Larry Doornbos commented via twitter on a point on the Thom Rainer post on changes in worship services. He had a bit of a conversation with church planter Dirk Van Eyk and YALT on the CRC and church size.
- Rainer’s comment was that 90% of church attendees worship in churches of 400+ which is only 10% of the churches.
Larry had a couple of interesting comments:
- CRC is also structured for small churches; we focus on control rather than freedom that churches need to grow
- It is all of that and often a mistrust of larger churches, small is faithful; large is suspect
- CRC is small church denomination. Only 20% are over 200. We penalize larger churches in many ways
I think there is truth in the three comments (and I won’t hold him to any of these statements given the limit of 140 characters) but I think they deserve a bit more analysis.
CRC Structured for Small?
I’m not sure about that. The structure that we inherited I think is structured for medium (300-1000) and some of the stresses the church is seeing is because 80% are under 200.
- Ministry shares are designed for single pastor medium churches that don’t spend much money on themselves. This pool continues to shrink.
- The CRC structure (we could spend some time defining that word too) assumes “churches” are led by someone with an M.Div, a middle class income and preferably a spouse who is willing to relocate regularly. This system is also under stress as churches under 200 have difficulty maintaining the 100k/year cost of such a person with benefits.
- One vote per “church” I think does favor the small currently in Classis. Synod is a representation of classes which are a hodgepodge of geographical things and delegates are a coalition of the willing or arm-twisted. Hardly a recipe for decisive modern-style leadership if the expectation is to run an organization. The CRC has been increasingly delegating such things to an ED and a BOT.
- Ministry shares tends to be a “progressive tax” which means that it taxes larger churches with more money more than smaller ones who are struggling to pay their M.Div. I’m not justifying this, just observing it.
- It’s also the truth that the denom doesn’t exercise any teeth in getting ministry share compliance. As churches devote more money to local ministry (instead of classis and denom) this system.
- If the CRC sent 2x, 3x. 10x to the denomination would this impact the church size numbers? I really don’t think so. I haven’t seen any evidence that CRHM efforts to increase local evangelism have made any significant effort on church size.
- CRHM has certainly helped with church planting which probably would only move the needle on church size IF they concentrated on planting churches in geographical regions of established CRC population (read David Snapper’s thesis). The only “formula” I can think of for changing the church-size percentage would be a concentrated effort at church planting in traditional CRC diaspora sites that still have some heft. My guess is that the largest CRC congregations that grow not only through evangelism but also from outside the CRC population (and retain CRC population) probably come happen in places like suburban West Michigan in churches like Larry’s. This has been true (via the Snapper thesis) all the way back to my younger years when Sunshine and Madison Square grew large. The difficulty they face is that there is not necessarily a lot of support for planting in these places from struggling, aging, established CRC churches out of fear of losing members. The CRC also wants to plant churches in places where there isn’t a large pool (like Sacramento where I live) and among non-majority populations. The Koreans could be an exception here as some of their congregations in California can be quite large. Again, don’t forget I’m talking about changing the size/number ratio of CRC churches. I’m not making a value judgment here, I’m just saying that given our track record if you want to increase the number of large CRC churches this would be the only way I know how to do it programmatically.
We Focus on Control instead of Freedom to Grow
- If we’re talking about the church order, yes. I remember reading the church order for the first time in seminary and thinking “this is all about how to keep people in line.”
- At the same time in most Classes apart from “culture war” issues like ordaining a pastor in a same sex marriage there is very little done to actually restrict local CRCs from doing pretty much what they want. Note the article on Infant Dedication. While you might get some comments in the Banner and huffing and puffing at Synod what classis will do is probably close to nothing. A CRC church can do just about anything without much fear of getting into hot water with classis, especially if the CRC is a large one that is having some evangelistic growth. In my experience Classes and Agencies will do a lot to not get in their way.
- This brings me to my question for Larry. How is the CRC structure limiting their freedom? I’m not saying it isn’t, but I’d like to hear more specifically what you’re thinking about.
Culture of Mistrust Regarding Size
- I think he’s probably right here in some quarters (the small churches) but I think the broader than the CRC cultural bend (especially since the Seeker movement with the Boomers) has been towards affirming numerical growth. There’s almost a Job-esque mentality that if they’re growing then God is blessing them. We reserve the right to criticize Joel Osteen and others for this, but within our own circles we do esteem, and I think fairly, pastors with growing churches.
- If anything I think we see more of a rural-suburban/urban skew than a size skew.
CRC is a small church denomination:
- yup
We penalize larger churches in many ways
- I want to hear about this.
- What are some specific ways that the CRC is penalizing larger congregations?
- How would changing these help these churches grow?
Other more basic questions
- The large vs. small debate is obviously a large one. I don’t know that I’d necessarily swap places with the Evangelical Covenant for example, even though they are, in Sacramento THE (non-Pentecostal) successful denomination. Why not? Even though we’re small, I do like what the CRC is doing and having seen a bit of the EC here I’m happy where I’m at. Would I like our work to be larger? Sure. Maybe it’s small because of how and what we do. Maybe that’s saying something about me and probably also the CRC and why it’s small.
- How would having larger churches change the CRC?
- What are we learning from watching the RCA and its larger churches? In CA the RCA has been far more successful at growing churches large. But still, I don’t know that I’d trade what we have for what they’ve got. No offense. Again, maybe this is a defect in me. Who knows. pvk
Leadingchurch.com 
A very thoughtful questioning. Thank you for walking through some of these thoughts. Out of curiosity, has Larry Doornbos (part of my Classis by the way) responded at all?
He said he would respond today.
Hi Paul,
Thanks for your thoughts. As you point out there is a wider conversation to this issue that 140 characters can speak to. I like your observations in all of the areas as they bring a full picture to that conversation. So my goal here is simply to add to the conversation:
CRC Structured for Small?
Tim Keller, Larry Osborne, and Gary McIntosh have all weighed in on how churches need to be structured depending on their size. As a church grows from size to size a different governance and a different level of trust is necessary for the church to be able to move nimbly. As I read through these different understandings of church I see the CRC structured for congregations of about 150- 350. As churches grow and the staff also grows, the staff needs freedom to move easily in day-to-day operations. Decisions that in a church structured around committees that can take months can take a very short time in a larger church–if the staff is empowered to make the call rather than working through a committee system.
My experience in CRC’s is that our structure is one that slows down decisions, slows down movement, and is based on a lack of trust (how many committees plus council have to make the decision before it can go forward). Steven Covey in his book “The Speed of Trust” points out that when there is trust, organizations can move quickly and head to their goals. When we have no trust we build structures to control. Somewhere either we did not trust or we copied a model where people didn’t trust and so we have multiple layers that assure that the “right” decision is made. This multiple layer can be frustrating in a churches of 150-300, but because the system is small it can be dealt with. In a larger organization is can cause things to grind to a halt.
One last thought here. I’m not sure which of the folks looking at church structure pointed this out, but if a church wants to grow it should always be structured for one size larger than it is.
I also wonder if the the structure we have worked well in the context of an immigrant community where there were strong relationships and certain expectations about commitment to the church. Could it be that our structure reflects those roots? That, of course, is a research project.
If nothing else, the CRC seems to assume that one size does fit every congregation and the only way to build a different structure is to do a work around of the church order.
We Focus on Control instead of Freedom to Grow
As Paul rightly points out the church order has that feel of “this is how we keep people under control”. Also, there is the reality that classes don’t hold the church order over local churches…unless something goes south, then we pull it out, dust it off and it can be a very useful tool.
The struggle here is exactly what Paul is talking about. The church order is set up for control, which sets a certain culture, which can be pulled out at judicious moments to put people/churches back in line. Now, this is not an all bad thing. We want people/churches to live faithfully, to live in ways that honor Christ. The Church Order does address that. But there does seem something broken about a system designed for control, that people largely ignore (passive/aggressive?), until trouble hits. Why not create a different kind of church order that is not designed for control? Why not allow churches for instance freedom in how they structure (with in the broad confines of presbyterian governance)? Why not have the church order begin with “Go and Make disciples” rather than, “Decently and in good order”? I think the flavor of control has a tendency to flow into local churches and classes even when they allow for a lot of flexibility.
When it comes to control, I have to head back to my comments about structure. I think the control, while there is some that flows out of classes, synod, BOT and 1700/2850; the largest control simply comes in the way local congregations follow the structure set up in church order. Again, I think that is is a structure that is based on a lack of trust and is designed to slow down the work of the church rather than trusting and taking wise risks.
Culture of Mistrust Regarding Size
So this is an interesting one. Paul, you say that larger churches are held in good esteem in the denomination. I believe there is a mistrust of larger churches, especially ones that have come out of Home Mission’s church plants (that’s an add on since yesterday). Perhaps this is a looking at it from different angles. However, it would seem to me that if larger churches were held in high esteem the denomination would be asking the leaders in these congregations in for conversation, seeking to learn from them, ask them what would help them, and how the denomination could facilitate their grow, etc. (This is what happens twice a year in the AG). The group of church planters that I hang out with that lead some of the largest churches in the denomination have not experienced that or any great interest on the part of the denomination or for that matter, on the part of our Classes. Perhaps we have misinterpreted this as being held suspect, but whether that is true or not, we are not being asked in to critical conversations on a regular basis.
Let me add here, that whether it is in structure or size that there also seem to be a lack of celebration of leadership in the denomination. We are a denomination that seems to want to keep everyone equal and not let leaders lead with freedom. Again, I wonder if there is some history here, that you reference, of short-term pastorates where leadership was never expected from the pastor and even in the congregation it was constantly on the move from one council to the next (although certainly there were always certain families that were more equal than others). This lack of a history of leadership in our denomination has put us in a place where we don’t know quite what to do with leaders. Having said that, I do need to acknowledge that while this feels true of local leadership, we have had some high profile leaders over the years at the denominational level that have wielded great influence. I am not sure how to balance those two things.
CRC is a Small Church Denomination
yup
We penalize larger churches in many ways
Here is my take on that one: Perhaps the way we most blatantly penalize large churches is the denomination pension system. Larger churches pay not for their pastor, but by the size of the congregation. For our congregation this means paying for around 3 pastor’s pensions. We, of course, also have to pay for our second pastor’s pension. These dollars which are required, not optional, mean fewer dollars for other ministry areas.
I think we penalize larger churches as well, in representation at classes and synods. While they have a large number of members, they have the same voice as others in these venues. We run, in U.S. terms, a Senate in our system, not a House of Representatives. While this may seem a small thing, the reality is that larger churches often have different concerns than smaller churches and this system pushes toward a small church agenda at these gatherings (which, of course, is an agenda that flows from the church order in many cases, which is formed for smaller churches–just kidding here, sort of).
In light of the above, here is one of the things that I have found interesting in working with multiple churches as a lead pastor, with CTS, CRHM, and working with the RCA; many small churches and their leaders are startled at how large churches work and what they need to operate. The assumption is that a large church is the same as a small church, only bigger. Because large and small are the same, the agenda is the same.
One last thought here. I think the CRC penalizes large churches in a subtle way and unintentionally, namely, we focus our efforts on small churches. Small churches can get grants from denominational sources that large churches can’t, small churches can ask for a reduction in ministry shares, large churches can’t (not that large churches don’t take their own deductions anyway), programming is designed for small (and somewhat stable) churches–for instance, Faith Alive Materials assume that you will pretty much have the same number of kids each week, so rather than being an online resource you can by a license for, you have to buy all the materials. Not only do we focus our efforts on small churches, our imagination is centered there as well. We wonder about small churches, think about small churches, design things for small churches. Perhaps that makes sense since we are a denomination of small churches, but for larger churches the response can be: let the denomination focus there, we will do what we do and largely do our own thing. This is a loss for the denomination, for the small churches, and the large ones that could learn from each other.
Other more basic questions
So do we want larger churches?
Yes and no. We want all sizes of churches that are seeing people come to faith, are raising kids in the faith, are helping people to be passionate followers of Jesus. Churches of all sizes can so this work. But, we are also faced with the reality that small churches are not where most people in our society end up. So it would be great if we could grow more churches that would break this 400 barrier and reach that 90%.
More importantly, however, is the question of outreach. The denomination has had between 2000-3000 conversations a year for the last 20 years of so. At the same time we see reversions at about that same level. One wonders three things in this light: 1. What would happen if together we committed to have each congregation see conversation growth and held ourselves accountable to this (and have this be the conversation at classes meetings)? 2. What would happen if congregations focused serious attention on reversions, creating strong discipleship pathways and bringing people though those pathways whether they are new to the faith or been around for decades (and have this be the conversation at classes meetings)? 3. What would happen if we together we committed to planting 35 new churches each year as a community of CRCs? We need to plant 30 churches just to stay even in terms of church closures and lost members. And this would be the third thing on the agenda of classis?
Pingback: Pastor Pete's Blog as STM @ Nobleford
love this conversation. thanks, gentlemen. proud to be in a denomination that is praying and thinking critically about these issues which are so central to our mission as disciples of Jesus. It is exciting to be in the middle – to be learning from you and to be mentoring the 20somethings who are in seminary, wondering where God will lead us in the CRC in decades to come.
First, let me highlight that I am largely in agreement with Larry’s concerns about the structures of the CRCNA not favoring large churches. Thanks for writing, Larry.
But there is one point that I believe needs to be corrected, that the pension formula blatantly penalizes large churches. I fully understand why it feels that way, but the funding of the Ministers Pension Plan is not widely or well understood. I am no longer one of the plan trustees, but I was when the current funding levels were set, and I can tell you that few things caused us more discussion.
There are two funding streams, and a church will pay the one that costs the most. The assessment is $7704 per minister or $37.20 per active adult member in the U.S. The total amount needed remains constant, but these two figures can be adjusted in inverse proportion. If the per minister assessment is reduced the per member assessment has to adjust upwards, and the way around.
I recently accepted the challenge of trying to help one of our older, dying churches try to turn things around as my last call before retirement. The church has 61 active adult members, and they have to pay $126.30 per member to cover my pension, or more than three times the assessment per member at Larry’s church. They would love to see the minister assessment lower and the per member higher, so Larry’s church would pay even more. On the other hand, Larry’s church would love to cut their assessment, but to do so would force the per minister assessment way up, so our members and those at many smaller churches would have to raise two or three hundred each so I could have a pension.
Finally, Larry notes that they must pay the per minister assessment for a second pastor, on top of the per member assessment, and that is correct. But for a church his size that is less $10 per member. They could add two additional pastor and still pay less than half per member what the small church member does for one pastor.
There is no perfect answer, and no perfect formula, but the pension trustees have done their best to provide a pension at a cost that is affordable, in some cases barely, for our smaller churches without unduly burdening our larger churches. If we went to a straight per member assessment across the board the rate would be much higher and really would penalize the large churches. If we went to a straight per minister assessment that rate would be much higher and a significant portion of the ministers in our smaller churches would be forced out of the system and receive no pension at all. Neither of those options is particularly palatable.
Fascinating conversation! I serve what would be considered a medium sized church, I guess. We are about 325-350 in attendance each week.
What constitutes a large church? My impression, though I can’t back it up with data, is that there are a number of large churches (1000ish) that live and operate at the center of denominational life–many located around West Michigan. Many have a long CRC history. There are a few other large churches (1000-4000ish–probably not in West Michigan, and with a very short history) that operate somewhat outside denominational influence. They may or may not participate in denominational or classical ministries. But if they do, that is not the heart and soul of their existence. They certainly do not serve as flagship congregations to the denomination as we might see in a model such as WCA, Wooddale, Redeemer Pres. They might be flagship congregations to a local or regional church planting movement, but not in denominational affairs.
Perhaps our emphasis on control pushes them away. They operate independently in so many ways (structure and governance to name one), and then we start to see other stuff like infant dedications. By the way, infant dedications in CRC churches is a fascinating thing to notice. That can only happen in a place where there is significant Christian influence for them. We get ZERO requests for infant dedications (we wouldn’t do them if we got them) where I serve (suburban sacramento). I think it’s because few people have the cultural awareness/assumption that such an ceremony is possible/worthwhile. We do get requests for what I might call the “drive through” infant baptisms–many from people with Lutheran or RCC backgrounds. But back to the point, if the denomination were to lead not with control by way of church order, but with vision for discipleship and gospel/reformed identity, I think that less churches would desire to leave reformed ideas behind (infant baptism). We could be more reformed, enthusiastically so, and more missional at the same time.
Those are two great observations Doug. Thanks.
Your reply prompted me to leave a comment on the “Infant Dedication” page http://www.thebanner.org/news/2014/05/infant-dedication-issue-raised-in-british-columbia because we backed into the “size” question via the mission question. If 90% of worshippers attend large churches is it also true (probably) that these 10% of churches are also doing most of the evangelism? Is size a tool for helping transition people from not-Christian to self-conscious self-identified followers of Jesus? I’m sure Rainer or someone has some data out there. Lurking in this conversation will also be the question of the nature of discipleship in large vs. small.
Back to the Infant Dedication data point though. There is the assumption (and implicit criticism), founded or not, that larger churches grow by re-energizing dormant evangelicals or attracting evangelical religious consumers. The question then becomes a mission one. It’s attractive on a variety of levels to be large rather than small but a church might ask itself what is it’s primary goal or priorities.
Churches will take a stand against various kinds of “sinners” and refuse to enfold them, gay couples being the most publicized example today. It seems churches are pretty complicit in religious consumerism. This to me would seem like one of those soft sins that it is convenient to forget for our own egos, greed and conveniences. I think it probably has a place in this conversation too.
Pingback: How Does Size Matter: CRC Edition Follow Up Pt. 2 | Leadingchurch.com
The CRC has many structure-related difficulties (as do many CRC congregations), but it’s often important to distinguish between difficulties which constitute real problems and those which are merely symptoms of other, usually deeper, problems.
In my experience, the kinds of structural issues present in many CRC settings usually prove to be simply symptoms that reflect much deeper problems. Since these deeper problems often prove to be elusive and difficult to fix, there is a powerful tendency to ignore these problems and attempt to fix these symptoms instead. Like the guy on his hands and knees looking for his contact lens under the streetlight (he’d actually lost his contact in his backyard that evening, but the light was better out by the street).
Ultimately the structure of an organization ultimately boils down to that group’s way of determining WHO should be sitting around which table to talk about which questions. Sometimes it can seem like a church’s structure emerges randomly but there is usually a larger collective logic behind the system. An organization’s structure can often tell a lot about its fears. Churches or denominations that fear genuine dialogue usually end up developing complicated leadership structures that ensure that people from one particular interest group (committee, etc.) don’t get the opportunity to openly struggle with people from another interest group (or committee, etc.). Churches or denominations that fear decision-making often end up developing ambiguous leadership structures that may feature endless discussions with a great number of people that somehow rarely reach the point of forming specific action plans.
It can be very helpful to understand the history behind an organization’s structure. Our denominational identity was formed as an immigrant church, surrounded on all sides by the unfamiliar and confusing. In the beginning, our church order was all about US and THEM; it needed to define us and protect us from those around us. Then, steadily, more and more of “them” started to become “us”. Over the decades we started to experience a new problem: the very structures that had protected us from “them” seemed to be protecting us from “us”. When a church family officially ostracizes those who seek to innovate (e.g. English services, American music, etc.) is that a good or a bad thing?
When the structures of a church or denomination start to constrict the work of God among its members, it can be tempting to try to simply fix those structures. And to be fair, sometimes the changes need to begin at that point. But structural adjustments are very difficult with the corresponding relational changes. Appointing a few dissenting voices to a committee or team might change a few votes, but the culture of the change won’t begin to change until the leadership discovers that the people behind those voices need to be embraced and listened to. Changing the structure may bring minority voices to the table, but it’s not until the minority voices can be embraced as essential voices (whether or not their proposals are ever adopted) that genuine change can begin. A poorly conceived structure will inhibit unity, but congregational unity can’t begin to grow until we can agree WHY these minority-voice people need to be at the table and WHAT we should be discussing with them.
Thanks Ron, that’s very helpful.
Pingback: The Rise of the Sy-board: Review of the CRC Structure Conversation | Leadingchurch.com
Pingback: Is CRC Culture Keeping Us from Being Impactful in North American Christianity? | Leadingchurch.com
Pingback: CRC Synod 2014 Links | Leadingchurch.com
Pingback: Why the CRCNA Should Consider Church Planting as Vital for its Strategic Development of Future Leaders | Leadingchurch.com