I’ve heard it said at both ends of the Society of Friends that it takes three committed families to plant a new Meeting. So even with a pastor, a healthy mix of talents is required. This is probably true of other congregations as well, but I’ll continue to use “meeting” here because I think much more is involved than just seeing each other on Sunday morning.
In envisioning an ideal Meeting, let me ask if having six committed families or if having sixty not-so-committed members would be preferable. That is, a smaller group that is highly responsive to each other in their daily activities, or a larger, more loosely knit group that is more widespread through the surrounding community. I’d say there are pros and cons both ways.
The question becomes less abstract when we consider our own expectations of our local family of faith. First, what do you require from a faith community, and then how willing you are to work toward achieving that? Second, how do your personal expectations and participation differ from others in that faith circle? And third, considering the future of the Meeting, what would you hope for? (These, by the way, might be good queries for the annual State of Society Report answers.)
Planting a new Meeting is, of course, only a start. Nurturing it is another matter. My guess is that three families form the minimum requirement because of the range of vision they engender and can pursue together – a microcosm of what we already have here where I worship.
Jnana's Red Barn 
I used to go to Quaker meetings with my mother. I know of the faith, though I did not follow it. I think that a small committed Meeting is better than a large one with people who are not committed.
As i am a Latter-Day Saint we do things slightly differently. Each meeting is known as a Ward. Each Ward has a boundary and is there to support all members of the community whether member of the Ward or not. A Ward needs a certain number of Priesthood holders to function. So when a few years ago a number of the big families all moved out within a short period of time the church split the Ward next to us and gave us some of their members including Priesthood holders. But now even some of those have moved on and we are sort of back where we started. And things like creating a new ward or moving a boundary comes from way up in the church and not something we can just do ourselves.
However all that said, a Ward/Meeting is strengthened by the testimony of the people and not by the numbers of people attending and building community is not about how many but how each person is loved. Again our ward is a little sick right now.
Hope that all makes sense.
Sounds to me like a good parallel to illustrate the workings of a small community of faith. I think your line, “not how many but how each person is loved,” sums up the core of the argument.
It’s quite a contrast to the mega-churches and large parishes that are so prevalent.
So many church communities round here are failing because the world is telling them there is no need to ‘go’ to church, to be part of that community. I think there is about 50 regular attenders at the ward i attend, but yesterday we said good bye to yet another family as they leave tomorrow for their new life is New Zealand.
We could extend that to a larger failing of community where we live. Our circles of faith, for you and me, is where community starts and can be most vivid, but I’ll leave it to others to suggest other possibilities.
I think it depends on what you mean by “commitment.” You’ve written eloquently about the quality of community life, and that’s an important thing.
But what about – let me be blunt – things like money? Sixty less committed families might still put more in the plate than six of even the most committed can afford. I’m not sure how the Friends handle financial matters, but in my tradition, where we have paid staff, buildings to maintain, and so on, money matters, even when we wish it didn’t (and we’re not really a large parish!).
Personally, my biggest requirement of a faith community is that it give me a chance to make a contribution, and (except for occasionally running into places which don’t cope well with women who want more than to make cups of tea) mostly that’s an easy requirement to meet!
I also think we need to be sensitive to people’s individual situations. Just this morning I had a very awkward conversation with someone who felt he couldn’t take on something he had been asked to do. I thought of it as a small thing, but it would have put pressure on his family life in a way he wasn’t prepared to do. And fair enough!
Your last question really sounds like one about mission – probably that deserves a separate discussion of its own?
Now you’re getting into those areas that really thicken the plot!
For the most part, we Friends don’t handle money issues well as an organization. We have little paid staff, and for many of us, that’s off at a regional or national level. (Usually underfunded.) In some circles, we once had a few folks with deep pockets who carried much of the load, but they’re no longer part of the scene. The transition has been difficult, even before we entered the current economic conditions.
As you suggest, the larger-size faith community allows a wider range for individual growth and participation, especially through one’s stages in life. But when it’s an all-volunteer enterprise, as our traditional meetings (congregations) are, that can put a lot of load on a few members. Even the pastoral meetings struggle on that front.
Mission is indeed worth a separate discussion, with or without the financial considerations thrown in. Any organization can find itself trying to address more issues than it can cope with. Focus is essential.
I’ll pay special attention this morning to those who are making the coffee and tea for after worship.