11 signs of a family-run church

[RZehr]

So if house churches aren’t the answer today, and we promote the value of large families, and are against, generally, the concept of mega-churches, what’s the answer? Purposely spreading out for the sake of dilution? Or, is it a symptom of a lack of proper adherence to the Great Commission?

[Ken]

So if house churches aren’t the answer today, and we promote the value of large families, and are against, generally, the concept of mega-churches, what’s the answer? Purposely spreading out for the sake of dilution? Or, is it a symptom of a lack of proper adherence to the Great Commission?

I think there is a difference between an ordinary large church and a "mega-church." Until you get to the level of basketball gyms, theaters, million dollar sound systems, 25 assistant pastors, and your own TV channel you aren't really a "mega-church"

And I don't think dispersion is necessary if you grow too big. Larger denominations have no problem with multiple churches in the same area. For example, there are literally about 100 Baptist churches in the greater Waco area: https://wacobaptists.org/churches/

[Ernie]

I think the 11 signs have parallels in an ethnic run church.

Are you thinking of a mission church being operated by an ethnicity or culture different from the one it is serving?

I suppose that if you are planting a church in a particular ethic group that it is not a problem. But when there are multiple ethnicities in the same area, and a church is only comprised of the children and grandchildren of the church planters, then it is going to be hard for anybody from a different ethnicity to penetrate the church culture.

[MaxPC]

So if house churches aren’t the answer today, and we promote the value of large families, and are against, generally, the concept of mega-churches, what’s the answer? Purposely spreading out for the sake of dilution? Or, is it a symptom of a lack of proper adherence to the Great Commission?

It is my thinking that it may depend on the individual church community. Most certainly mega-churches and giga-churches have many problems for developing discipleship in the members. Even those churches with 800 families struggle with the impersonal programs and lack of mentorship.

The Hutterites seem to have an effective community but then they too, have had problems as all human communities do.

Church hopping looking for the “perfect church” is not the answer either. At the end of the day there is no perfect church community in my experiences. We can pray for God to lead us to the fellowship where we will continue our growth in discipleship. That is the only answer.

[Ernie]

My understanding is that smallish house churches were not uncommon in old times. Without bringing my preference on that topic, it seems to me that those would have inherently been family dominated. If accurate, then it seems like it would be easier, not harder, to have a church solution than a house church solution.

I'm not sure what "old times" you are referring to. In the Protestant world, the pastor has historically run the church and the influential members in the congregation hired him, making it easy for families to be in charge.
Anabaptists have historically advocated for plural leadership. So no matter whose home they met in, the congregation chose the leadership.

House churches run in modern times tend to be dominated by one or two families, too. Woe be unto the person who is not best friends with one of these families.

Yes, this tends to be a dominant theme in house churches. But I don't think this should keep us from going back to the blueprint and offering a NT alternative.

So if house churches aren’t the answer today, and we promote the value of large families, and are against, generally, the concept of mega-churches, what’s the answer? Purposely spreading out for the sake of dilution? Or, is it a symptom of a lack of proper adherence to the Great Commission?

Spreading out the salt, light, manure pile (whichever metaphor you prefer) is always good IMO. Even if few or none from the local demographic join the church, people living godly lives does influence and impact some neighbors.

Of course I am always a proponent of congregations going through the kind of metamorphosis that will allow them to become a cross section of the local population but if a congregation is not up to that, spreading out followers of Jesus does have some value.

[PetrChelcicky]

I read this here just after reading the "single parent" topic about welfare/redistribution.
Redistribution within the family is quite normal (even not without its own problems). Redistribution in a state is a problem. There is a certain lack of unities of redistribution between the family and the state.
Of course, churches were sometimes such an unity "in the middle between" family and state level. This was never free from problems of its own, but it filled a gap.
Nowadays, at least here in Germany, the function of churches is somewhat different. The state gives the money to the persons in need and then they look for a service offering the support needed which may or may not be a church office/agency. So the churches are mostly providers and competitors at a welfare market. (They still have some niches where the state doesn't deliver, from reasons.)

[Ken]

My understanding is that smallish house churches were not uncommon in old times. Without bringing my preference on that topic, it seems to me that those would have inherently been family dominated. If accurate, then it seems like it would be easier, not harder, to have a church solution than a house church solution.

I'm not sure what "old times" you are referring to. In the Protestant world, the pastor has historically run the church and the influential members in the congregation hired him, making it easy for families to be in charge.
Anabaptists have historically advocated for plural leadership. So no matter whose home they met in, the congregation chose the leadership.

House churches run in modern times tend to be dominated by one or two families, too. Woe be unto the person who is not best friends with one of these families.

Yes, this tends to be a dominant theme in house churches. But I don't think this should keep us from going back to the blueprint and offering a NT alternative.

So if house churches aren’t the answer today, and we promote the value of large families, and are against, generally, the concept of mega-churches, what’s the answer? Purposely spreading out for the sake of dilution? Or, is it a symptom of a lack of proper adherence to the Great Commission?

Spreading out the salt, light, manure pile (whichever metaphor you prefer) is always good IMO. Even if few or none from the local demographic join the church, people living godly lives does influence and impact some neighbors.

Of course I am always a proponent of congregations going through the kind of metamorphosis that will allow them to become a cross section of the local population but if a congregation is not up to that, spreading out followers of Jesus does have some value.

When individual churches of most denominations like Baptist or Catholic get too large to be manageable, they usually just build another church down the road or across town. They don't feel the need to pack up a bunch of families and send them away.

[steve-in-kville]

While technically the Bishop and priests may be the leadership, one or two families who like to be in control of the gossip (information brokers) can be detrimental to the mission of the church and that parish in particular.

Information brokers. Now that made me laugh

[steve-in-kville]

I attended a church that had a few families that were very active in many parts of the church. I didn’t see any signs that they were ‘running’ the church but I can see how quickly that could change if the family was a little power hungry.

The one situation was said family had managed to get a few men ordained. And then ordinations after that were borderline shady as people's nominations magically went missing.

[MaxPC]

While technically the Bishop and priests may be the leadership, one or two families who like to be in control of the gossip (information brokers) can be detrimental to the mission of the church and that parish in particular.

Information brokers. Now that made me laugh

Funny but often not funny to those terrorized by the gossips. Small towns and small parishes have their own problems.