Small churches doing a better job

[Pergamum]

Is Bigger Really Better? The Statistics actually Say “No”! | ChurchPlanting.com

A global survey conducted by Christian Schwartz found that smaller churches consistently scored higher than large churches in seven out of eight qualitative characteristics of a healthy church. A more recent study of churches in America, conducted by Ed Stetzer and Life Way Ministries, revealed that churches of two hundred or less are four times more likely to plant a daughter church than churches of one thousand or more. The research seems to even indicate that the pattern continues—the smaller the size of the church the more fertile they are in planting churches.

It pains me that so many churches and leaders suffer from an inferiority complex when in fact they could very well be more healthy and fruitful than the big-box church down the street


Read more here: Is Bigger Really Better? The Statistics actually Say “No”! | ChurchPlanting.com

 

[Gforce9]

I suspect one of the issues is in the preaching (or lack thereof) of the Word. My experience in attending a larger churches is that they are larger on purpose; to "attract" folks. By having this as there telos, they water down, or worse, substitute the gospel with something "appealing".

 

[Zach]

I'm not surprised. I think once a church reaches a certain point in size and they have not seriously considered planting a daughter congregation it's become mostly a numbers game. A Church of a couple thousand probably is geographically diverse enough to plant at least one separate congregation but for some reason they choose not to. That's not to say that they don't preach or believe the gospel, but it seems like the focus is on getting people through the door and growing big churches. I know that the prevailing mindset among many of my evangelical friends is that bigger is better.

 

[Christopher88]

On a personal note:
The local church I am a member of is a daughter church of a larger church. In fact the goal of my Pastor is to plant again and keep on planting. The advantage to smaller congregations is; closeness with the elders (I can actually reach and meet with my elders if I desired) My Pastor is a part of my life not just the preacher. Connections in smaller churches happen where I personally find larger churches lack connection and true gatherings on Sunday's.

The "father" church Salem came from is big, great church but the reason I moved with Salem outside of connection was the fact when I entered worship I felt it was a "family" gathering, not a gathering of gathering.

Now these is my personal feelings and scripture does not say which is better, but scripture does mandate a principle of how worship should be conducted.

 

[Jack K]

I suspect one of the issues is in the preaching (or lack thereof) of the Word. My experience in attending a larger churches is that they are larger on purpose; to "attract" folks. By having this as there telos, they water down, or worse, substitute the gospel with something "appealing".

Some. Not all.

Some large churches grow large because they are preaching the gospel and that's attractive to people who're hungry for it.

My experience is that people in small churches tend to be suspicious of large churches, supposing they must be watering down the truth and pandering to the crowds. And people in large churches tend to be suspicious of small churches, supposing they must be incompetent or too sectarian or failing to preach the gospel with any vibrancy.

Either can be true. But we must remember that God gives the increase, not a small-church or large-church formula. You can have a faithful and healthy small church and you can have a faithful and healthy large church. We should not asume too much from the size.

 

[Zach]

I suspect one of the issues is in the preaching (or lack thereof) of the Word. My experience in attending a larger churches is that they are larger on purpose; to "attract" folks. By having this as there telos, they water down, or worse, substitute the gospel with something "appealing".

Some. Not all.

Some large churches grow large because they are preaching the gospel and that's attractive to people who're hungry for it.

My experience is that people in small churches tend to be suspicious of large churches, supposing they must be watering down the truth and pandering to the crowds. And people in large churches tend to be suspicious of small churches, supposing they must be incompetent or too sectarian or failing to preach the gospel with any vibrancy.

Either can be true. But we must remember that God gives the increase, not a small-church or large-church formula. You can have a faithful and healthy small church and you can have a faithful and healthy large church. We should not asume too much from the size.

I agree with you, Jack. I can see that in my own views toward larger churches sometimes and it is something that I need to repent of when I see myself being judgmental. I tried to make clear in my post above that a church can be preaching the gospel and grow large because of that and still not be committed to serious church planting. Why? I don't think it's because they aren't committed to the spread of the gospel. But, I do think that once a church reaches a certain size without considering planting they are operating under the assumption that bigger is better.

 

[Jack K]

I do think that once a church reaches a certain size without considering planting they are operating under the assumption that bigger is better.

Well, from the article that started this thread, it seems that may often be the case. Not always, though. My own experience in a fairly large church (600-1000 attending weekly) was one that did include a church planting mindset. Whenever a group would leave, that just made room for more newcomers. We'd soon be back to our old size without hardly trying. The church remained fairly large and still planted six new congregations in about 15 years. (It might have been more, but we took it slow due to wanting quality leadership for the new churches. You need trained elders to go with the plant, and not every pastor is cut out to lead a start-up.) But maybe that approach is more of an exception than a norm for large churches.

I do buy the article's assertion that several smaller churches usually reach more people than one large church. Absolutely. That's why I support church planting. But I don't think you can look at a large church and just assume they aren't interested in planting, aren't preaching hard truth, pander to the crowds, etc. That isn't necessarily so.

 

[Zach]

I do think that once a church reaches a certain size without considering planting they are operating under the assumption that bigger is better.

Well, from the article that started this thread, it seems that may often be the case. Not always, though. My own experience in a fairly large church (600-1000 attending weekly) was one that did include a church planting mindset. Whenever a group would leave, that just made room for more newcomers. We'd soon be back to our old size without hardly trying. The church remained fairly large and still planted six new congregations in about 15 years. (It might have been more, but we took it slow due to wanting quality leadership for the new churches. You need trained elders to go with the plant, and not every pastor is cut out to lead a start-up.) But maybe that approach is more of an exception than a norm for large churches.

I do buy the article's assertion that several smaller churches usually reach more people than one large church. Absolutely. That's why I support church planting. But I don't think you can look at a large church and just assume they aren't interested in planting, aren't preaching hard truth, pander to the crowds, etc. That isn't necessarily so.

That's great about that church where you were a member! Forgive me if I sounded judgmental toward large congregations and assumed that all large churches aren't interested in Church planting. There are definitely congregations like the one you described.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The problem with statistics is how they don't necessarily say the "why" of something and so it is easy to insert our own reasons. There are obviously many factors that go into this but it is not always easy to grow to a certain size and still garner the kind of enthusiasm that small Churches have.

I found this lecture by Tim Keller to be quite interesting: Why Plant Churches? | Redeemer Sermons

I'm not sure I agree with every conclusion but he makes some keen observations about the reasons why some older Churches tend to become more staid while the planting of new Churches need not be seen as competing with existing Churches but growing the Kingdom of God in a given region. I get the impression that he viewed his multi-site model more as a stage toward particularization and multiplication rather than a goal for a congregation.

In our own area, we're in a Church planting network. A good friend and pastor of an established Church has been able to keep his Church vibrant for over 30 years and is now in the stage where they've successfully planted our Church and we're teamed together to plant Churches in the region. We're going to be planting a new Church in about a month and, as we add more Churches to the network, we continue to pool our resources to accelerate that process.

I like what my friend said at our Particularization. His Church was beginning to grow to the level where it was going to become a staff-driven Church and he consciously rejected that model as desiring the ability to be able to be directly involved in people's lives through counseling. That's not a choice all make but I agree with that notion. I once attended a Church in Springfield, VA that was the first Church in the PCA in the region and now has over 30 Churches that form an entire Presbytery that are either daugther or grand-daughter Churches. He chose that in lieu of growing into one massive Church.