Limiting a Congregation's Size?

[Casey]

As far as congregations in my denomination go, anything over a few hundred members starts looking like a megachurch.

But seriously, when I think about limiting factors on the size of a congregation, the first thing that comes to mind is that there cannot be more sheep than the shepherd is capable of tending. I don't know how one man can care for more than a few hundred people in a meaningful way in accordance with his duties.

In my denomination, the norm is for there to be one pastor per congregation (when there is more than one minister, the second is generally an evangelist, missionary, or teacher laboring primarily outside of the congregation). But is there any theological reason for limiting the number of pastors in a congregation? Is there any compelling reason to prefer one pastor per congregation, instead of having a 2,000 member congregation with 4-5 ordained ministers shepherding the flock, equally dividing the parishioners?

I ask this as a Presbyterian (understanding that the continental Reformed sometimes have a different view on the role of the minister and elders).

 

[mvdm]

I don't think you'll find a set theological rule for the size of the congregation, but the concern I'd have with a large congregation "divided" among 4-5 ministers would be just that: "division" among the body. One segment following one minister, the next segment wishing they had the other pastor, the third group comparing themselves to the others, etc.

In the context of my own church's long range planning for a new building, we faced this very question: how large do we want to ever be so we can plan the building accordingly? We are currently approximately 200 members who are knit quite well together as a family, and it was settled that we would not want to exceed 350-400 members. If we got past that point, we would just plant a new church.

I know this is far from a theologically precise or comprehensive answer, but at its root is the question you raise--- how can the shepherd know and love their flock. If a church has grown to the point of considering multiple pastors, I'd suggest they should first consider the feasibility/desirability of planting a daughter church.

 

[Zenas]

My wife and I often wonder how ministers, who are responsible for those in their church, are able to tend to 2-3 thousand people in a meaningful manner.

 

[ServantofGod]

Kinda

Didn't Charles Spurgeon have the Metro, and that was a "mega-church"? Who helped him shepherd the souls of the congregation?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I've always attended large PCA churches (thousands of members each), and never felt the care was lacking in any of those churches. The pastor doesn't need to have a personal relationship with each and every member of his flock in order to shepherd them well. I don't think "dividing" the congregation is necessarily a good idea either, but Jesus used His disciples to care for many of His followers.

 

[Wannabee]

Kinda

Didn't Charles Spurgeon have the Metro, and that was a "mega-church"? Who helped him shepherd the souls of the congregation?

He had various elders to perform various duties that the ministry demanded.
He preached at least three times a week at the Tab. He also preached often at other locations, as well as impromptu when opportunity arose.
As a young believer he was known to visit as many as 70 homes in a day, sharing the glories of Christ.
He was known in London for his pastoral visits to the houses of people dying during the cholera epidemic of the 1850s (cholera being, at the time, untreatable, and of unknown cause).
He had a weekly time set aside to meet individually with people who wanted to become church members because they had become Christians. In this way, he came to know at least 6000 church members by name, together with knowing how they had come to receive Jesus as Lord and Saviour.
He began a door-to-door book-and-tract-sellers (colporteurs) organization to sell Bibles, as well as books, magazines and tracts produced by him. In the year 1878 alone, 94 colporteurs made 926,290 home visits. Their aim was not merely to sell books, but to talk about spiritual questions with the people they met.
It is said that he regularly visited the orphanage that he had started, as it was between his church and his home. He knew the children by name, and would make sure to have a handful of pennies in order to give one to each of them.
He began and ran a pastor's college offering a two year course where he personally instructed men.
The Metropolitan Tabernacle was a place of constant activity, open from 7 in the morning until 11 at night seven days a week, hosting spiritually focused or welfare programmes run by people who lived and worked in the area.
The busyness of the building is not surprising, since Spurgeon began and maintained 65 different institutions, ranging from welfare organizations through to mission organizations, preacher training colleges, and organizations for the distribution of literature.
By 1866, his trainees had begun 18 new churches in London alone.
Most weeks, and as just a sample of some of his regular duties, Spurgeon wrote, delivered and published a weekly sermon; looked after an orphanage, a pastor's college and an almshouse; read and responded personally to 500 letters; and preached up to 10 times in churches that he had started.
In 1884, at Spurgeon's Jubilee celebration, Deacon Olney of the Metropolitan Tabernacle claimed that on Sunday evenings, there were 1000 members of the Tabernacle regularly involved in conducting meetings outside the Tabernacle.
He regularly asked his church members to leave the church so that those waiting outside could come in to hear God's Word.


I agree that the need for pastoral preacher is evident in modern churches. But, if these facts I dug up are true (listed with help from here), I don't think we can possibly say that Spurgeon lacked a pastoral heart, or practice.

And, as we all know, Spurgeon not only knew depression, but difficult sickness. Take a look into the heart of a pastor as he preaches For the Sick and Afflicted.

 

[Hamalas]

And very few men are Spurgeons!

 

[nicnap]

As far as congregations in my denomination go, anything over a few hundred members starts looking like a megachurch.

But seriously, when I think about limiting factors on the size of a congregation, the first thing that comes to mind is that there cannot be more sheep than the shepherd is capable of tending. I don't know how one man can care for more than a few hundred people in a meaningful way in accordance with his duties.

In my denomination, the norm is for there to be one pastor per congregation (when there is more than one minister, the second is generally an evangelist, missionary, or teacher laboring primarily outside of the congregation). But is there any theological reason for limiting the number of pastors in a congregation? Is there any compelling reason to prefer one pastor per congregation, instead of having a 2,000 member congregation with 4-5 ordained ministers shepherding the flock, equally dividing the parishioners?

I ask this as a Presbyterian (understanding that the continental Reformed sometimes have a different view on the role of the minister and elders).

The other elders ought to be handling the shepherding as well...they are elders. That is the beauty of a plurality of elders...they are all helping shepherd the sheep.

 

[Tripel]

The other elders ought to be handling the shepherding as well...they are elders. That is the beauty of a plurality of elders...they are all helping shepherd the sheep.

Exactly. I thought that the number of elders should reflect the size of the congregation, not just the number of ministers.
My church of about 400 has 9 or 10 ruling elders (in addition to our 3 teaching elders). When I visit out-of town family, the church we attend has 3,000+. I used to think that was too large, but realized they have 50-something elders to shepherd the flock.

 

[he beholds]

Since the OPC sees three separate offices: Teaching Elder, Ruling Elder, Deacon and the PCA sees just the two offices Elder and Deacon, does that make a difference? Do the OPC elders have less of a shepherding role than the PCA elders? Or vice versa?

 

[Glenn Ferrell]

Since the OPC sees three separate offices: Teaching Elder, Ruling Elder, Deacon and the PCA sees just the two offices Elder and Deacon, does that make a difference? Do the OPC elders have less of a shepherding role than the PCA elders? Or vice versa?

In my limited observation, OPC ruling elders are often better trained and more involved than PCA elders. I'm always impressed at the OP General Assembly, which is delegated and has a maximum of 151 commissioners; unless I know the man personally, I'm usually unable to distinguish teaching from ruling elders when they are speaking on the floor. Though we are “three office” in our constitution, our ruling elders play a prominent role in the congregation, session, presbytery and general assembly.

Also, because there are no mega-churches in the OPC (400 would be considered a large congregation, and there are only a handful of those), there is a genuine equity among ministers, and a partnership with ruling elders in ministry.