The coronavirus pandemic is gradually affecting every aspect of the church, just like a capsule taken into the body is slowly released, and unconsciously adjusts the functions of the body.
In the era of peace before COVID-19, many people benefited much from the extensive development of the economy and the speeding up of urbanization. Church members continued to increase, large churches became widespread, and many preachers regarded the establishment of large churches as their goals and ideals.
The emergence of megachurches has to do with the transfer of rural churches to cities within the background of urbanization. Compared with the countryside, the city broke down its original boundaries and closures. The development of urban transportation provided the possibility for the establishment of large churches. In the past, in the countryside, a church covered a village or several neighboring villages; but now in the cities, the church opens for the whole city, and people could go for the assembly as long as the bus is accessible.
The appearance of large churches is accompanied by the guarantee of economic benefits. The larger the church is, the more offerings it likely is to get, which thus avoids the disadvantage of unstable finance of small churches. Besides, the number of megachurches ensures the religious effect of congregational worship. Religious fervor is easy to mobilize and infect everyone present, so that the development of the church will enter into the Matthew effect (cumulative advantage). The better the religious atmosphere, the more people it attracts and the bigger the church.
But the drawbacks of megachurches became apparent after the pandemic, which could be solved by increasing their numbers in a state of peace.
The drawback is the decline of religious enthusiasm when the church's daily activities are suspended by the pandemic, which leads to the decline of church participation, and the direct result is the decline of the economic income of the church.
In addition, once believers leave the church and return to their daily life, they are away from the guidance of the pastor and begin to focus more on themselves and think about their own relationship with God.
Another problem with large churches is the free-rider problem. Hitchhiking means to ride without paying a ticket. And it means, for the church, that members who give no offerings or no service, only get church favors, such as cheap meals or to get rid of the loneliness of the week, make friends or just have fun. Such believers are not in the minority in large churches, and it is their participation that increases the size of the church. If church dedication is averaged across everyone, then this free-rider problem may become apparent, because the size of the church is out of proportion to the amount of dedication.
In this case, the problem that large churches face is not how to reunite the large church, but how to maintain the concrete identity of effective believers.
The pandemic has made it impossible for believers to meet. The free-riders (believers of low identity, the religious cooler-off, etc.) are excluded, and what may be left is a handful of effective believers who retain the same kind of identity and devotion to the church as they used to; but this effective community of believers, if not carefully maintained, may be lost over time.
Therefore, the pastors need to change the old extensive pastoral ways of the large churches and return to the refined pastoral ways.
In large churches, the believers' faith identity is based on a group. In the post-pandemic era, the foundations of faith identity must be shifted because the form of the group is increasingly limited. Pastors who may have been accustomed to the pattern and atmosphere of large congregations must now adapt to the situation and face individuals.
The difficulty, however, is in how the pastors should shift from megachurch approach and become accustomed to solitude with individual believers; and how the pastor can produce a maximum pastoral effect with the minimum time cost.
One-to-one refinement, which is not practical for the shepherd, can be a special case. One pastor would not be able to shepherd many believers in one-to-one mode with even all his time. Obviously, one-to-many is the way to go. However, the number of people should not be too large, otherwise, the effect of fine pasturing will not be achieved. We should not only make every believer feel like being pastored, but also maximize the pastoral effect within the scope of the pastoral ability.
Obviously, the core group is the most appropriate choice because it is flexible and meets the requirements of pandemic prevention. At the same time, the group can form a more cohesive fellowship, which can produce more familiar personal relationships and thus bring the stability of group identity.
The post-pandemic era has brought challenges to the way pastors care for their churches. Meanwhile, the space for large churches is shrinking. Church pastoral care is bound to change from extensive to refined. This may put a higher demand on the pastors.
- Translated by Sophia Chen
疫情带来的冲击正以一种缓慢的方式影响着教会的方方面面，正如一剂吃进身体的胶囊，在不知觉中，胶囊缓慢释放的药剂，在调整着身体各种机能。
疫情之前的和平时代，经济的粗放发展，城市化进程的加快，让很多的人从经济发展的高速管道中获益匪浅，这反映在教会上，就是教会的人数不断增加，大型教会成为普遍现象，并且很多传道人把建立大型教会作为自己的目标和理想。
为什么会有大型教会，这当然离不开城市化背景下农村教会向城市的转移。城市与农村相比，打破了原有的界限和封闭。城市交通的发达，突破了原来以行政村为单位的教会，从而为大型教会的建立提供可能。过去在农村，可能是一个村，或者相邻的几个村组成一个教会，但是现在在城市，则是面对整个城市开放，只要公交车可达就可以去聚会。
大型教会的产生，伴随的是教会经济收益的保障，教会越大可能奉献越多，这样就避免了小教会的经济奉献不稳定的弊端。其次，大型教会的人数保证了聚会崇拜的宗教效果，宗教热情容易调动并感染在场的每一个人，这样教会发展就会进入马太效应，宗教氛围越好，吸引的人越多，教会越大。
但是大型教会带来的弊端在疫情之后开始凸显，这种弊端在和平的常态中可以通过增加人数来化解。
这种弊端就是疫情导致的教会日常活动停滞情况下的宗教热情下降，从而带来教会参与度的降低，这导致的直接结果就是教会经济收入的下降。
另外，一旦信徒离开教会，回归生活场景，这个时候他就远离了牧者和群体情绪的引导，开始有更多的空间关注自身，从而思考个人与神的关系。
大型教会的还有另一个问题，就是搭便车者问题。搭便车就是乘车不买票。具体到教会，就是只聚会不奉献，不付出。他可能只贪图教会的小恩小惠，比如一顿便宜的饭菜，或者排解一周的寂寞，交朋友抑或纯粹当做一种娱乐。这种信徒在大型教会中不占少数，正是他们的参加增加了教会的规模。因此，如果把教会奉献平均到每个人身上，那么这种搭便车的问题可能就会凸显出来。因为教会的规模与奉献的量不成比例。
这种情况下，大型教会面临的问题，不是如何重聚大型教会，而是如何保持有效信徒的具体认同问题。
疫情让信徒无法聚会，这样信徒的奉献就排除了那些搭便车者、认同度不高的信徒，宗教热情冷却的信徒，最后剩下的可能就是为数不多的有效信徒，他们还保持者过去那种对教会的认同和奉献。但这个有效信徒群体如果不仔细维护，也有可能会随着时间的流失而流失掉。
因此，在这种情况下，教会的牧者需要改变过去那种大型教会的粗放牧养方式，而回到精细化牧养上来。
在大型教会下，信徒的信仰认同是建立在群体基础上，后疫情时代，群体形式逐渐受限，那么信仰认同的根基就要转换。牧者过去可能习惯于大型教会的聚会模式和氛围，那么现在必须应形势而改变，面对单独的个体。
然而，现在的难点就在于，离开大型教会并慢慢习惯于独处的信徒，牧者如何以最小的时间成本来产生最大的牧养效果。
一对一的精细化，可以成为特殊的个例，但对于牧者来说并不现实。一个牧者所有时间用上，一对一的模式下也无法牧养多少信徒。显然，一对多的方式才是可行的。但是人数不能太多，否则就达不到精细化牧养的效果。既要让每个信徒感到牧者的带领，又能让牧者在能力范围内牧养果效最大化。
显然核心小组的方式也许是最合适不过的选择，这种小组机动性强，也符合防疫要求，同时小组可以组成一个更加团结的团契，这种团契可以产生更加熟悉的个人关系，从而带来团体认同的稳固性。
后疫情时代，给牧者牧养教会的方式带来挑战。同时大型教会生存的空间也不断缩小。教会牧养必然从粗放式向精细化转变。这对牧者可能会提出更高的要求。
思考丨疫情后为什么教会要转变牧养方式？
The coronavirus pandemic is gradually affecting every aspect of the church, just like a capsule taken into the body is slowly released, and unconsciously adjusts the functions of the body.
In the era of peace before COVID-19, many people benefited much from the extensive development of the economy and the speeding up of urbanization. Church members continued to increase, large churches became widespread, and many preachers regarded the establishment of large churches as their goals and ideals.
The emergence of megachurches has to do with the transfer of rural churches to cities within the background of urbanization. Compared with the countryside, the city broke down its original boundaries and closures. The development of urban transportation provided the possibility for the establishment of large churches. In the past, in the countryside, a church covered a village or several neighboring villages; but now in the cities, the church opens for the whole city, and people could go for the assembly as long as the bus is accessible.
The appearance of large churches is accompanied by the guarantee of economic benefits. The larger the church is, the more offerings it likely is to get, which thus avoids the disadvantage of unstable finance of small churches. Besides, the number of megachurches ensures the religious effect of congregational worship. Religious fervor is easy to mobilize and infect everyone present, so that the development of the church will enter into the Matthew effect (cumulative advantage). The better the religious atmosphere, the more people it attracts and the bigger the church.
But the drawbacks of megachurches became apparent after the pandemic, which could be solved by increasing their numbers in a state of peace.
The drawback is the decline of religious enthusiasm when the church's daily activities are suspended by the pandemic, which leads to the decline of church participation, and the direct result is the decline of the economic income of the church.
In addition, once believers leave the church and return to their daily life, they are away from the guidance of the pastor and begin to focus more on themselves and think about their own relationship with God.
Another problem with large churches is the free-rider problem. Hitchhiking means to ride without paying a ticket. And it means, for the church, that members who give no offerings or no service, only get church favors, such as cheap meals or to get rid of the loneliness of the week, make friends or just have fun. Such believers are not in the minority in large churches, and it is their participation that increases the size of the church. If church dedication is averaged across everyone, then this free-rider problem may become apparent, because the size of the church is out of proportion to the amount of dedication.
In this case, the problem that large churches face is not how to reunite the large church, but how to maintain the concrete identity of effective believers.
The pandemic has made it impossible for believers to meet. The free-riders (believers of low identity, the religious cooler-off, etc.) are excluded, and what may be left is a handful of effective believers who retain the same kind of identity and devotion to the church as they used to; but this effective community of believers, if not carefully maintained, may be lost over time.
Therefore, the pastors need to change the old extensive pastoral ways of the large churches and return to the refined pastoral ways.
In large churches, the believers' faith identity is based on a group. In the post-pandemic era, the foundations of faith identity must be shifted because the form of the group is increasingly limited. Pastors who may have been accustomed to the pattern and atmosphere of large congregations must now adapt to the situation and face individuals.
The difficulty, however, is in how the pastors should shift from megachurch approach and become accustomed to solitude with individual believers; and how the pastor can produce a maximum pastoral effect with the minimum time cost.
One-to-one refinement, which is not practical for the shepherd, can be a special case. One pastor would not be able to shepherd many believers in one-to-one mode with even all his time. Obviously, one-to-many is the way to go. However, the number of people should not be too large, otherwise, the effect of fine pasturing will not be achieved. We should not only make every believer feel like being pastored, but also maximize the pastoral effect within the scope of the pastoral ability.
Obviously, the core group is the most appropriate choice because it is flexible and meets the requirements of pandemic prevention. At the same time, the group can form a more cohesive fellowship, which can produce more familiar personal relationships and thus bring the stability of group identity.
The post-pandemic era has brought challenges to the way pastors care for their churches. Meanwhile, the space for large churches is shrinking. Church pastoral care is bound to change from extensive to refined. This may put a higher demand on the pastors.
- Translated by Sophia Chen
Why Do Churches Change Pastoral Practices in Post-pandemic Era?
