Why are K halls SMALL???

by philo 5 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  philo

  Why are K Halls small?
  future increase in members they get no money from the RBC. I understand all this applies across western europe as well.

  * The RBC gets its money from congregation donations within its region and these funds are directed to where the
  Facts to weigh up

  * In the UK, kingdom halls have a seated capacity of about 150-200. The buildings themselves cost about as much in materials as a couple of houses. The Regional Building Committees are quite assertive about how big the hall should be, and they will only lend money from the RBC fund if their criteria are met. If a congregation goes out on a limb and wants a bigger hall to accommodate committee decides 'the need' is. I understand the RBC is not an autonomous body, that the Branch or possibly the District can influence it.

  * It is far cheaper to build one kingdom hall of say 400 capacity in an urban or suburban area than to have two halls seating 200. That's because two 'builds' duplicates the planning and designing stages, and the bigger hall uses much less building materials than the two smaller ones.

  I am giving no opinions yet. What I have said is, I think, uncontroversial.

  So why are kingdom halls so small? Is it really about buildings or is it really about congregations?

  Any takers?
• 

  thinkers wife

  Philo,
  I don't know the answer for sure. But I do know that all the congregations like to keep their numbers to around 125 or less, provided there are enough elders to go around.
  Although especially in cities where land is at a premium it would seem more cost effective to build larger one's and share. And this does actually happen in some places.
  TW
• 

  larc

  Philo,

  It is because they want to keep the number in the congregation small. You can maintain more control and conformity in a small group than you can a larger one.
• 

  philo

  Hi TW

  :I do know that all the congregations like to keep their numbers to around 125 or less, provided there are enough elders

  Yes they do like to stay around that number. It seems more than a coincidence that that is the figure they choose, don't you think. When I was a witness, I would have loved to attend a meeting of 300 people rather than the 75 of my allocated congregation -- and I am no party animal, believe me. So is it 'congregations that like to keep to 125(ish) or is it the command that likes to chop up bodies of christians -- as IARC says below -- to keep control? After all, if a congregation needed to be disbanded (as happens) or worse, if one needed disfellowshipping, (which has happened, I have heard) which task would be executed easiest, the small one or the big one?

  Also, if a presiding overseer, or any elder, came from a congregation of 500, would he have more clout/authority than one from a small congregation. I think so. His authority among the local brothers might be the same, but among the COs and DOs he would be a more considerable person -- something like a 'city overseer'. But the difference is crucial: he was not designated such by the WTS! So this scenario is not to Brooklyn's liking I think.

  Thanks for your comments.

  philo
• 

  Welshman

  It is purely a matter of control,even if they had enough elders.I have heard elders and CO's admit as much.This is why they are against large gatherings.Fundamentally,as brought out in C of C,they do not trust the members and that's why they have built this pharasaic web of rules.

  Regards Welshman
• 

  LDH

  Larc, there may be truth to that. Within about 3 miles of my house are 7 or 8 churches with memberships in the THOUSANDS.