Dear Editor,
I found Chris Sinkinson’s article ‘Growing a rural church’ (February EN) very interesting and helpful.
However, I would take issue with him on his first point: ‘Reaching critical mass.’ He suggested that a church needed a minimum of 30 members to be effective and have an impact. I preach most Sundays in rural churches – mainly but not exclusively Methodist – and rarely have that many people in the congregation. I also work and worship in a small village church with a regular congregation of around 12. However, I don’t accept that this means we cannot make an impact or reach out into the community. In fact, we are able to do this because we have a group of committed people.
Also, I don’t believe that a church has to have younger families to be effective. It is difficult to get young families to come to a small church if there aren’t others already there, and many tend to travel to larger churches. But older people also need to be reached and ministered to, and many villages have a large percentage of this age group. It is not necessary for every church to try to reach everyone, but to do what it realistically can.
Of course, it is sometimes necessary to close a small church, but once this happens, and people travel to worship, the local witness is lost. So closure should be a last resort, and small churches need encouragement and support from the wider Christian community. Maybe people from larger, stronger churches should consider going to support smaller churches. I do believe that ‘a handful of believers’ can maintain an effective witness in a rural community. ’
Yours in Christ
