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.
