Size Matters?

Often we heard of the phrases about "size matters, big is better", etc but is it really so? Without a doubt, generally speaking size does matter. For example, bigger house, bigger car, bigger family, bigger wealth, etc.

However, bigger things also come with bigger disadvantages. How so?

Bigger house = more cleaning up to do, more maintenance, etc

Bigger car = higher petrol consumption, higher road tax, etc

Bigger family = more disputes, more financial burden, etc

Bigger wealth = higher risks of losing it, lost true friendships, etc

So, does that mean we shouldn't go for bigger size? Just be content with smaller things or stick with something that has worked nicely before?

The more important point to consider is whether we are able to handle the consequences or disadvantages of being big or small. Take the CLMC situation for example.

Due to the cultural background of most church members (from Sarawak), they prefer a large group gathering a.k.a Youth Fellowship. Some of the new or first generation church members prefer small group gatherings a.k.a cell groups. So, very often we have "debates" on whether to keep small group or go for the large group gathering methods. Sometimes debate do not go to public but rather toilet-talk (if you know what I mean).

From my point of view, we shouldn't revert to large group gathering methods or stick to the small group methods totally. We should have 1-5 or 1-6 gatherings style. It's known as 1 large group gatherings in every 5 or 6 small group gatherings. The large group shouldn't replace the small group meeting on that week.

This way, we can keep the bond strong for each cell groups as well as the cohesion between cell groups. The large gathering shouldn't be wasted on playing too many games or talk rubbish. It should be used as an opportunity by the pastor or leader to educate the members of the church vision & goals. In the cell groups, members can then apply what they learned from the large group gatherings with the support of all members.

Why couldn't it be a 1-6 for small groups (1 small group in 6 large gatherings), I think the answer is pretty obvious. What are we trying to achieve? An easy way out to the problem of leaders shortage? Building an even stronger inner circle that's indifferent or ignorant to the outside world?

Problems we faced in small group should be addressed properly and solutions must be brainstormed together. However, having said that, those who doesn't have small groups mentality shouldn't be in the leaders circle. They can only cause more harm than good. They should step down from their positions.

Another thing is about getting feedback. Every year we have the committees asking for feedback. What's the purpose of it? Feedback are to be listened to initiate change. If we are not ready for changes, don't bother with feedback. It's just a waste of time. To ask for feedback, you need to know what you want to know about first. Not asking blindly.

Anyway, with the future of CLMC small groups in jeopardy, whoever is the zone leader has a very heavy responsible on his/her hands. May God be with him/her.