6 ms·

I've had this idea bouncing around in the back of my head for a few years for an idea to use technology to reimagine churches into "micro churches". I feel like

I've had this idea bouncing around in the back of my head for a few years for an idea to use technology to reimagine churches into "micro churches". I feel like with communication such as it is, you could turn churches back into what they once were 2000 years ago, small gatherings of a small number of people (10-30) in an informal space (coffee shop, home) for church. It was foster stronger sense of community, and would avoid 85% of the cost of a traditional church (assuming you still gave 10% as alms). Not something I've ever built, just something I've had knocking around back there. Someone else is welcome to take the idea and make something of it.

epaga 12y ago
Actually, exactly that concept has actually been quickly growing in popularity for quite a few years now, it's especially been successful in developing countries like India and China. Small, highly reproducible groups which simply revolve around the core concepts of the gospel. Starfish vs. Spider, etc. A few years ago, our small church here in Berlin moved from a model where we were paying thousands in rent for a "meeting space" to simply meeting in a living room and sharing our lives. It's been a wonderful change which has really been great, not only (but also) financially. BTW, an influential book in that regard is particularly Neil Cole's "Organic Church".
- briandear 12y ago
  In China it's out of necessity and safety, but the side benefit is that these groups become more tightly knit. I worked amongst many of the 'house churches' when I was in China. I wasn't a direct part of them, but the school I worked at had a huge underground of this type of thing. It made our IT security a bit more paranoid because from time to time we'd have government folks 'inspecting' this place far for frequently than at other schools in China in which I had worked. But that's another discussion..
  - sputknick 12y ago
    I've heard that the Chinese governments attitude towards Christianity is somewhat bi-polar. In the East they discourage and harass Christians, but in the West they openly encourage Christianity, to the point of paying the salaries of missionaries (as a way to counter the Muslim communities). Is that true?
    - technomancy 12y ago
      I've heard there is an established church that is legal and approved by the government, but the government closely monitors them to ensure they aren't teaching anything that's threatening to the Party.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > I've heard there is an established church that is legal and approved by the government, but the government closely monitors them to ensure they aren't teaching anything that's threatening to the Party. There's actually two sets of government-controlled Christian religious organizations (one Catholic and one Protestant). (Similarly, there is a government controlled Islamic organization.)
- sputknick 12y ago
  Thanks for the tip, I just bought the Kindle version!
yodsanklai 12y ago
When I was living in NYC, a friend of mine took me to such christian gatherings (about 10 people meeting at somebody's place). I'm an atheist, but I thought it was a very interesting experience. We were discussing various topics, sometimes there were special guests and so on...
- mercer 12y ago
  I've been involved with a number non-religious attempts to set up similar 'small groups', and people loved these things. We'd pick similar topics, but just keep the discussion from being overtly religious (while respecting those who were religious). the most common feedback was "I've always been looking for a group where I could have meaningful conversations about 'bigger' things in life, or more personal things.", and people would often keep returning. I'm probably going to start something similar in Berlin in a month or so. It's really fun, and a great way to make friends.
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    I hope you take this well, but... > ...keep the discussion from being overtly religious (while respecting those who were religious). I generally don't feel respected when people ask me to leave part of my identity and lifestyle at the door. I understand the aversion to fiery sermons (I'm not a huge fan either), but asking people to not be overtly themselves can be very exclusionary, especially if you are shooting for inclusiveness and authenticity. But trying to have meaningful relationships is a great thing. It's certainly harder than it looks. Good luck!
    - mercer 12y ago
      I should've probably phrased it differently. 'Keep the discussion from fiery sermons' would have been a more accurate way to put it. Religious people were generally free to talk about their faith, and this was only 'discouraged' if they'd go so far down that road that nobody else could identify in any way. That almost never happened though. In fact, one of the organizers was a conservative evangelical Christian.
humanrebar 12y ago
I've had similar thoughts, but add another buzzword: hyperlocal. So far, nothing beat shared geography for building communities. Then, again, you mention "communication such as it is", which could alleviate some of that problem. But, for whatever reason, small church communities don't tend to use electronic communication much. It tends to be very face-to-face or speaker-to-audience these days. A microchurch (well, any healthy church) needs safe electronic places to have peer-to-peer and peer-to-trusted-friends communication. And by safe, I mean medical records, bank balance, and legal advice safe. Despite the article in The Guardian (if coffee-induced anxiety is your biggest problem...), lots of real spiritual needs happen around very important but sensitive topics that any wise person would be discrete about: sex (in and out of marriage), marriage crisis, unplanned pregnancies, money, addiction, physical health, mental health, fertility problems, problems with coworkers, and the list goes on. Right now, electronically, the only options are to say nothing to nobody or post this sort of information on facebook or something similar. So I still circle back to "hyperlocal" for now. People need a lot of courage and (usually) a lot of quality time to get to the point where they'll let down their guards and be honest. I'm not sure how to accomplish that unless everyone lives in the same neighborhood. But in general, churches haven't scaled well. It's actually a serious issue that most people aren't thinking about. Microchurches might be one solution to the problem.
- sputknick 12y ago
  I hadn't thought about the idea of communication security, but you are right, with the things you discuss in church, you would definitely need to consider that. I think you are right that these churches would also need to be "hyperlocal". A lot of that could be handled by Facebook with those "I'm having trouble, can you come over so we can talk" comments, with the meat of the discussion handled in person.
- hluska 12y ago
  You know, there have been points where I have wanted to go to alcoholics anonymous...not because of any particular problem with alcohol, but because I want to tell people the truth when they ask 'how are you?' I crave being able to really vent. I think that you're onto something.
mercer 12y ago
I grew up going to a lot of 'home churches', as they're very common in Evangelical/Pentecostal circles. And even in bigger evangelical churches there is still a strong focus on these 'micro gatherings'. these bigger churches often treat the Sundays as the 'evangelism' meetings (simple sermons, a lot of often high-quality entertainment, etc.), and then have the more in-depth bible study and interpersonal connecting in the weekday 'small groups'. These are usually in someone's house, and while they have a 'leader' the evening is usually taken care of by a different person in the group each time. It's in these house meetings that people often share more personal things and make their deeper friendships. It's a very nice and very successful model, and sometimes I wish the 'atheism 2.0' attempts would take their inspiration more from these evangelical movements rather than more 'established' religions and religious practices.
7952 12y ago
I wonder if it is an areas that gyms should go into and treat it like just another class.
TheNewAndy 12y ago
If you are looking for a more traditional model, then leaving out the 10% alms/tithe is pretty sensible. This only seems to be a fairly recent thing and not one really backed by any biblical teaching (there are no mentions of tithing for Christians in the bible).
- humanrebar 12y ago
  Right. 10% is actually a low bar. Jesus was basically couch surfing. He had high praise for what would seem like absurd giving to us. He told a rich man to liquidate his life and donate the money. The early church would sell real estate to pay each others' bills. Even in the old testament, tithes were more like 23% though they included taxes to support government. But there were additional social welfare rules on top of that, like not harvesting all of your grain so the poor could take the rest.
  - TheNewAndy 12y ago
    The percentage notion is pretty dangerous in my opinion. Even in old testament times, there was no fixed percentage. How much did a carpenter tithe? How much did a widow tithe? The teaching I have seen at churches in San Francisco (not all churches mind you - I have only been to 3, and one of them didn't do this) was teaching this absolute lie that all people should be giving God (by which they meant the church) money, and that by giving money to the church, God would repay them with more. It isn't biblical, and it is really not helping with the huge homelessness problem in the city. Anyone going to a church that is teaching this should be doing their own research, and then challenging the teaching at their church.
    - humanrebar 12y ago
      Right. There is no fixed percentage. I used the term "low bar" in an opaque way. If the question is, "How much do I have to give?" then the answer is "You're asking the wrong question." Jesus talks about money in Luke 12, and his opinions (on inheritance and accumulation of wealth) would run counter to God-loves-rich-people theology. Heck, they probably run counter to what most Americans would consider common sense.
iolothebard 12y ago
We have these all over my town. From small homes to full blown churches. The new 'hipster' churches do well with youths. My town is roughly 120k people and has roughly 1000 registered churches (yay bible belt!).
Q6T46nT668w6i3m 12y ago
This is exactly how I worship in New York; Boston; and Portland, OR. It works well. It mixes Quakerism’s meeting for worship and evangelical bible study. It’s popular with 20-and-30-something Christians.
jrs235 12y ago
I believe its just a matter of time until churches will lose their 501c3 tax exempt statuses for one or more reasons. Once donations to churches are no longer tax deductible I foresee the big church building owned by the org going away and "churches" just gathering in public spaces or people's homes. It makes the most sense from all sides. Why are church donations paying for a building that often remains mostly empty most of the time (I know, not all and not always as some churches try to keep their doors open and share the building with others) to heat it, upkeep it, take away land/property taxes from the local government/community? Those saved upkeep expenses could go directly into helping the poor and those in need. Scrap ten buildings and get one, keep it open 24/7 and make it a shelter and soup kitchen. (But too many church goers/members treat "their church" like a country club or Malibu beach side home owners... "I don't want to mix let alone see those 'dirty poor rascals'".)
- nhayden 12y ago
  I would imagine the majority of people tithing do not exceed their standard deduction and therefore don't include their donations on their tax return anyway.
  - jrs235 12y ago
    Interesting. I would imagine that the majority of financial support though comes from a minority, which probably make enough to exceed their standard deduction even without tithing (especially for the "country club" type churches). $12400 is not difficult hit exceed for a married couple with state and local income or sales taxes, property taxes, mortgage interest, student loan interest?, medical and dental expenses, and charitable contributions. Also, if churches have to pay property taxes I think many will ditch the building.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  > Why are church donations paying for a building that often remains mostly empty most of the time... Do you have any numbers for that? All the churches I know have activities and meetings all through the week, though not necessarily in the main sanctuary. As for tax exemption, churches routinely do other charitable work, including things that would be called social work in other circumstances. In general, doing work the government would otherwise be responsible for qualifies a group for tax exempt status, even if with a different classification. I suspect that if the religious tax exemption were revoked, the structure of giving would change, but churches themselves would stay more or less the way they are. After all, they predate the United States, its tax code, or the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

epaga 12y ago

Actually, exactly that concept has actually been quickly growing in popularity for quite a few years now, it's especially been successful in developing countries like India and China. Small, highly reproducible groups which simply revolve around the core concepts of the gospel. Starfish vs. Spider, etc. A few years ago, our small church here in Berlin moved from a model where we were paying thousands in rent for a "meeting space" to simply meeting in a living room and sharing our lives. It's been a wonderful change which has really been great, not only (but also) financially. BTW, an influential book in that regard is particularly Neil Cole's "Organic Church".

briandear 12y ago
In China it's out of necessity and safety, but the side benefit is that these groups become more tightly knit. I worked amongst many of the 'house churches' when I was in China. I wasn't a direct part of them, but the school I worked at had a huge underground of this type of thing. It made our IT security a bit more paranoid because from time to time we'd have government folks 'inspecting' this place far for frequently than at other schools in China in which I had worked. But that's another discussion..
- sputknick 12y ago
  I've heard that the Chinese governments attitude towards Christianity is somewhat bi-polar. In the East they discourage and harass Christians, but in the West they openly encourage Christianity, to the point of paying the salaries of missionaries (as a way to counter the Muslim communities). Is that true?
  - technomancy 12y ago
    I've heard there is an established church that is legal and approved by the government, but the government closely monitors them to ensure they aren't teaching anything that's threatening to the Party.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > I've heard there is an established church that is legal and approved by the government, but the government closely monitors them to ensure they aren't teaching anything that's threatening to the Party. There's actually two sets of government-controlled Christian religious organizations (one Catholic and one Protestant). (Similarly, there is a government controlled Islamic organization.)
sputknick 12y ago
Thanks for the tip, I just bought the Kindle version!

yodsanklai 12y ago

When I was living in NYC, a friend of mine took me to such christian gatherings (about 10 people meeting at somebody's place). I'm an atheist, but I thought it was a very interesting experience. We were discussing various topics, sometimes there were special guests and so on...

mercer 12y ago
I've been involved with a number non-religious attempts to set up similar 'small groups', and people loved these things. We'd pick similar topics, but just keep the discussion from being overtly religious (while respecting those who were religious). the most common feedback was "I've always been looking for a group where I could have meaningful conversations about 'bigger' things in life, or more personal things.", and people would often keep returning. I'm probably going to start something similar in Berlin in a month or so. It's really fun, and a great way to make friends.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  I hope you take this well, but... > ...keep the discussion from being overtly religious (while respecting those who were religious). I generally don't feel respected when people ask me to leave part of my identity and lifestyle at the door. I understand the aversion to fiery sermons (I'm not a huge fan either), but asking people to not be overtly themselves can be very exclusionary, especially if you are shooting for inclusiveness and authenticity. But trying to have meaningful relationships is a great thing. It's certainly harder than it looks. Good luck!
  - mercer 12y ago
    I should've probably phrased it differently. 'Keep the discussion from fiery sermons' would have been a more accurate way to put it. Religious people were generally free to talk about their faith, and this was only 'discouraged' if they'd go so far down that road that nobody else could identify in any way. That almost never happened though. In fact, one of the organizers was a conservative evangelical Christian.

humanrebar 12y ago

I've had similar thoughts, but add another buzzword: hyperlocal. So far, nothing beat shared geography for building communities. Then, again, you mention "communication such as it is", which could alleviate some of that problem. But, for whatever reason, small church communities don't tend to use electronic communication much. It tends to be very face-to-face or speaker-to-audience these days. A microchurch (well, any healthy church) needs safe electronic places to have peer-to-peer and peer-to-trusted-friends communication. And by safe, I mean medical records, bank balance, and legal advice safe. Despite the article in The Guardian (if coffee-induced anxiety is your biggest problem...), lots of real spiritual needs happen around very important but sensitive topics that any wise person would be discrete about: sex (in and out of marriage), marriage crisis, unplanned pregnancies, money, addiction, physical health, mental health, fertility problems, problems with coworkers, and the list goes on. Right now, electronically, the only options are to say nothing to nobody or post this sort of information on facebook or something similar. So I still circle back to "hyperlocal" for now. People need a lot of courage and (usually) a lot of quality time to get to the point where they'll let down their guards and be honest. I'm not sure how to accomplish that unless everyone lives in the same neighborhood. But in general, churches haven't scaled well. It's actually a serious issue that most people aren't thinking about. Microchurches might be one solution to the problem.

sputknick 12y ago
I hadn't thought about the idea of communication security, but you are right, with the things you discuss in church, you would definitely need to consider that. I think you are right that these churches would also need to be "hyperlocal". A lot of that could be handled by Facebook with those "I'm having trouble, can you come over so we can talk" comments, with the meat of the discussion handled in person.
hluska 12y ago
You know, there have been points where I have wanted to go to alcoholics anonymous...not because of any particular problem with alcohol, but because I want to tell people the truth when they ask 'how are you?' I crave being able to really vent. I think that you're onto something.

mercer 12y ago

I grew up going to a lot of 'home churches', as they're very common in Evangelical/Pentecostal circles. And even in bigger evangelical churches there is still a strong focus on these 'micro gatherings'. these bigger churches often treat the Sundays as the 'evangelism' meetings (simple sermons, a lot of often high-quality entertainment, etc.), and then have the more in-depth bible study and interpersonal connecting in the weekday 'small groups'. These are usually in someone's house, and while they have a 'leader' the evening is usually taken care of by a different person in the group each time. It's in these house meetings that people often share more personal things and make their deeper friendships. It's a very nice and very successful model, and sometimes I wish the 'atheism 2.0' attempts would take their inspiration more from these evangelical movements rather than more 'established' religions and religious practices.

7952 12y ago

I wonder if it is an areas that gyms should go into and treat it like just another class.

TheNewAndy 12y ago

If you are looking for a more traditional model, then leaving out the 10% alms/tithe is pretty sensible. This only seems to be a fairly recent thing and not one really backed by any biblical teaching (there are no mentions of tithing for Christians in the bible).

humanrebar 12y ago
Right. 10% is actually a low bar. Jesus was basically couch surfing. He had high praise for what would seem like absurd giving to us. He told a rich man to liquidate his life and donate the money. The early church would sell real estate to pay each others' bills. Even in the old testament, tithes were more like 23% though they included taxes to support government. But there were additional social welfare rules on top of that, like not harvesting all of your grain so the poor could take the rest.
- TheNewAndy 12y ago
  The percentage notion is pretty dangerous in my opinion. Even in old testament times, there was no fixed percentage. How much did a carpenter tithe? How much did a widow tithe? The teaching I have seen at churches in San Francisco (not all churches mind you - I have only been to 3, and one of them didn't do this) was teaching this absolute lie that all people should be giving God (by which they meant the church) money, and that by giving money to the church, God would repay them with more. It isn't biblical, and it is really not helping with the huge homelessness problem in the city. Anyone going to a church that is teaching this should be doing their own research, and then challenging the teaching at their church.
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    Right. There is no fixed percentage. I used the term "low bar" in an opaque way. If the question is, "How much do I have to give?" then the answer is "You're asking the wrong question." Jesus talks about money in Luke 12, and his opinions (on inheritance and accumulation of wealth) would run counter to God-loves-rich-people theology. Heck, they probably run counter to what most Americans would consider common sense.

iolothebard 12y ago

We have these all over my town. From small homes to full blown churches. The new 'hipster' churches do well with youths. My town is roughly 120k people and has roughly 1000 registered churches (yay bible belt!).

Q6T46nT668w6i3m 12y ago

This is exactly how I worship in New York; Boston; and Portland, OR. It works well. It mixes Quakerism’s meeting for worship and evangelical bible study. It’s popular with 20-and-30-something Christians.

jrs235 12y ago

I believe its just a matter of time until churches will lose their 501c3 tax exempt statuses for one or more reasons. Once donations to churches are no longer tax deductible I foresee the big church building owned by the org going away and "churches" just gathering in public spaces or people's homes. It makes the most sense from all sides. Why are church donations paying for a building that often remains mostly empty most of the time (I know, not all and not always as some churches try to keep their doors open and share the building with others) to heat it, upkeep it, take away land/property taxes from the local government/community? Those saved upkeep expenses could go directly into helping the poor and those in need. Scrap ten buildings and get one, keep it open 24/7 and make it a shelter and soup kitchen. (But too many church goers/members treat "their church" like a country club or Malibu beach side home owners... "I don't want to mix let alone see those 'dirty poor rascals'".)

nhayden 12y ago
I would imagine the majority of people tithing do not exceed their standard deduction and therefore don't include their donations on their tax return anyway.
- jrs235 12y ago
  Interesting. I would imagine that the majority of financial support though comes from a minority, which probably make enough to exceed their standard deduction even without tithing (especially for the "country club" type churches). $12400 is not difficult hit exceed for a married couple with state and local income or sales taxes, property taxes, mortgage interest, student loan interest?, medical and dental expenses, and charitable contributions. Also, if churches have to pay property taxes I think many will ditch the building.
humanrebar 12y ago
> Why are church donations paying for a building that often remains mostly empty most of the time... Do you have any numbers for that? All the churches I know have activities and meetings all through the week, though not necessarily in the main sanctuary. As for tax exemption, churches routinely do other charitable work, including things that would be called social work in other circumstances. In general, doing work the government would otherwise be responsible for qualifies a group for tax exempt status, even if with a different classification. I suspect that if the religious tax exemption were revoked, the structure of giving would change, but churches themselves would stay more or less the way they are. After all, they predate the United States, its tax code, or the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.