Christian Schwarz, in Natural Church Development (NCD), gives us eight "quality characteristics:"

A proprietary NCD survey scores a church on each of the eight quality characteristics.  The church takes its weakest point and tasks a church health team to work on it.  NCD uses the the analogy of a barrel, which can only hold as much as the shortest stave will allow.  To increase the capacity of the barrel, the shortest stave has to be lengthened.  Because the eight characteristics are part of an interrelated system, improving one element tends to improve others also.  Data collected in NCD indicates with some certainty that when scores on all the characteristic reach a certain point, a church will be growing.

Callahan also gives us eight characteristics--specific to a small, strong congregation.  The table below rearranges Schwarz's quality characteristics to correspond to Callahan's where there is some measure of similarity.

Callahan Schwarz -mission & service -need-oriented evangelism -compassion & shepherding -loving relationahips -community & belonging -holistic small groups -self-reliance & self sufficiency worship & hope -inspiring worship service -team, leaders, & congregation -empowering leadership -just enough space and facilities -giving and generosity -gift-oriented ministry -passionate spirituality -functional structures

Callahan doesn't provide a survey, but suggests in his book that small congregations think, pray, review the explanations of the eight qualities, discover the wisdom of friends and family, gather in an enjoyable planning session, and rank each quality on a scale of 1-10, seeing which ones are the strongest.  Then he suggests that the congregation look ahead 3 years and develop practical ways to expand two of its strengths and then add one or two "new strengths."  The goal of the process is to deliver five of the eight characteristics well.

Which list do we use?  What do we focus on first--expanding our strengths or improving on our weaknesses?  For a small church, I find myself leaning toward Callahan for three reasons.  First, a small church has unique characteristics, and I like the way Callahan captures the "best practices" of ministry in that setting.  Overall, the eight characteristics are consistent with missional thinking and practice in a small church context.  I appreciate the focus not on getting large but on getting strong and watching what the Lord does with a strong congregation.  Second, Callahan's approach involves the whole church in the process, which is a good fit for the small church environment.  NCD utilizes smaller groupings of the membership to do the survey and the improvements. Third, I resonate with Callahan when he says, "When we begin with our weaknesses, we are in the weakest position to deal with our weaknesses.  When we begin with our strengths and expand one or two of them, we are now in the strongest position to deal with our weaknesses" (p. 303).  Working with our strengths is consistent with the principle of God gifting his people for what he has called them to do.  When a church determines its "one, excellent mission" (Chapter 2), it makes sense that the mission will be in line with a church's strengths, not its weaknesses.

That being said, the NCD process can still benefit small churches.  But, after looking at them both, I have a preference for Callahan's approach for that setting.

What do you think - focus on strengths or on weaknesses?

Have any of you worked with NCD in a small church context?  How did it go / how is it going?

Are any of you going to try Callahan's process of claiming, expanding, and adding strengths?

The key is the attitude we have toward our resources.  Are we approaching them with a hording, conserving, survival mentality or with a spirit of generosity? Are we shaping our mission according to our budget or our budget according to our mission?  "Small, strong congregations focus on misson, giving development, and budget--in that order.  Small, dying congregations focus on budget, giving development, and mission, in that order" (pp. 284-285).

This material would have promoted some healthy discussions among the leadership of the small church I pastored.  We did fairly well at annual giving budgeting accordingly.  I can't say that mission drove our budget.  We were in rented facilities, and we didn't do too badly giving over and above toward a building fund, even though there were no blueprints.  I likened it to a family setting aside money for a downpayment on their first home, even though they didn't know exactly when or where they would buy.  As I read Callahan, I wonder if we put a future building too high on our priority list.  The people of the little church were generous, but I wonder how much more we could have been done if mission had driven our budget and we had opened up the other channels of giving.

What has your experience been with Callahan's six doors of giving: spontaneous, major commuity Sundays, special planned offerings, short-term major projects, annual, enduring gifts (p. 276)?

We have to check ourselves when we start thinking "if only we were in a buidling where..."  If we build it, they may or may not come.  They will rarely come and certainly won't stay just because of the facilities.

This past weekend I was in two churches, each with a 200+ year history and with classic-looking, older facilities.  One church, whose first pastor died just before the Great Awakening broke out in the 1740's, met in a sanctuary built before indoor plumbing.  Bathrooms are in the Education Wing a short walk across the parking lot away.  But they are holding six services each weekend to accommodate all the people who are coming.  The other church, nestled on a corner lot at a small crossroads across from the Methodist church, after a long decline seems to be moving from a survival to a service mode.  There were two kids there Sunday morning, but members were invited to get training in providing a safe atmosphere for the kids that would be coming.  There was enthusiasm about their harvest festival outreach to kids in their town and beginning clubs in the schools.

I think I experienced this past weekend:

What do you make of the two models Callahan presents:

What do you think of Callahan's advice of developing "generous, enduring gifts" to endow the building?  If any of you have experience in this area, what have you learned?

The leadership style advocated here necessitates long leadership, providing the time needed to develop a relational network and mutual trust.  As I was getting close close to being called as the pastor of a small church, one of the Elders provided hospitality overnight for my wife and me on the interview weekend.  He asked some pointed questions trying to discover if this would be a long pastorate or not.  If not, he didn't want to invest time in the relationship. Pastoral leadership in a small church means relational leadership, committed for the long term.  Anthony Pappas writes, "One of the worst things to befall the small church is revolving-door leadership, especially pastoral. . . . Abrupt or frequent transitions ensure that all available energy will be expended in adjustment and recovery, leaving precious little for mission, evangelism, discipleship, and growth." (Entering the World of the Small Church, 2000, The Alban Institute, p. 9)

Lengthy stays in small church pastorates are not the norm.  A study by the Southern Baptist Covention (Ellison Research 2005) puts the average stay for pastors in congregations under 100 in attendance at 7.2 years compared to 8.7 years in larger churches.  From a sampling of 33 pastors of EPC small churches, it's about the same in our ranks.  The financial realities can make it tough to stay in smaller settings.  My wife and I could made ends in a small church setting because she was employed as a teacher.  I remember reading a study saying that a key predictor for a pastor staying for a long time in a small church is the satisfaction in the spouse's own employment. (I've lost track of where I read this - if any of you know the reference, let me know.)  As I look at what I've written I have to confess that I did not practice what I've been preaching.  I was in a small church setting for a year less than the average.  It was painful to watch the church I left stop growing, lose members and energy and eventually dissolve.  The story is too involved and the questions too many for this venue, but I haven't been immune from all the "what if" questions.  What if it had been a long pastorate?

What do you think of Callahan's list of competencies for a pastor of a small, strong congregation?

Callahan says, "One of the advantages small, strong congregations offer is the ability for people to participate--whether children, youths, or adults--in the whole of the congregation, not just the parts" (p. 192).  This seems contrary to what many visitors indicate they are looking for - good programming for their children.  What do you think?

Worship is as the core of why the church exists.  It's typically is the main activity of the week in small church life.  Callahan describes it as a gathering of the family.  The small church is organized around relationships, and relationships are a huge part of why the family gathers each week.  I would add that we shouldn't think of it as a closed, nuclear family, but in the broadest possible terms as an extended family, rich with diversity and always expecting the family to be expanding.  It's a time for the extended family to remember and give praise to the Father who has adopted them all as his children.

In an earlier chapter, Callahan wrote about not trying to be a "mini-mega" congregation.  Music in worship is where we find one of the biggest differences in the two kinds of churches.  The music is simply not going to be the same. I know my experience with small church worship is a little skewed,  I was a music teacher and worship leader before pastoring a small congregation.  Even if there were no musicians in the congregation, I could have led worship with a guitar.  I'm pleased that there were some musicians there - some younger in age - that spared the congregation and me from a one man band.  But, rightly or wrongly, I was heavily involved in planning and rehearsing the music for the "congregational choir."  Worship was the "main thing" we all did together each week and I put significant time into its preparation. 

Callahan's comments about a simple, few-step service took me back to the EPC's book of Worship (section 2-1 to be specific).  As it summarizes the Scripture's teaching on the acceptable way to worship God, there really are only a few "steps": reading the Scriptures, preaching and hearing the Word, singing psalms and hymns, sacraments, and prayer.  That means a simple, five- and sometimes six-step service of worship, woven together in a warm, simple and meaningful way to give expression to the praises of God's people.

What have you done when musical resources for worship are scarce?

What have been some meaningful worship experiences for your small congregation?

Again in this chapter Callahan's pespective of focusing on strengths rather than weaknesses comes to the surface.  A well-known ball player claimed that his secret to success was practicing hard on his weaker skills. Natural Church Development's approach is to identify the weakest of the eight quality characteristics in a church and form a team to focus on improving it.  I'm still working through this one.  I'd rather go with Callahan, but then what happens to the weak areas?  Maybe it's not an either/or but a both/and.  I look forward to hearing your views. 

Although I still have some discomfort with these terms, in the end I found Callahan helpful in thinking through how small churches and their denominations relate to each other.  It's easy to see how the two get into a co-dependent relationahip.  One of the top five pressing issues identified by EPC pastors of small churches was "Resources: financial, human and physical."  Constantly facing the lack of resources makes it easy to think, "We need some help from outside to survive."  Or, "if we just had a financial boost, we could grow a little."  The church wants help, the denomination wants to help, and sometimes it becomes a perpetual, unhealthy cyle and hard to bring to an end.

Being self-reliant and self-sufficient as a church is healthier than being co-dependant, but I think we have to draw some limits around what this means.  Self-sufficiency gone to seed can cancel out dependence upon God.  Self-reliance gone sour isolates us from others and doesn't demonstrate the unity of the body of Christ.  I do think there is a way that small congregations can cultivate a healthy interdependence that expresses the unity of the the body of Christ and brings meaningful connections between leaders and churches.

Here's one example.  Prior to my beginning as pastor of a small congregation, the church had received regular outside financial help, designated for the pastor's salary.  For four years the church made little if any progress toward financial independence.  When the previous pastor left, the congregation used the common small church budget balancing technique - going for a year or so without a pastor to pay.  But in that period of time they decided that they would never again seek outside help for the pastor's salary.  It had made them too dependent.  They were determined never to ask for that kind of help in the future.  Not too long after I arrived we did apply for funds made available by the General Assembly with the understanding that they would be dedicated exclusively toward various outreach and visibility-raising projects that we couldn't finance on our own.  Did that put us in a co-dependent relationship?  I don't think so.  I think it was a cooperative arrangement, not a co-dependent one.  The assistance gave a helpful boost for a couple of years and in the process the church got beyond struggling to simply survive. 

What kind of help would you find beneficial from your presbytery or the General Assembly?  What kind of "help" would you rather not see?

What do you think of the idea that a pastor can give a church too much help (146-151)?

What helped you or raised questions for you in this chapter?

Ironically, this small church strength and opportunity for mission is also the place of its greatest weakness.  To use C. Peter Wagner's term, some churches have let koinonia become "koinonitis."  In a survey of small church leaders in the EPC, "closed fellowship" surfaced as one of the top five pressing issues facing small church leadership.  Comments from survey participants revealed that close relationships in a small church are an asset that can become a detriment if turned inward. A sense of "family" can lead the small church to be a closed group, not wanting others to come in and thereby change their equilibrium. The "family" may not realize that they are closed. A closed fellowship has little interest in evangelism or mission to their community (see Pressing Issues in EPC Small Churches for a summary of the survey).

Here's an example of what I think we're striving for.  A pastor's friend from out of town was visiting the pastor's small church on a Sunday.  Afterward, at lunch at the pastor's house, the visitor said, "I don't think I shook hands with anyone today."  After a flash of anxiety, the pastor was relieved when his friend went on to say, "But I had significant conversations with maybe a dozen people."  That's a sign of a strong congregation - small or large.  It is a sign of a church that is not preoccupied with itself.  It's members notice and give meaningful time to visitors.  To stay anonymous in that small church, you had to be deliberate, coming late, sitting in the back, and leaving early.

To put it directly, a church that has a closed fellowship, that is preoccupied with itself, has some repenting to do.  A church not concerned with others and with little interest in evangelism and outreach is not a church reflecting God's nature.  It is not being a faithful church.  The turn outward is a difficult but necessary one.  It may start with a few people and some experiments in mission, that, over time, gain some momentum.  It starts with modeling by the leadership.

Have you been part of a church that changed from inward looking to outward looking?  How did it happen?

What do you make of Callahan's comments about denominational organizational structures and the small church?

Do Callahan's comments about a two-cell church exelling at fighting ring true to your experience?

I've been working through Christopher Wright's Mission of God.  If you know the book, you know it will be a long process, but, I trust, a fruitful one.  I had one of those "why didn't I see this before?" moments today, reading what Wright had to say about Jeremiah 29 (particularly Jer. 29:4-14).  While false prophets were telling the exiles in Babylon that their time there would be brief, Jeremiah was saying the opposite.  God wanted them to settle in.  Babylon was not their permanent home, but it was their home for the time.  With all the distress, confusion, and testing of faith brought on by the exile (Psalm 137), God's word to his people was "seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile.  Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper" (Jer. 29:7).  Blessing the people that took you captive?  I can't imagine that being on their natural "to do" list.  Seeking the peace and prosperity of your temporary home is an aspect of participating in God's mission.  It is receiving and expressing the compassion of the Good Shepherd who knows there are other sheep that are not yet part of the flock (John 10:16).  This is the ministry of compassion and shepherding directed outward.

I wish Callahan had stayed away from the word "sacrament" to describe compassion and shepherding.  But, I appreciate what he's getting at.  The blessing of God's compassion and shepherding is experienced and lived out by God's people - no matter what the size of the congregation - and becomes a blessing to be shared generously and outwardly.  It can energize the "one excellent mission" of the small, strong congregation as it shares that mission with the commuity as a gift.

How does this chapter sit with you?

What will it mean, in concrete terms, in your context to "seek the peace and prosperity of the city" in which your congregation has been placed?  Let us know some things you have been doing - or some things this is prompting you to do.

A "theology of service" gets to the core of our being as God's people. Whether part of smaller or larger churches, we are part of a people that God is forming, and - no surprise here - the people God is forming bears a strong resemblance to him. God is a missionary God, and he has created a missionary people. He is a sending God and we are a sent people.  He is in Christ, reconciling the world to himself and he has chosen his people to participate with him in that mission (2 Cor 5:17ff). "Mission and service" is not an optional add-on, it's part of the core package of being God's church. Without it we betray our nature as his people. Christopher Wright puts it this way: "[It] is not so much that God has a mission for his church in the world, but that God has a church for his mission in the world" (Mission of God, 2006, p. 62).

This is not about small churches picking a good mission/evangelism program so they can get bigger and have more people to pay the bills and make denominational statistics look good. That's nothing more than another self-serving piece of a survival theology.  Callahan helps us by giving us a good check for our motiviations.  Is our "one, excellent mission" being given as a gift for the community - or as a tool to get more people in our doors and grow our membership? This is personally convicting. As a pastor in a small church I had mixed motives at best. I wanted the success of having more people on the roll and in the sanctuary - and there are ways to do that if that's our goal. Callahan writes, "We think of mission objectives. In the long-ago past, we set membership objectives. Now we think of those we look forward to serving in mission...not the number of new members we plan to get." This is at the core of missional thinking and practice, or, as Callahan puts it, a "mission culture [that] thinks about ‘missionship.'"

Please don't leave this chapter behind without answering a tough question - is it time to have your leadership digest this chapter and have a frank discussion about, "Are we living with a survival or service mindset?" If you conclude you're in a survival mode, what will it take to make the switch?  If you need help in that process, let us know.

--From your observations, how can you tell when a church is in survival mode?
--Have you found "one excellent mission" that you are sharing as a gift with the community? What is it? How did you find it? Did you have a decisive event like Callahan describes? How is it affecting your community?

If you want to start a private conversation on this or other topics, email me or give me a call at the Assembly office.

Ed McCallum

I'll start out with some comments - one chapter each week.   My comments will be brief, intended to be conversation starters.  This Book Blog will only be as good as your participation.  Please add your comments - I'm much more interested in interacting with you than having you just read what I'm thinking.  If you have difficulty making the system work, please e-mail.  A heads up - I (and the Book Blog) will take some time off the week before and after Labor Day for some R&R with family. 

Ed McCallum

Zechariah asked the question, "Who despises the day of small things?" (Zech. 4:10).  A lot of us in North America, if we're honest, would have to raise a hand and say, "I do." I once did a word association in a workshop, asking what the word "small" brought to mind. Some of the answers that came back: piddling, limited, undersized, stunted, feeble. The "bigger is better" motto just feels plausible and right.  We're infatuated with bigness in North America - big homes, big stores, big schools, big bank accounts, big corporations, big churches. 

My dream is to get to the point where we can say "large church" and "small church" without assigning relative value.  Big is big, and big churches do some things very well that small churches can't.  Small is small, and small churches do some things very well that big churches can't.  It's here I appreciate Callahan so much.  He is descriptive about small, medium, and large congregations without giving any one a higher value.  He places value on the strength of a congregation, not its size.

Callahan advocates that small congregations think and act like a small strong congregation. "The minute you try to become a ‘mini' mega-congregation, you will be done in."  That's jarring.  It runs contrary to conventional church growth thinking that says, "If you want to grow, start acting like the size you want to be." There's usually an underlying assumption with that statment - small is not what you want to be, bigger is better.  Being small and strong is a "distinctive way of thinking, planning, and acting as a church."  We are in a different world when we start thinking that is OK.  Being small and strong is a good thing.  I have to disagree with the writer who said, "Most [churches] remain small because they are spiritually and organizationally dysfunctional." Dysfunction knows no size boundaries.  If Callahan is right, more and more churches will be making a deliberate decision to think, plan and act as small, strong congregations.

Ed McCallum

If you want to start a private conversation, please email me or give me a call at the General Assembly Office.

Comment on one or several of these items - or something else in chapter 1: