Talking Church ~ Is Bigger Better?


Came across this article last night. I have been praying for and struggling with discernment for the church I serve as pastor to. Read the article, then tell me – do you prefer a larger church (say, over 150), a mega-church (over 1,000), or something in between. Or maybe, you are looking for a small church (under 100)?

Is Bigger Better?

What makes for a biblically healthy church? People might answer that question in any number of ways but one of the most common, and misleading, assumptions often associated with this topic is that “bigger is better”. If a church is large and growing then the almost automatic assumption is that it is healthy or, at least, “successful”. It is often these churches that are well known to others and may even be “spotlighted” as good examples in print or in ministry conferences (yes, some sponsored in the past by MNA!). This has left many, if not the majority of,  pastors discouraged despite the fact that their ministries, though perhaps smaller, are actually quite healthy and “successful”, having a real gospel impact in people’s lives.

In contrast to this MNA has more recently been trying to communicate what many already know intuitively: “bigger is not necessarily better”. Being a large, growing church may indeed reflect a biblically healthy church that is attracting many people and seeing a number of conversions. It may be the result of a particularly gifted leader/preacher, positive demographics, and/or a unique movement of the Spirit. All this can be wonderful! But the fact is that small churches can also be biblically healthy and successful and this is a fact that we need to embrace and celebrate as well.

Christian Schwartz, in his book Natural Church Development, objectively demonstrates by using a variety of “health factors” the reality that small churches can still be healthy churches. He shows that in even tiny churches of 50 or less, let alone in small churches of 125-150, that there is a higher percentage of new conversions than in large and mega churches. Thus, according to Schwartz, 20 churches of 100 are likely to see MANY more people come to Christ than in one church of 2000 over a given year. In fact, he points out that a mini church of less than 50 can actually be more effective evangelistically, in proportion to its size, than a mega church!

In addition, he shows that spiritual formation takes place much more effectively in small churches, that a higher percentage of the membership is involved in a small group and are using their gifts in ministry, and so forth.

Small churches are much more likely to reach a wider variety of people and to penetrate and transform a given community. This is partly because larger churches tend to attract people from outside the immediate community and who thus tend not to have an investment in that community. Larger churches also tend to foster more of an audience mentality among a high percentage of those attending where people can be anonymous and come for worship and learning but not for discipleship, fellowship, and ministry. Impact in an individual’s life and their subsequent impact in a community can be less compared to smaller churches. Large churches can become dominated by issues related to facilities, programs, and staffing as opposed to evangelism and spiritual formation.

The fact is, small churches can be healthy even when they are not growing or even declining, a fact that may be due more to demographics than issues of biblical health. For all these reasons it is more important to emphasize and pursue biblical health than it is numerical growth.

But, of course, the opposite may be true. A church might be small BECAUSE it is not healthy. It may be ingrown, self-serving, or just plain lazy! Despite its outward profession it may be, in practical terms, unfaithful to its calling to reach and impact its community for Christ. In this case, being small cannot be celebrated. It must instead be biblically evaluated and challenged.

It should be emphasized that there are certain advantages to large churches.  There are often more resources of many kinds for outreach, church planting, and world missions than a small church. Still, it would be very strategic to see the landscape of North America dotted with countless mini, small, and mid-size churches that are reaching their communities with the gospel, continuously reproducing themselves, and “working side by side for the faith of the gospel” (Philippians 1:27)

When it comes to church planting and church health, bigger is NOT always better!

http://www.pca-mna.org/churchrenewal/bigger.php

 

 

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Talking Church ~ Is Bigger Better?

  1. It’s true that size does not necessarily equal maturity of the members. There are plenty of small churches who are healthy and functional. There are plenty of mega-churches (I do not include them in my thoughts; they are a separate category, in my opinion) that are un-healthy.

    However, I do know that people with personality disorders (in most forms of the illness) like smaller-membership churches because they can get the attention they crave. They can go un-challenged and un-accountable. They’re in every church, of course, but there is a higher concentration in smaller churches and they have much less of an impact in larger churches when they do “show out.” I’m basing this on anecdotal evidence only; my discussions with pastors who’ve served small, medium, and larger churches.

    What you said about charismatic personalities is true, though. However, a good pastor with a good leadership team will be alert to talented people who may not be as bold.

    I liken it to a church choir I sang in years ago. The choir director was a bit hard of hearing, but everyone loved him and he did know his stuff (and worked for free). He couldn’t hear the singer with training in the mix – especially over one man who drowned everyone out. The man who drowned everyone out got asked to do solos. A director without such hearing problems could have identified other soloists within the group and not just keep asking the one guy.

    Who’s being drowned out and who is not hearing the music they make? And what do we do about it?

  2. I understand where you’re coming from, Sally, and I agree that’s definitely a possibility and probably a condition many churches are in. However, it’s not always spiritual immaturity that holds people back from serving God to the fullest. Sometimes (I would even bet it would be most of the time, although that’s just my guess) it’s more a matter on how strong the personalities within the church are, whether spiritually mature or not. True, numerically speaking a large church has a higher chance of having spiritually mature people, but also has a higher chance of just plain charasmatic personalities that, whether mature or completely immature, tend to drown out the quieter, less forceful voices of many a talented member. Also, think of the numbers. If you have 100 small churches with 100 members each and one big church of 5000, statistically speaking alone you are going to have more spiritually mature people within the 100 small churches than in the one large church. There’s just a higher number in the large church. On the same token, you also have a larger population of the immature in the larger church, and it can be argued that in a smaller church it’s more necessary for people to step up and therefore grow in their maturity through service and practice because there are less highly charasmatic or highly educated people filling the spots.

  3. Sally,
    Thanks for the comments on the font. I have updated the page to make the blog easier to read.

    I’m not sure that the size of a church decides it’s health. When the mid-size church has an imbalance of biblical leadership, or finds itself with a focus on its congregational needs, it has a disease just as the small (or tiny!) church does. The disease is different, but still is a disability that leaves the church unable to be truly healthy.

    Guess that can be said for all “bodies”, regardless of their size!
    Shalom!

  4. I couldn’t see the article clearly, so I gave up trying to read it, sorry. I’m also finding it hard to read this font as I type…

    However, in general, I think larger (not mega) churches are healthier simply because they’re not so likely to adapt to their least mature members. Also, people who like to get a lot of attention (and who do so by sirring up trouble) don’t get the audience they want in a larger church. There is a larger labor pool so that leaders can be chosen who are spiritually mature, whereas in smaller (especially tiny) churches, you have no choice but to let immature people have certain positions and then do your best to work around them.

Share your thoughts ~ YOU are important here!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s