I came across this interesting comment from Tim Keller on David Fitch's blog that got me thinking:
I pastored a small church in a small town for 10 years, a church in which everyone knew one another, lived within a few miles of each other, never moved out of the area. We ate together, spent lots of time in each others' homes, and were deeply involved in the life of the community around the church. All the ministries were quite 'organic'--there were few programs. Outreach, pastoral care, community service--all happened quite naturally through relationships. I've also pastored a very large church in Manhattan for 20 years, in which there is tremendous mobility, where people learn, are cared for, and minister mainly through large-scale programs. My conclusion is that --in the final analysis--neither approach to church is better at growing spiritual fruit, reaching non-believers, caring for people, and producing Christ-shaped lives. I said 'in the final analysis' because each approach to church--the smaller, organic, simple, incarnational church, and the larger, organizational, complex, attractional church--has vastly different strengths and weaknesses, limitations and capabilities. The two constants to effectiveness are: a) getting the gospel right (not moralistic or antinomian, not individualistic or collectivistic) and ...
