Best Size is a perpetual challenge for most classes.
Part of the size dilemma is that there are many size aspect challenges all at once:
- Geographical size: how does travel time and cost impact frequency of physical meetings?
- Financial Resources: Does the group have enough money to conduct operations and sustain programs? Some classes have only one or two churches that financially support the entire classical program. This isn’t ideal.
- Right Size for Deliberation? You want a group large enough to offer some diversity for theological and cultural deliberation. You want it small enough to have a productive discussion
- Right Size for Leadership Resources? Pastors have different gift and skill mixes. You want a group large enough to have good diversity among pastors
Classes are going to engage the size challenge on a case by case basis.
In the west we have two classes that struggle with possibly being too small: Classis Yellowstone and Classis Arizona. Geography in the Western USA is a large consideration. If you have a geographically large classis that doesn’t have a lot of money travel and lodging costs can be a real challenge. Merging with another larger classis accentuates the challenges of that classis.
My classis, Central California has toyed with regionalizing our own classis into sub-classes. We did this for a while because our classis has a lot of churches and significant geography.
- We wanted to conduct examinations at sub-classis meetings but they usually didn’t hit the 50% requirement for a Classis contracta so now we usually just do a contracta
- We have implicit sub-classis structure in our LEAD teams. These are small groups made up of pastors and/or local church staff that meet for Leadership training, mutual Encouragement, Accountability and Dreaming.
- We didn’t divide the classis because some of the sub-classical groups had significantly more financial resources which currently fund the entire classical program. If we had divided classis up one part would be flush with resources and the other part under-resourced.
Meta-Classical Regional Structures
One way to compensate for the size challenge is to develop meta-classical, multi-classical or regional partnerships or structures to sustain programs that are the right size to engage classes that are struggling with the size question. These structures and partnerships aren’t universal in terms of the CRC. Some classes need them and others do not.
- The Eastern Home Missions Board has long served the classes of the East Coast in the US. Multiple classes partner to engage in missions.
- CRHM Regional Teams have been another level of agency and classical collaboration for the benefit of multiple classes.
- The Chicago Land classes share Peter Kelder. CRHM Regional teams facilitated staff sharing. Multiple classes which in this case shared reasonable close geography were able to address the staff challenge by sharing a staffer with CRHM.
- Regional Safe Church Teams. In some cases a Safe Church team might service multiple classes
- Kingdom Enterprise Zone: This CRC/RCA church multiplication effort usually brings multiple classes together to collaborate on church multiplication (church planting).
It may make sense in some cases to keep some classes small and develop a multiple classis partnership to engage some challenges. In other cases it might be better for classes to merge and then have sub-classes within it. This will be an ongoing work in progress in nearly every case. The size challenge will always be with classis.
Leadingchurch.com 
Pingback: The Ideal Classis Series | Leadingchurch.com
Part of the size challenge is figuring out right structures. In talking with RCA folks via KEZ project I can see that their experience with regional synods is uneven. Some regional synods are vital and helpful, others not so much. A lot depends on staffing, resourcing and leadership, as always. At this point my opinion is that it’s probably best for us to toy with more ad hoc regional structures rather than tinker with our three tiered system. Keep experimenting with regional teams, consider regional meetings for particular purposes like selecting regional delegates to synodical and agency boards, etc.
We will probably have to experiment our way into change rather than brainstorming or envisioning.
This is another area that the KEZ project is really paying off. Because the RCA is so similar to us on many levels we can learn from their experimentation. We can play in some of their ponds, observe how their stuff is functioning, etc.
When I think about some of how we need to do multiple things especially around developing and supporting local church leaders, key is creating the right tables for the right conversations. Our LEAD team/cluster has been a part of this for our classis. The LEAD teams/clusters for us help us bring the classis down to the city level. How do those tables then relate to the classically sized table? Think of cluster as city sized, classis as state/province sized. How do those tables/conversations need to connect and scale? How does classical leadership facilitate this dynamic? We need to get the time and value equations right for these. How does new technology figure into the mix? (social media, video calling, blogging, etc.).
The cluster conversations/relationships are going to be the laboratory that cooks up the “theological vision” aspect for this for our churches. It will be there that resources will be shared, theology developed, language honed, etc.
Is your LEAD team the same as a Cluster like those CRHM has been promoting (and partially funding I believe)? If not, what is the difference. How long have you been part of one? What are some dangers to be careful of, as well as the pros?
Our cluster grew more organically. Kevin Adams and I got here first. Soon after Tim Blackmon, Chuck Dillender and Ron Vanderwell, and then others. The cluster has been a lot of things and done some different things. What has been most consistent has been the practice of getting together and liking it.
There was a similar informal cluster in the Bay Area with Larry Fryling and Jerry Dykstra that grew into what is affectionately called “the Baptists”. Bay Area Pastors In Spiritual Training”. If the name sounds odd you just have to understand Larry’s sense of humor.
In the mid-00s the Regional Team came around with the LEAD team idea. We decided that besides being a cluster we’d be a LEAD team too. The Baptists did a similar thing. CRHM West Coast regional team started sending up books, mostly church growth books. Blackmon realized he could “return” them to Borders for cash. We told them they could keep the books. We usually discussed books that were identified within the group first.
That tiny cultural artifact is telling. Authority emerges from relationships and face to face credibility.
The West Coast Team’s support and organizational push helped develop more LEAD teams where other organic groups like our cluster and the Baptists weren’t really functioning, or there were old INTERNOS groups that were more drowsy.
I recently did a little survey to see if we could use our LEAD teams to increase KEZ/RCA collaboration. RCA collaboration was already happening in some spots and we encouraged it in others. Results are spotty but promising so far.
Expected dynamics are happening. Older groups with stronger culture and identity are more resistant to change, newer groups are more eager to expand and innovate.
While the groups were not an official part of the program of institutional classis, they have become a vital element of our organic classis. Right now I consider them essential for the health and future of our classis.
This isn’t to say they are without challenges. We recently accepted a group of Korean congregations from Pacific Hanmi. they are all in the Bay area, have in a way their own LEAD team among themselves already, but they also need to integrate into Classis and so into the BAPTIST group too. That group is getting very large now and so are experiencing their own size issues.
The Sacramento cluster hasn’t really figured out how to relate to the RCA yet. The culture and dynamics are very different.
These groups have the complexity of small groups, personality, size, leadership, etc. Starting them requires the same skill set except that if you’ve got a leader or church who doesn’t want to play it causes tension in classis and the community.
So like everything else it requires work but in my opinion these groups do some of the most vital work of classis even if it isn’t recognized as “classis” by some because it doesn’t fit the traditional image of 30 to 70 pastors or elders in a church for a day.
Hope that helps Mike. I’ll follow up if you have more questions.
I remember being at one of your cluster meetings with you, Kevin and Ron I believe. If I remember correctly: you saw yourselves as so strongly connected that you covenanted to only add a sr. staff individual if the whole cluster signed off on that person being a beneficial fit. Or at least that is the story I have told others since. Is that correct, or is my memory misguiding me? If I understood it correctly, did you keep working with that covenant and if not, why not?
We didn’t have any official power as a cluster but if they didn’t mesh with the group it probably wouldn’t work. It wasn’t like we were awash in potential church planters either. It is also connected with our 2 year residency requirement. You’re probably going to have to work with the planter in your church for a couple of years, you’d better be able to work with them. If someone imagines we’ve been doing a lot of picking and choosing it really hasn’t worked like that. It starts with recruitment and trust. If one of us recruits someone or meets someone and says “I think this person would be a great fit in the group” we trust that person’s judgment.
It comes down to understanding that we work together as a team. If someone can’t really thrive in this team here then they should probably look elsewhere. When we started there wasn’t near as much competition to attract church planters as there is now. If someone doesn’t really fit there are many other good places to plant a church, or other groups to plant with.
Thank you once again Paul for blessing us with some solid out-of-de-Kolony-box thinking about a untapped potential source of much health in the CRC–the Classis.
Related to this post, here is one historical description.
The fourth Leadership Development Network in the CRC–The Texas LDN–began the summer of 2000. Since the CRCs of Texas were at that time spread across three classes (now 4 classes because of a large number of churches in Classis Hanmi that have popped up in Texas). The Texas LDN had two locations–one in Houston, TX and the other in El Paso. It drew participants from most every Texas CRC. All three classis put money into the Texas LDN. In June of each year the Texas LDN provided a two day retreat in the center of the state which provided a way for participants, their mentors and spouses from the CRCs across Texas to get to know each other better. 2003-2004 The Texas LDN added a third site in Austin, TX.
Mid year 2004 the Texas LDN morphed into something else for a variety of reasons–one being that while the low hanging fruit of people wanting this kind of experience was large when the LDN began, after that first large crop the numbers of those stepping up to participate was not as great, making the Texas LDN in its structure not sustainable long term.
I believe that speaks a bit to your caution re. classis being too small. Over the years now and then one or another person has raised the vision for a Classis Texas. As you point out and we see in the two examples you provide, it can be very hard to run a small classis, especially when no part of the classis is a CRC kolony with a large and stable First CRC, etc.
A small Classis can also have a similar difficulty that small churches can experience. If a strong personality comes in and desires to flex his or her muscles, the small org. can be so happy to see someone stepping up with energy, passion and a volunteering spirit that the org. allows that person to over-function in a way that ultimately is very unhealthy for the org (in this case being the classis).
That is a historical example of three classis cooperating on one project (I believe the Evangelism Training Program in Southern California is another example of more than one classis providing something together) and two reasons why we should be careful that classis are not too small.
I think we have more vibrant pilot initiatives going on than we know. Your advice about doing creative experimentation rather than going for change in our structure seems right on to me. There are many ways we can think about regional gatherings designed to address particular needs, and still build into our three-tier framework, I believe. Thanks Paul and Mike for this dialog which I hope continues with vigor!
I think you’re right Karl. Sharing these stories and getting them written down on the web is helpful for figuring out what’s going on. We might discover that classis is becoming the level where we see the most innovation and creativity, this often follows being the space in which we have the most need.
Oh boy. Now I’m getting excited and the hair on the back of my neck is standing up. So many things are now buzzing in my head, but I’ll say just one thing now. that is that as you know, there’s a “task force” working under Pastor Church Relations to see how to strengthen classis leaders to be able to help churches avoid the Art 17 road. One of the things we will be doing soon is harvesting some of the “promising practices” for classes that we are hearing about, and getting those documented and shared.
Late 2012 Classis Central Plains voted to spend some of their Classical Home Missions funds to contract part of my time as a “Classis Consultant/Coach in Health/Vision.” This was an out-of-the-box local attempt to stem the 10% avg. membership decline that had been happening the previous 7 years.
It has gone swimmingly well. They repeated it in 2014,upping the % of time, and it looks like the recommendation will be to repeat in 2015. I travel 950 miles one way each time I visit the classis. It will be 10 times in 2014. I spend normally 4-7 days there each trip, with my schedule open for any congregation that wants to use my time. What I do with each church depends on their situation, however it seems that some exercises are desired by several of the congregations. Possibly one of the reasons it is working well is that I live far enough away to be “an expert.”
It has led me to wonder if someone could be hired by their classis to do this in their own classis. It would cut down on the travel costs but also there may be less confidence and trust with the coach being too close to home. But what if some did this for a neighboring classis? Might that cut own on some travel expenses, yet it be someone far enough away to be an “expert?”
The CRCNA “Faith Formation Next Step Coaches” experiment gets at that some as well.
You’re reading my mind on some of the posts I plan to write. Classis is NOT going to be able to be very useful to their local churches without doing some staffing, giving gifted leaders the opportunity to do work, focus, grow skills and expertise in helping local churches reverse their trends. I believe the classical platform is far better than the synodical one for this kind of work for some of the reasons you’ve noted.
The work has to have “theological vision” as Keller describes in “Center Church”. There needs to be practical help, cultural help, and theological help and it will need to be applied and adapted for each local setting. Classis can do this but it has to decide to do this.
Part of what we’re fighting is our tradition of keeping classis very lean. That was a responsible strategy when the CRC was homogeneous and the “theological vision” was essentially set. CRC pastors plugged in to similar churches as they stayed 4 to 6 years. Classis had to examine candidates, process credentials and discipline cases, discuss regional and theological concerns.
Today pastors themselves have to retool to be able to do basic evangelism in their context and then to lead their members to do the same. The tools 20 years ago are already outdated. The discipleship process is far longer and more demanding. The denomination can take a part, but the application to the local church will happen best through classis or a region.
now I’m writing my blog in the comment section. 🙂 pvk
Yes, yes and yes. Actually I am not reading your mind, but your first post about Classis suggested the power of classis spending some money to hire people part-time for some critical tasks (beyond the clerk). I think you are on to something big there (maybe that is because I am living that right now).
There may come a rub if that means Classes saying then they need to send less to the CRCNA–such as churches that contribute 100% of classis ministry shares and 50 or another % of denominational ministry shares.
I’m convinced that if classes see the value of retaining some coaches (as well as other resource folk), finding the money need not be a zero sum game. Increased health and increased resources will be a virtuous spiral. I think the evidence is becoming pretty clear that wise staffing decisions at classis will pay off! Our challenge will be to keep classis from becoming a bureacracy, I think.
The political dilemma? Each classis sends two representatives to Synod no matter the size of the classis membership. How does this situation and the solution differ from the situation and solution of the “minority representation” situation?
George Washington hated the concept of political parties in the USA. Pragmatically, doesn’t the existence of two “Korean” classis constitute a voting bloc?
Is classis the plural of classis?