Church Size

How large is too large?  My previous post, "Friendly or Friendship?", reminds me of the debate about church size.  Is there an optimum size for church health?  I think not.  Rather, churches need to restructure to optimise both mission and discipleship. 

Some may choose to remain small or medium sized by intentionally planting new churches or feeding people into existing churches.  That is a mission strategy.  But churches that choose to remain small for fellowship or discipleship reasons are plain selfish.

Others may choose to grow large because mission is easier, but they need to work harder on discipleship and fellowship so that people are not long term passengers or consumers who don't contribute.

All church sizes have their challenges and opportunities, but transitioning size has its costs.  And the pastors and key leaders need to be willing to pay the price.  For example, I remember when we were breaking the 250 barrier I knew that I needed to be willing to pay the price of a loss of intimacy with my people.  When we got to 500 there were several homes that I had never been into.  By the time we got to 800 I was facing the occasional criticism that I knew some people well but gave little time to others.  It was a reality that I had to live with, otherwise I would have limited growth by my desire to know all people well.  Instead, I needed to restructure and let go.

Not all churches can or will grow because of factors such as poor soil (for example in Islamic countries or where there are rapidly changing demographics or where there has been significant internal conflict).  But churches that choose not to deal with their growth or health inhibitors are sinful.  That's strong language - but lost people matter too much for us to be overly concerned about the niceties of language!

If you enjoyed this article, or found it interesting, vote for it  at Blog4 God and PlugRug so others can  read it as well.

Comments

[Beth]

Speaking of the 'niceties of language', perhaps the dichotomisation of 'mission' and 'discipleship' as competing agendas or criteria in the life of the church, is a clue to why a church is not growing (by this I mean seeing people become followers of Jesus). I think the New Testament envisages discipleship definitively as the missional life. Jesus' call is to be and make disciples. This is all one call, not two separate activities. If 'discipleship' is being spoken of in distinction to 'mission', perhaps it is being used euphemistically to gloss over what might be more accurately called 'the ways that suit us'.

[Paul]

My experience is that churches tend to grow to the point where either seating capacity of car parking capacity reach a saturation point. With people, this is about 80% of the seating occupied during services. With car parking this is where the occupants of the cars have to walk more than three minutes from where they park to the church.

When either or both of these occur, church leaders must make alternative plans. The first step is usually to hold multiple services. Whilst this alleviates the over-crowding/over-parking problem, it places additional stress on the pastoral team.

However, if alternatives to the over-capacity problem are not addressed, then growth is stunted. New people may keep coming, but just as many are going out the back door as coming in the front.

If the local church is serious about its mission, it either has to foster new church plants or increase the size of its facilities.

As for being disciples, this doesn't happen until disciples become disciple makers - mission is always an implied part of discipleship.