Hyatt's Law, pt 2

The original Hyatt's Law dealt with R Kelly's "Trapped in the Closet."

So lets call this one "Hyatt's Law of Eccesiastical Certitude."

Goes something like this:

"The smaller one's church, the more likely one is to be absolutely certain THAT model of church is the RIGHT one."

Discuss.

(Clearly, the Roman Catholic Church is the exception that proves the rule. This is geared more towards the family of Protestant churches from "mega" on down to "micro.")

Comments

[david]

generally, i think you're right.

i think it may have to do with the fact that most people today are not drawn to dogmatism.

however, there are some who need firm boundaries and unmovable walls in their lives, and so i think some churches/leaders/movements that have the "i'm the only one who's right" mentality are able to gain a following... particularly in the south?

[Makeesha Fisher]

oh no, I don't see that AT ALL. I think just about everyone thinks their church is at least partially "right". At least that's what I've observed. There are so many big churches around here (not mega churches cuz they know that no one else can do what they do hehe) who think their way is THE way. I've actually never heard that from small churches.

[rich]

when it comes to this, i don't think size matters... :)

[Makeesha Fisher]

hehe...yep, I agree rich

[Bob Hyatt]

General observation: Show me someone who pastors a church of 10,000 and I'll usually be able to show you someone who's very pragmatic- who may have a pretty well defined philosophy, but recognizes and values a lot of other models as well.

Show me someone who pastors a church of five, and 9 times out of ten, I'll show you someone who has a bone to pick with all other forms of church.

And I think you can (generally) plot all the points in between those two opinions based on size.

I may be wrong, but I think I'm sticking with this one at least for now... :)

[heffe]

I guess you have to define it further, if you mean smaller in that the Church is one. Then I agree. If you mean smaller in terms of numbers then I disagree becuase the Body of Christ is one with themselves and one with Christ. I don't exactly know how that plays out in todays Christian polotics, but I know its true.

[Rich Kirkpatrick]

Having 10 kids is great, and so is having a couple. Not for everyone but you cannot value judge this way.

[Pistol Pete]

I have served churches with memberships averaged 100-250. My smallest church was definitely fixed in a "family" model, where the pastor was looked on as sort of a retired father whose only job was to care for the various needs of the flock. Being only 26 at the time, and eager to reach others for Christ, it wasn't a good fit.

My largest church (250) was in-between a "family" and "program" church. There were many "models" tossed around and the struggle was to define who we were and were becoming.

Now I serve a smaller church (140) which once was quite large (1400). Our challenge is to value what we can now do and offer. Those who were here at the heyday of the church carry that model as the "right" one and get quite frustrated when we can't attain it.

So, in answer to the question, I would generally agree. But, I would only add that churches tend to "fix" their identity at the point where they were most comfortable and fulfilled.

[Bob Hyatt]

"But, I would only add that churches tend to "fix" their identity at the point where they were most comfortable and fulfilled."
Yes! Very true-

Our community is also about 140 right now- but don't call that small! In the mix of american churches, that's 2x the average size!

But I digress...

My point (which a couple commenters I think have lost) is that we tend to justify our size in various ways. For the big "successful" church, less is needed (at least until emerging church people like me come along and start talking smack).

But for the tiny, little church?

I'm telling you, walk into a baptist church of 30-50 people and see how "sure" they are that they have THE model pegged.

Talk to people like our old buddy Ken Silva (Beetlejuice!) and his church of five, it's even worse.

Again- these are generalizations that don't hold in every instance- I think there are house church folks who value what others are doing- but in general, they tend to see other expressions as less valid.

Just read Frank Viola's new book :)

[Makeesha Fisher]

I still maintain that I think you're seeing things through a biased lens friend. I think it's safe to say that certain churches of all sizes think they have it all figured out and have a bone to pick with other "ways". period. regardless of size.

we are one of those small churches and we're not like that at all. we are also in cahoots with many of those small churches and they're not like that either.

also, keep in mind, many of us small churches have a little bit of a complex sometimes and in spite of ourselves we get jealous or sensitive or whatever. so maybe you could be a little more understanding with your congregation of 150 :)

[Bob Hyatt]

Sure, sure! Like I say, "generally". And honestly, I think churches in the emerging camp tend to escape this, though honestly- there's no shortage of lecturing others on the best and "right" ways to do church there either."

[Bob Hyatt]

And I say that as someone who has now actually pastored a church of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, etc...

And as someone who probably had it all figured out more at 10 than at 140!

[Dan Brown]

Aargh, I can't stand it when the expression "the exception [that] proves the rule" is misused. What it really means is that to fully test a rule, you need to make sure it applies even in exceptional ("fringe") cases. It doesn't make sense to invoke a counterexample as support for your thesis!

[Makeesha Fisher]

Bob, I guess my point is - why make a generalized statement at all? It feels unnecessarily polarizing in a visceral response kind of way to something you read in a book recently.

As a rule, I would say it's silly to suggest there is only one way to "do church" and arrogant to suggest that "my way is the only way". I strongly doubt this happens any more in any particularly sized church. You'd be more inclined to see it in communities that dogmatically adhere to certain MODELS - no matter the size.

[Bob Hyatt]

Thanks Dan. Good to see you are still paying attention :)

[Dan Brown]

Watching you like a hawk, man!

[Jake]

Just to stick up for us papists a little...

In fairness, the attitude that seems to create the certainty in "we're small and therefore right" church folks isn't the same attitude as the RCC's "we're the Church and you're not (really)."

The RCC position (you gotta grant this) is much more thoughtful, carefully considered, wise (even if you disagree), and historical. Your post seems to conflate the attitudes of both sides since it contrasts the one against the other in dealing with the same "rule." In truth, it's apples to oranges.

Isn't it?

[JakeB]

Oh. Did I just say the same thing as Dan?