Every nation, empire, kingdom, racial grouping that has been the most powerful in their time considers itself the best there has ever been, is and will be. As a corollary, its citizens, on top of the world, feel themselves to have relevance and rights that are above the rest of the world. More often than not it is fairly easy to keep to such assumptions as there are perks that come with being on top of the world. These perks include higher standards of living, easier traveling, quicker access to innovation, etc.
A roman citizen could cross the known world secure in the knowledge that his citizenship alone would facilitate all manner of access. An Inca king could communicate with his vast empire much faster and at a greater distance than a Roman emperor as the Inca roads infrastructure was better and more extensive than the Roman empire's. A Spaniard of means in the 1500's could travel to a brand new world the kingdom to which he was a subject ruled. A new world so vast that it's smallest province was nearly twice as big as Spain itself! A British gentleman could boast of the sun never setting on England during its heyday, etc. Each of these and many others, Egyptians, Indians, Chinese, Maya, Aztec, thought themselves the best there has ever been.
We too now think ourselves the best there has ever been, though we have only existed for little more than 200 years! Our entire existence, from official birth to now, is less than half as long as the Spanish empire spent as absolute ruler of most of America, huge swathes of South East Asia, and some of Africa! All of which came after the Spanish defeated a powerful Muslim empire back into Africa after nearly 800 years of fighting! The "decline" of the Roman empire alone took about 100 years longer than we have existed.
Some may say the world has not seen the advances it has through our "tenure" at any other time in History. Then again, that brings us back to the opening of this blog, all influential cultures have felt themselves to be better than anything that has ever existed. I would argue that industrial revolution England would have more than enough merit to dispute our claim as the most diverse and fastest innovators. Then again, comparing the best ever is an exercise in near futility as there will be as many varying opinions as there would be options. Were the Romans better than the Greek in their heyday? Was Egypt better than Mesopotamia? What about China and their technological advances? The Mayan were hundreds of years ahead in Mathematics and agriculture than their invaders who were hundreds of years ahead in the art of war. The Inca road network was so superior to the Roman that an Inca King could get news to his subjects 1000 miles away twice as fast as a Roman emperor could, so on and so fort.
I have given the previous thoughts as a way to provide some context for what I think is at the core of the title sentence in this blog. Many in our churches know with absolute certainty that there has never been any culture, country, as good as the United States. So it follows that our understanding of church must be the most clear and best there has been. We love anything with, best, greatest ever, biggest, most important, most influential, etc. before its name. So when we think of a good church our thoughts often follow this criteria, the biggest, best known churches must be the best, most influential, etc. churches.
At my church we get a fair amount of visitors, probably because our building is big and very visible. But, most of these visitors, who are looking for a church, never come back. The cynic in me attributes that to the fact that our church looks like a church from the inside. Our chancel/altar does not look like the stage of a concert venue. We do not have a full band with sound plastic/glass separators for the drum set so that the drummer can play as loud as he/she wants without overpowering the rest of the band or the carefully mixed sound coming from the state of the art sound system. Our lighting system does not allow us to set different "ambiances" depending on where we are in the service, it consists entirely of on/off switches. When I tell a story during my sermon there are no high definition images floating above me that drive my point with surround sound, I have to make due with words and expression. But that is just the cynic in me, though I think these things are symptoms of our bigger is better mentality. I think all these visitors do not stay because they are not worshiping with hundreds of other people and therefore there must be something wrong with this church. I suppose another difficult part of our church is that it calls us to follow Christ as though Christ was actually in the lead which makes it difficult to be business oriented enough to become "successful."
Of course not all massive, mega churches are bad but how many of them are actually church for the thousands who come? So, is bigger really better? Should we have 5 Mega churches one-upping each other close to the highway out of the city for parking ease? Or should we have 50 smaller ones throughout the neighborhoods, living in the towns, being relevant locally and just as relevant globally through their affiliations with the greater body of Christ?
Of course smaller churches have a host of problems. It is very difficult to hide in small churches. Plus the likelihood of being asked to do something for someone else is exponentially bigger in smaller churches. Whereas in the bigger, mega, kind of church we are more likely to be asked to chose between fun options to "better" ourselves. Sure you can drive to the city and hand out sandwiches, or fly to Guatemala for a week, of which at least two days will be sight seeing and "gift shopping".
Small churches also need their members to give in more substantial ways than their much bigger cousins. Sure financial offerings from individuals matter more in the small church but time, dedication, and leadership are things that matter most. In a small church someone has to volunteer to care for the children during the service. Someone has to head outreach, or discipleship, worship, etc. A small church will probably not be able to hire an extensive staff so that those attending can concentrate only on being fully involved in the feel good service.
A small church is challenging because it puts the faithful close to the needs. It places the Christian in places where Christ would be more likely to visit. Luke 14:12-14.
A small church is challenging because it lives by faith. 1 Cor. 5:1-10 Many people are not comfortable at a church that lives with the reality that it could not make it. But there is freedom in walking by faith. A church that does not have an overabundance that allows for state of the art children program stage does not spend much time looking at theater lighting bids. That church is instead more free to spend time thinking about who is visiting the shut-ins. The small church will not hire a minister of visitation, it will have to ask its members to follow Christ into yet another undesirable place.
A small church in the neighborhood is challenging because the rif-raf and the undesirables tend to knock on its doors. Luke 15:1-7. When we live out our walk with Jesus are we living that walk or are we driving in once a week with food and clothes?
Smaller neighborhood churches are tough and demanding so most people are abandoning them for greener pastures. It is in times like this that I am reminded how our "bigger is better" culture has made us forget that Jesus, in addition to defeating death in a triumphant and deserving of a fancy car way also said, pick up your cross and follow me.
