Size of Church (Membership)

[Blue Tick]

How big should a church become in terms membership? The average number for reformed churches seems to be around 30-150 people in attendance. I could be wrong on this but this has been my experience.

Has anyone ever seen a reformed church become to large that it affects the pastor and elders ability to shepherd the flock.

 

[ReformedWretch]

I've never seen one that big, but I have always believed that a Church should never get too big. It just seem logical and practical for Churches to remain small in number and split when/if they grow too big.

 

[Pergamum]

A shephard should know all the names of his sheep

 

[Grace Alone]

A shephard should know all the names of his sheep

Excellent!

I agree that in most cases, smaller churches result in closer relationships because everyone knows almost everyone in the body.

But what seems to typically happen to those that grow larger is not the planting of another church, but the addition of assistant pastors. There is this idea in the evangelical world that church growth is the goal, so we like to show increasing numbers. That was the impetus for our last church getting rid of the pastor. They didn't see the numbers growing enough and blamed it on him. But we are in a small town with lots of Baptist and Methodist churches and a big non-denominational one, and I don't think growth will be fast in a reformed church here regardless of who the pastor is.

I heard in the last year that the average size church in the US was 50 people. I don't recall the source.

 

[MOSES]

Church growth, in my opinion, should be limited based upon the amount of men who qualify and are gifted to rule. E.g., If there are only 4 men who are qualifed, then that church should (can) only be able to handle around 50 members. The more men that are qualified and able to rule then the more the church will be able to grow properly.

Growing properly is the key. Improper growth is not good...Imagine a person whose hands grow twice as big as his feet, or his arms grow twice as long as his legs; that is not proper growth.

Growing the church inproperly will result in negative effects...thus, as I said above, limit the growth to the amount of qualifed elders....(if you have 20 qualifed elders then perhaps that church can grow to 250-300 members...if you have only 2 then perhaps only 30 members)


5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you
Titus 1


The appointing of elders is what established the church...NOT...the bringing in as many "members" as possible.

 

[satz]

Church growth, in my opinion, should be limited based upon the amount of men who qualify and are gifted to rule. E.g., If there are only 4 men who are qualifed, then that church should (can) only be able to handle around 50 members. The more men that are qualified and able to rule then the more the church will be able to grow properly.

Growing properly is the key. Improper growth is not good...Imagine a person whose hands grow twice as big as his feet, or his arms grow twice as long as his legs; that is not proper growth.

Growing the church inproperly will result in negative effects...thus, as I said above, limit the growth to the amount of qualifed elders....(if you have 20 qualifed elders then perhaps that church can grow to 250-300 members...if you have only 2 then perhaps only 30 members)


5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you
Titus 1


The appointing of elders is what established the church...NOT...the bringing in as many "members" as possible.

If there are sincere converts who wish to join the church, should they be turned away?

 

[jwithnell]

The session of my church in St. Louis, when if was very small, set 200 as the upper number of membership. As that number was approached, they started planting new churches. This made a lot of sense to me for many of the reasons already stated.

It also helped to keep the church focused outwardly and not totally consumed with its own next step in growth ... i.e., getting various programs started, getting a building up, etc. Not that any of these latter items are bad; they can just keep a church focused on its own difficulties and goals.

 

[Pergamum]

Church growth, in my opinion, should be limited based upon the amount of men who qualify and are gifted to rule. E.g., If there are only 4 men who are qualifed, then that church should (can) only be able to handle around 50 members. The more men that are qualified and able to rule then the more the church will be able to grow properly.

Growing properly is the key. Improper growth is not good...Imagine a person whose hands grow twice as big as his feet, or his arms grow twice as long as his legs; that is not proper growth.

Growing the church inproperly will result in negative effects...thus, as I said above, limit the growth to the amount of qualifed elders....(if you have 20 qualifed elders then perhaps that church can grow to 250-300 members...if you have only 2 then perhaps only 30 members)


5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you
Titus 1


The appointing of elders is what established the church...NOT...the bringing in as many "members" as possible.

You would hinder growth due to the laziness or developing leaders or the lack of leaders?

We cannot predict growth, but when it happens your solution appears to desire to put the brakes on growth until the church is "ready."

 

[Scott1]

I think we have the biblical way to approach this in Reformed Theology.

A church could be any size, small to large but larger churches especially need to be centered around individual sheparding Elders and Deacons. It would be helpful to have groupings based on this so that the Senior Teaching Elder(s) (Pastor, Minister, etc) can focus on teaching the Word, leading in prayer in common worship. Those groupings, e.g. home groups, prayer groups, shepharding groups form a basis for some of the "connectivity" everyone needs to feel a part of and participate in the life of the church.

One of the strengths of the Presbyterian system I have seen is that responsibility is spread out well. Add to that the high level of participation encouraged by laymen. If a member is having a spiritual problem, he would likely go through an Elder assigned to him. If he had a material need, he might go the Deacon. This "spreading out" of responsibility, rather than everyone focusing on the Senior Pastor(s) to meet these needs is not only more practical, more gracious toward church officers, but more biblical as well.

Contrast this with a system where everything is centered on the Pastor. Every person expects that person to personally meet their spiritual needs or through them, their material needs. The Presbyterian system, as I have seen, does a good job spreading this responsibility out and in line with biblical concepts like the "priesthood of all believers" encourages a high level of participation in the life of the church by its members (so that church officers aren't expected to "do it all.")

 

[MOSES]

Church growth, in my opinion, should be limited based upon the amount of men who qualify and are gifted to rule. E.g., If there are only 4 men who are qualifed, then that church should (can) only be able to handle around 50 members. The more men that are qualified and able to rule then the more the church will be able to grow properly.

Growing properly is the key. Improper growth is not good...Imagine a person whose hands grow twice as big as his feet, or his arms grow twice as long as his legs; that is not proper growth.

Growing the church inproperly will result in negative effects...thus, as I said above, limit the growth to the amount of qualifed elders....(if you have 20 qualifed elders then perhaps that church can grow to 250-300 members...if you have only 2 then perhaps only 30 members)


5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you
Titus 1


The appointing of elders is what established the church...NOT...the bringing in as many "members" as possible.

You would hinder growth due to the laziness or developing leaders or the lack of leaders?

We cannot predict growth, but when it happens your solution appears to desire to put the brakes on growth until the church is "ready."

If laziness or the inability to develope leaders is the issue in a particular church...then that is a problem, in my opinion, and that church would not be in a position to grow properly. If growth occurs it would be only in quantity rather then quality. And then, when error, lawlesness, gross sin, etc..creeps into the church, the "lazy" leaders (or lack of leaders) will probably not do anything about it and immorality will spread like yeast. The church then becomes a growing infection...which is bad growth.

 

[Guido's Brother]

I've been a (missionary) pastor for a small mission church of six people (plus our family of five at the time). I went from that to being a co-pastor of a church of 650.

Our church is the largest in our federation. There are challenges in being a large church and pastoral care is certainly one of them. However, we do have two pastors, 15 elders and 7 deacons. Between all of us, I do think we manage to effectively care for the flock. But it is easier for people to hide in a large congregation than in a small one.

However, there are also many blessings that come with being a large church. One of them is the ability to pool resources and do a lot of things that smaller churches can't do. For instance, we have a very active missions program -- we support a missionary who works in our area and overseas, we support missionaries working in Brazil, we have a Short-Term Missions program, we support some of our members working at an orphanage in Mexico, and a lot of other things. We can do all this and there's a spill-over effect for the other Reformed churches in our area.

But I can see that there comes a time when a church simply becomes too big and it no longer has the character of a family or a body. In our case, I don't sense that that time is here yet.

 

[Pergamum]

Church growth, in my opinion, should be limited based upon the amount of men who qualify and are gifted to rule. E.g., If there are only 4 men who are qualifed, then that church should (can) only be able to handle around 50 members. The more men that are qualified and able to rule then the more the church will be able to grow properly.

Growing properly is the key. Improper growth is not good...Imagine a person whose hands grow twice as big as his feet, or his arms grow twice as long as his legs; that is not proper growth.

Growing the church inproperly will result in negative effects...thus, as I said above, limit the growth to the amount of qualifed elders....(if you have 20 qualifed elders then perhaps that church can grow to 250-300 members...if you have only 2 then perhaps only 30 members)


5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you
Titus 1


The appointing of elders is what established the church...NOT...the bringing in as many "members" as possible.

I think your error began immediately with your opening phrase, "Church growth should be limited..."

If we do believe in the sovereignty of God we should not bemoan the fact that we have 15 in our church or 1500 and any attempts to falsely limit growth or state that a thing "should" be when it is not is just as heinous as saying that we CAN make our churches grow or should be making our churches grow.

We need to remove our shoulds from discussions regarding the true growth of the church (don't should on me)....

If it is the Lord that adds to the church, he just might add 2,000 in one day (I am sure Pentecost caused some organizational problems too).

 

[MOSES]

Church growth, in my opinion, should be limited based upon the amount of men who qualify and are gifted to rule. E.g., If there are only 4 men who are qualifed, then that church should (can) only be able to handle around 50 members. The more men that are qualified and able to rule then the more the church will be able to grow properly.

Growing properly is the key. Improper growth is not good...Imagine a person whose hands grow twice as big as his feet, or his arms grow twice as long as his legs; that is not proper growth.

Growing the church inproperly will result in negative effects...thus, as I said above, limit the growth to the amount of qualifed elders....(if you have 20 qualifed elders then perhaps that church can grow to 250-300 members...if you have only 2 then perhaps only 30 members)


5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you
Titus 1


The appointing of elders is what established the church...NOT...the bringing in as many "members" as possible.

I think your error began immediately with your opening phrase, "Church growth should be limited..."

If we do believe in the sovereignty of God we should not bemoan the fact that we have 15 in our church or 1500 and any attempts to falsely limit growth or state that a thing "should" be when it is not is just as heinous as saying that we CAN make our churches grow or should be making our churches grow.

We need to remove our shoulds from discussions regarding the true growth of the church (don't should on me)....

If it is the Lord that adds to the church, he just might add 2,000 in one day (I am sure Pentecost caused some organizational problems too).

I don't think this is an error
"Church growth should be limited..."
if the context is correct.

The exact opposite of this, which must be your position, is:
"Church growth should be unlimited..."


The OP asked this question:

How big should a church become in terms membership?

"should" was what started this thread...
And the context is clearly the institutional church (because of the use of "membership" in the question).

If we are talking about the growth of the kingdom and the "invisible" church...then sure, I'm with you..the growth factor is (no "should" just "is") UNLIMITED.

But again in regards to the institutional church and church membership...I think it is completely valid to say "church growth should be limited"...and then make a discussion on what this may or may not entail.

 

[Archlute]

But what seems to typically happen to those that grow larger is not the planting of another church, but the addition of assistant pastors.

I have become aware of a rather large Reformed congregation (pushing toward 1000 members) who is doing both. It sounds as if they have been taking on assistant pastors, and then after four or five years of training they are sending them out to plant new churches with full support of the mother church. I think that this is a great model in that it keeps up a cycle of mentoring young ministers, overcomes the hardship of support and resources so often associated with church planting, and sends out well trained and experienced men into the work. If more Reformed churches had this type of membership, and the resources resulting from that, I would think that this could be a very wise and profitable approach.

 

[fredtgreco]

But what seems to typically happen to those that grow larger is not the planting of another church, but the addition of assistant pastors.

I have become aware of a rather large Reformed congregation (pushing toward 1000 members) who is doing both. It sounds as if they have been taking on assistant pastors, and then after four or five years of training they are sending them out to plant new churches with full support of the mother church. I think that this is a great model in that it keeps up a cycle of mentoring young ministers, overcomes the hardship of support and resources so often associated with church planting, and sends out well trained and experienced men into the work. If more Reformed churches had this type of membership, and the resources resulting from that, I would think that this could be a very wise and profitable approach.

Amen.

I don't see our congregation ever being that large (our property cannot house more than say 500), but that would be our model. If the Lord wills it and blesses us with growth in numbers, then we would go to about 400 and then spin off 80 or 100 or so into a new church with a man who would have been called as a church planter and been with us for about a year.

 

[fredtgreco]

Church growth, in my opinion, should be limited based upon the amount of men who qualify and are gifted to rule. E.g., If there are only 4 men who are qualifed, then that church should (can) only be able to handle around 50 members. The more men that are qualified and able to rule then the more the church will be able to grow properly.

You are incorrect. I have seen otherwise in dozens of instances. Four men who are gifted can adequately shepherd around 100-150, without great difficulty.

There is a balance. 50 members will have an extremely difficult time carrying out the work of the church.

 

[Leslie]

By church growth what do you mean? New conversions or transfers from other evangelical churches? No way any church should discourage a new believer or a serious inquirer from joining but I can see a church urging discontent church-hoppers from trying their place also.

 

[okcalvin]

Christ will grow His Church and supply Her with elders

Our congregation, too, has the 200 members cap ('though we have a ways to get there )

One thing I believe on the basis of Scripture and by personal experience is that our great King and Head of the Church will/does equip the saints to carry out His ministry. And in particular churches, that means that He has gifted that particular congregation with those gifts/those gifted to perform that ministry He has for that congregation to do at that point in His perfect plan and timing. That means that He will supply those faithful men who are appointed and anointed by Him to be office bearers.

At times our Session might feel overburdened; we take that as the Lord's way of letting us know that we need to draw closer to Him for strength/wisdom/grace AND to better encourage the saints for the work of ministry (Ephesians 4).

Ten family units per elder seems a good "fit," in my opinion.

 

[Blue Tick]

I have become aware of a rather large Reformed congregation (pushing toward 1000 members) who is doing both. It sounds as if they have been taking on assistant pastors, and then after four or five years of training they are sending them out to plant new churches with full support of the mother church. I think that this is a great model in that it keeps up a cycle of mentoring young ministers, overcomes the hardship of support and resources so often associated with church planting, and sends out well trained and experienced men into the work. If more Reformed churches had this type of membership, and the resources resulting from that, I would think that this could be a very wise and profitable approach.

I believe Emmanuel Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Kent Washington followed this model when they planted a church in Olympia Washington.
I can see how this model would work effictively because of the lack of missionaries coming to a specific region. For instance I live in Utah (Mormonville) and we don't have alot of Reformed missionaries knocking at our door arriving to minister. However, we do have quite a few men in our congregation who desire to be in gospel ministry.

 

[Blue Tick]

By church growth what do you mean?

This is what I meant by my question. When should the church consider planting an additional church when the communicant membership increases? Obviously, there are variables with everything congregation, so it would depend primarily on resources and qualified men to minister to the new flock.

 

[rjlynam]

I think a thousand is a good number. Yeah, I like that number.

Having been a member of churches ranging in size from 29 to 4000+ members, I can't say that there is a optimal number.

The 4000+ member church I was a member at really did things right. They had care clusters assigned to elders and the elders (15 of them) were actively involved in shepherding. And they had ministering opportunities galore.

Also been a member of a 29 member church with 3 elders and no shepherding.


So, I think I like the number 1000. It has a milennial ring to it.