church and Church
John Calvin wrote that the Church is anywhere the Word is rightly preached and the sacraments are rightly administered. There are some loaded words in that sentence, but I think it leads to a question that many people are asking right now: “What is church?” Good question. But is it a different question than “What is THE CHURCH?” I think so, because I think there is a difference in the church and the Church. The Church is the body of believers that extends past time, place and culture. That’s what every single Christ-follower is a member of: the Bride of Christ. That’s the Church. There’s lots of churches that belong to the Church, but only one Church. So I think what we are all really asking is about the church, or maybe another way to say it, what is the right way for these little churches who are all a part of the big Church to be done? What are the essential elements of the church?
I bring up the big Church because in theory, the little churches should look as much like the big Church as possible. So to answer the question about the little church, maybe we’ve got to first find out the priorities of the big Church. Lots of people have done this. Worship, evangelism, service, care for the needy - these all are priorities in the Church. My fear as one of the people asking about what the church should look like is that there is one priority that has been stressed in the church that supercedes all those in the Church, and that is church growth.
Bigger is better. Always. Whether food or movie budgets or churches, big means good. Big means successful. Big means blessing. Right? I’m not so sure any more. I’m not saying that bigger is not indeed better; I am saying that I think the value is misplaced when the church’s highest priority is church growth. It seems like incorporating a corporate value into an organism that is not corporate in nature. That still leaves us with the question that I think is causing many young adults to be dissatisfied. It seems that many of us can point at church and say what it’s not supposed to be, at least in our opinion, but few of us can articulate what it is supposed to be. And just to spread the criticism around, I’m not sure it’s good or right for us to talk so much about what it’s not supposed to be like without offering a suggestion of what it is supposed to be like.
About the Author
Michael lives in Nashville, Tennessee, with his wife, Jana, and kids, Joshua, Andi, and Christian. He grew up in Texas and earned a Master of Divinity at Beeson Divinity School in Birmingham, Alabama. He has written The Tough Sayings of Jesus Volumes I & II, travels throughout the year speaking to students and young adults, and blogs daily at michaelkelleyministries.com.
There have been 4 replies so far
I agree. There is a certain intimacy of worship and fellowship that you can achieve with a small group, but that is lost when the group becomes too large. A former Sunday school class ballooned from 6 members to 50+ within 3 years…and quickly it became unappealing to attend. We felt “lost in the crowd,” no one even realized if you weren’t there, and the intimacy was lost. There are definite advantages to the smaller crowds. Of course we all want as many people to come to Christ as possible, but it is also good to break up into smaller groups for worship. I think that class has since split into about 3 classes, which would be about right! :-)
1 | carrie7880
Saturday, September 29, 2007, at 7:51am
Carrie, me and my introverted-self totally agree with you - smaller is better. I chuckled a little when I read your comment though because it reminded me of something either yogi berra or woody allen probably coined: “Nobody ever goes there anymore, it’s always too crowded.” :)
At the risk of being labeled a reductionist, is this verse a decent definition of the lower-case “church”:
Mt. 18:20 Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them
It’s not quite as simple as it may seem because there is a lot of “stuff” wrapped up in the “in my name” part. I think it implies “for My purposes” or “to My end”. While that requirement alone is a challenging one at times, there’s a lot of freedom in that verse as well. I think youth adults relate to that.
Speaking of “the Church” in the universal sense, I really like Taylor Marshall’s explanation/defense he wrote this past June around the time that Pope Benedict restated the Roman Catholic doctrine that, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”: http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2007/07/roman-ecclesiology-and-protestants.html
Taylor’s an Aggie. That’s a good thing. whoop.
2 | benny
Thursday, October 4, 2007, at 3:58pm
I am starting to think smaller is better too, although that goes against everything I learned in my “church growth” seminars and classes. I guess I don’t think big is bad necessarily; but I feel like that alot of places have as an implicit montra: “Grow at any cost.”
3 | Michael Kelley
Friday, October 5, 2007, at 9:17am
So the danger we face according to the “grow at any cost” camp is that we will otherwise soar to new heights of mediocrity and basically get lazy otherwise. Does that sound right?
It’s logical but also the same argument they use to convince us that salvation must somehow be tied to our ethics (replace “get lazy” above with “be antinomian”).
Pointing out that there are potholes in the road ahead doesn’t mean you are on the wrong road - just means you have to stay mindful of the potholes.
4 | benny
Friday, October 5, 2007, at 12:45pm
Comments are closed. Please use our contact form if you have any thoughts or questions.