Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
5. Can be small -- They have a little strength. This suggests to me that they don't have to be a huge organization like the Catholic Church or some great denomination. Small groups could easily be seen as those who have kept the Lord's word, not denied His name and "have a little strength".
|
I wanted to comment on the last point because I think there is the potential for this to be misunderstood. The key words here are "can be." In other words, a small size does not invalidate a church. With regards to large groups, it's not uncommon to automatically validate large groups based on their size. Speaking for myself, I know that I'm inclined to do just that, thinking that if a group is growing and large, it must be doing something right. There's always that possibility, but there are plenty of examples of large groups that have been dysfunctional.
Probably, the issue is that it's easier to be suspect of small groups, thinking that if they're small or 'invisible', they must be doing something wrong. Of course, both of those things can be indicators of something being wrong, but they don't automatically mean that. And this is what I think is the main point, is that size alone does not invalidate a group.
I don't assess the LC on the mere fact that it's small or stagnant. Those factors are considerations, but they don't mean anything alone. The real issue is that when you look at the LC, a lot of what they attempt to use for validation is just an excuse mechanism. When they fail increase in size, they claim that they only need to be small. The LC likes to point to the fact that they are small, that they are 'weak' or that they have been under 'attack' (criticism), as if those things provide an automatic validation the LC.
The hypocrisy is that the LC has no problem making projections about exponential growth, or "churchizing" the U.S. So really, the mindset is about excusing their failure. When they can't get the growth they think they can, they can easily write it off, saying that they only need to be small.
Regarding being small, it's really a two sized coin. Yes, it does provide benefit as it's hard for a group to be impersonal when they're small, and that might better suite people's needs. But what I saw in the LC was the willingness to be small and remain small, because it provided the best "comfort level." By that I mean nobody honestly wanted to get new members because these people would inevitably ask the 'wrong' questions or express reservations about LC teachings and practices. Sure they talking about "getting an increase," but it was just talk. It was easier to get together and "play church" every week in the comfort of an environment where everyone was 100% with the program. And it is hard for a controlled environment like that to exist as the group gets larger and larger.
Everything about the LC seems to indicate they want a layer of 'protection' from the outside world. Where I'm from, people were particularly interested in home meetings. Home meetings are all fine and good, except, there was never much effort made to contact the outside world. It was a mere social club of members who had known each other sometimes 30 or more years. If there had been an influx of new members, it is questionable as to whether or not anyone would have wanted to or been willing to care for them.