 |
 |
Do Larger Churches Take More Energy Than Smaller Churches?
Orginally published on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 7:31 AM
by Todd Rhoades
What do you think of this quote?
"Great ministry and transformation happens in megachurches, that's true. But the larger a congregation becomes, it takes more energy and resources to hold everything together, and mission can be lost to the busy-ness of keeping the church maintained. It also becomes more difficult to assess how people in the congregation are living, how they're growing. That's never a good thing."
That was said by the research coordinator for the United Methodist Church recently... I'd love to hear what you think...
Here’s the quote source: - The Rev. Dan R. Dick, research coordinator for the United Methodist General Board of Discipleship and author of the book “Bursting the Bubble,” in an interview with the United Methodist Reporter
What do you think? My thought is that it probably takes less energy and resources (per person) to hold together a larger church. (Anyone who thinks the opposite may have never been a part of a small church!) Also, the mission can be lost in a smaller church just as easily (if not more easily) by going into maintenance mode. Let’s face it, with over 300,000+ churches in America… a overwhelming majority are in maintenance mode (and the overwhelming majority are 100 attenders or less).
Does it become more difficult to assess how people in the congregation are living and growing in a larger church? Perhaps. But churches, as a whole, large AND small, need to do a better job in this area as well.
Both the very large church and the very small church have their struggles.
Your thoughts?
Todd
This post has been viewed 238 times so far.
There are 10 Comments:
I'm a chronic workaholic, love to connect leaders with other leaders, and would consider myself somewhat of a 'maven'. Hopefully you'll find something here at MMI you'll like and will return often. If you want, you can find out more about me or follow my every step.
MondayMorningInsight.com | PO Box 446 | Bryan, OH 43506 |
-
Posted by
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 8:24 AM
-
Posted by
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 8:24 AM
-
Posted by Rev. Eric
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 9:20 AM
-
Posted by Justin
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 9:44 AM
-
Posted by Peter Hamm
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 12:54 PM
-
Posted by
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 1:10 PM
-
Posted by Peter Hamm
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 1:47 PM
-
Posted by Eric
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 1:48 PM
-
Posted by Stewart
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 8:11 PM
-
Posted by che of teak furniture
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 8:49 PM
Post Your Comments:I think your right on, Todd. I’ve been a member and served on staff of several sized churches ( <40, 100-200, 300-500, 500-700, and 2500+) The smaller to midsized churches struggled with 80-20 principle. 80% of the work being done by 20% of the people.
It’s a lot easier for churches with a large staff and plenty of volunteers to manage and move beyond maintenance mode.
Smaller church staffs have to wear multiple hats, while larger churches can divide ministries and programs among those who are more qualified and equipped to fill those roles. Therefore a larger success rate in a greater variety of ministries.
Great question.
I’ve been solo pastor in a church under 100 worshippers and now am part of a multi-staff in a church with 500 in weekly attendance. While that doesn’t fit the definition of Mega-church, it does put us in the upper percentile. This church has implemented good SYSTEMS so that it takes much less energy than the RELATIONAL demands of a smaller congregation.
I’ve been a member of a 1200 member congregation, a pastor of a 50 member congregation and am presently a pastor of a 100 member congregation. In my opinion the work of ministry (if that sounds right) does become easier with a larger congregation because you can specialize what people do and concentrate on their strengths.
That being said, I think, regardless of size, the ministry of the church is best accomplished when the church has a clear understanding of its mission and vision or purpose. This way the church works together in one direction instead of various ministries intentionally or un-intentionally working against each other by taking the church in different directions.
The above comments seem to me to be spot on. My wife and I have been part of large, mid, and small churches, both as members and as staff. I currently pastor a small church. The key issue seems to be how well the congregation grasps and embraces your mission and values, not the size of the church. And there are lots of factors that influence the body’s embrace of your mission, for good or for ill: age of the church (both as an organization as well as the age composition of the congregation), stability of the current/previous pastorate, location, make-up of congregation vs. make-up of the community, congregational size, systems in place, how and why the church was started, expectations of clergy vs. laity (whether you like that distinction or not, it is present in many a church). And so on, and so on.
Some people go to large churches to disappear. Some go to get involved in lots of programs. Some people flee large churches to go to small churches to feel more connected. Some flee to escape the “busyness” of a large church, to be left alone. And so the permutations go. It’s just not as simple as a large vs. small thing.
I’ve been a volunteer in churches of 300 and about 50, and now on staff on a church that averages about 900 a week.
It’s harder work in the larger church, but more rewarding and more fun. maybe, though, it’s just because I’m in the coolest, funnest, bestest, church in the whole world… (but I’m biased...)
It’s a lot easier to make a living off the Gospel in a large church. It’s a lot easier when you don’t get down to actually preaching the Gospel and confronting sinners, “Christians” who are living in sin or the false converts. It’s easier when you identify the members who have money and make sure they are happy with your church.
It’s a lot easier when you focus on outward beauty and appearance ... what most of our culture is drawn to. It’s a lot easier when you ignore addressing core doctrine for the sake of unity. It’s a lot easier when you cast aside the qualifications for Elders and make that a popularity contest. It’s a lot easier when you build on pop psychology than the Gospel that is sure to offend the flesh. It’s a lot easier when you turn the worship service into a concert LOADING it with sensational effects which are designed to appeal to the flesh.
It’s a whole lot easier when you figure out that appealing to the flesh draws and pleases a crowd… Aaron figured this out when he made the Golden calf.
Jud,
Thanks for the reminder. I’m glad we don’t pursue those things in our “big” church, and I don’t really think I know anybody in big churches that actually does.
jud, I’m a bit offended at your post. My home church is a large church (about 1400 members) and they began to grow when they got over themselves and really began to focus on glorifying and magnifying God. I believe God has brought people to that church because He is being worshiped there and God likes being worshiped!
I don’t know what your personal experience is. There are churches that make the mistake of missing the forest for the trees and they begin to worship what they have versus for Whom they have it.
I think the “easiness” you speak of is found in churches regardless of size. There are many churches that are big because they’ve focused on the people and not God. There are many churches that remain small because they focus on keeping the carpets clean instead of investing in a youth group (who might dirty the carpets- egad!) so God doesn’t bring people there because their focus is not on Him.
I don’t think we can equate a church’s health solely on its size. (Although we are called to create disciples and size is one of many things to measure how we are fulfilling the Great Commission.)
But this blog is about the relationship between the size of the church and it’s ability to manage its ministries. I think there is no relationship relationship between the two. In other words a large church isn’t more or less able to manage its ministries than a small church. Different size churches have different cultures and size does affect HOW a church is managed, i.e. paid staff vs. volunteers. But the ability, I believe, comes down to relationships and the entire church having a clear understanding of its mission and vision or purpose.
This might sound harsh, but the so-called “study” sounds like a declining denomination trying to justify itself and make its pastors and parishioners feel better about themselves.
I’ve heard similar statements from Episcopalians, Presbyterians and some Baptists.
It all sounds like attempts to justify where their ministries are. I have always pastored smaller churches. Right now my church has about 200 people on Sundays.
It is growing. Sometimes fast, sometimes slowly. Occasionally we retrench. When we do grow we spin ministry off. I like it that way. I like having personal contact with a majority of people I minister with and preach to. I like not having to “specialize” as some of you have mentioned.
But I have to say (as most of you have) that the effectiveness of the church is not measured well by whether it’s large or small.
I think whatever size the church is, as long as you have your vision of what you want to achieve and stay on track, you will never get lost.
Page 1 of 1 pages