplyDeleteThis is a fascinating conversation. Maybe an appropriate hope would be that the small community churches and the large denominational churches would start a conversation about how the Church can serve together. But that seems like wishful thinking.
ReplyDeleteAgree with comments about Gladwell. Blink was pretty amazing.
Agree that sociology is awesome. It is a huge part of my current program and it has been eye opening.
This theory was also one of the big points Andy Crouch made in his book Culture Making (maybe he just stole it from Gladwell...). It's the 3:12:120 model to Crouch and it's EVERYWHERE!
ReplyDeleteMy church adds a new elder for every 100 members. Maybe it should be 150.
ReplyDeleteGod can and does work in a profound way in either and both large and small....neither necessarily better than the other.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with the thrust of this conversation, but I think it would be interesting to tinker with the idea of what we mean by "church" when we say a church should stay under 150.
ReplyDeleteFrom a sustainability standpoint, it could be very wasteful of resources to have to reproduce structures, staff, space for every group of 150. Certainly we don't want every church going out and building its own building - and there aren't that many public spaces available for groups this size to use as portable churches.
I would like to propose that this is a good reason for a church to do multiple service - however in an environment where each "service" is actually viewed more as its own congregation.
Also, I'm curious how this changes when people's primary spiritual community, their most vital and intimate expression of "church" is another environment, i.e. a small group or house church or (as is the current rage) "missional communities." Maybe in these settings, the larger gatherings play more of the sort of role the larger network might play while the smaller setting are actually the "lots of little schools."
I agree, though, that in many (most?) cases, smaller may actually be better.
Winn, I would agree with your thoughts on not being too quick to define smaller "churches" as completely separate organizations, as long as we are careful to make the distinction between multiple communities and multiple services. One pastor serving a 9:00am, 10:45am, and 6pm service to me does not equal separate communities. But if these services each had different pastors, and the people coming to them were committed to sticking with their service/community and serving it, we might have something there. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's what I think you mean when you say "each service is viewed as its own congregation."
ReplyDeleteI think you pretty much understood what I was saying. I don't know that I would draw the absolute line that it had to always be an entirely different pastor, but something more than just "pick your hour each week because we are here to give you whatever you fancy."
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I personally am probably a bit more intrigued by the idea of the small communities playing the role of these nimble outposts and the larger gathering playing a different role.