Church hurt is real. Could microchurches be the cure?

The last eight years or so have been rough on the Church — scandals, COVID, deconstruction, church hurt, political polarization, pastoral burnout, institutional distrust, etc. But there’s some exciting good news. There’s a movement of microchurches that is challenging the prevailing church model and bringing healing to people who would otherwise give up on church.

The emphasis is small group discipleship that ministers to people individually, leadership/missional development of every member, and “minimal ecclesiology” to avoid the pitfalls of denominations. It is the antithesis of the “launch large” strategy of church planting organizations for the last few decades.

It’s difficult to know how many of these microchurches exist in the USA, but a moderate estimate would be around 20,000. BraveFuture.org lists a collective of 28 networks. In March, I attended their conference in Tampa, where workshops helped people navigate the microchurch concept. Many churches don’t belong to any kind of network and go uncounted.

The church-hurt theme

As I visited versions of small churches, I saw a common theme. Every group had a majority of people who came from a place of church hurt. Some were on staff at churches and got used up. Others were abused because they asked accountability questions of leaders. Others were “counseled” in damaging ways. Still others wanted to serve in the way they felt called by God but their church was more of a hindrance than a help. That’s just a sampling of ways people experience hurt in a church.

Someone might ask, “Isn’t there equal possibility for hurt in any sized group?” Although there’s always the possibility of hurt, it helps to not have hierarchy and a big overhead.

• With no production demands, people can be loved for who they are instead of what they bring to keep the big machine running.
• There is far less opportunity for a “celebrity leader” to abuse power.
• Individuals can participate, speak, and feel heard in theological discussions, resulting in better learning and application.
• People are empowered who would otherwise never step forward to lead. They can practice in a low-pressure environment.
• People are desperate for real connection. I believe this is the greatest cause for the mental health epidemic. In my microchurch, we go around and tell our “pit and cherry” for the week. On a higher attendance day, we’ll limit it to either a pit or a cherry. We know what’s going on with each other and pray for each other. We often eat together. In contrast, even in a small church of 100 people, it’s possible to attend and leave still feeling lonely due to inadequate fellowship.

When people suffer hurt from a church, they sometimes leave church altogether, while others look for a version of church that doesn’t threaten to repeat the same offenses.

Changing the mindset

Changing a cultural mindset is difficult after ~1,600 years of “big church.” There is no clear archaeological evidence for purpose-built church buildings before the mid-third century and then they were modest home adaptations.^[1]  Christians often say the church is people, not a building, but then still act like it’s not a local church unless there’s a building. Many don’t realize the impact that building ownership (or rental) has on a congregation and leaders—how financial burden drives decisions. There’s also pressure to continuously grow in one location (to prove God’s endorsement), so the organizational structure becomes like a business to manage growth. Individual people get lost in the machine.

Many (not all) microchurches allow women more freedom to lead. They also have more leaders without theological degrees. Yes, this could cause more errant theology, but it could also cause more reliance on the Holy Spirit. There are also many solid discipleship resources available for leaders to use. A second-century, secular writer (Celsus) criticized the church as being an organization of slaves and women.^[2] He said they spread their teaching through kitchens and laundries. Somehow, we’ve lost our way. Today, the evangelism strategy seems to be more about inviting people to church instead of living alongside in relationship. God seems to be purifying the modern church with exposure of its failed system.

What’s the difference?

Sometimes people hear the benefits of microchurch and say, “our church does those things in our small group program.” Small groups within a big church do improve fellowship and spiritual growth. However, they are often viewed as a follow-up program to Sunday morning, where everyone sits and listens to one person. They are controlled by others and have an appointed leader. They are told what to study and when to disband, instead of bonding with the same people for multiple years. I believe these things stunt personal growth. Microchurches that belong to a network have the opportunity to utilize elders for accountability for baseline doctrine, ecclesial minimums, and peacemaking.

A microchurch requires deeper participation. People decide as a group what to study, how to spend their money and serve together. They discuss the Bible (dialogical learning), walk together in life like a family, and include people from a broader faith spectrum, helping them practice “unity in essentials, charity in nonessentials.” They practice hospitality, share meals, and when they become too large for small group dynamics, multiply into additional groups.

Greater participation requires greater commitment. I attended a microchurch celebrating its first-year anniversary. Several had hesitated to join because it precluded hiding in a back row and making a quick escape. It required more time together, the courage to make decisions, speak, and pray out loud in a group. Everyone gave testimony about what the year meant to them, and to a person, they used the word “family.” One told how he had become more bold to share his faith at work due to speaking in a group. Another told how he was feeling equipped to start another group.

Followers or disciples?

The main attraction of today’s churches is their “lead pastor.” It could be said that some pastors are gaining “followers” (like social media followers) rather than disciples of Jesus. People fall into evaluating every service by the performance of the pastor and music team. Hundreds (or even thousands) of people sit and listen to one man preach. They leave saying “That was really good,” with the idea, “I could never do that.” In a microchurch, instead of a “star” senior pastor being their image, they are ordinary people. Jesus is the only “star.”

In the time of Christ, “The goal of Jewish disciples [mathētēs], was someday to become masters, or rabbis, themselves, and to have their own disciples who would follow them.”^[3] The idea of reproduction comes from the broader pattern of rabbinic and Christian discipleship.

I have seen this model help people who would normally feel awkward or inferior open up and participate, love and feel loved. I’ve seen average people become bold in spirit-led endeavors, creating unique and welcoming spaces. I believe this model facilitates the body of Christ to truly act as his hands and feet in this time of mental health crisis and institutional distrust.

It gives me hope for the future of the Church.

Notes

1. Bradly S. Billings, “From House Church to Tenement Church: Domestic Space and the Development of Early Urban Christianity—The Example of Ephesus,” Journal of Theological Studies 62, no. 2 (2011): 541.

2. Origen, Against Celsus 3.55 Origen. Translated excerpts available at Early Church Texts, Accessed 09/23/2025, https://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/origen/celsus_objections.shtml

3. Michael J. Wilkins, "Unique Discipleship to a Unique Master: Discipleship in the Gospel according to Mark," Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 8, no. 3 (Fall 2004): 54.