Attendance Ceilings
Posted by Todd Rhoades in Leadership on Oct 27th, 2011 | 44 commentsI’ve heard it for years. Books have been written about the subject. Seminars and conferences have drawn thousands over the years.
How do we break the XXX attendance barrier?
Bryan Miles at MAG has some observations about church attendance size, barriers, etc. I think you’ll find them interesting. Here are the first three categories. You’ll need to head over to his blog for the last three:
- 100 – This is a group of people who are circling around a good vision-caster. This group likely knows everybody. They are really vision based … and giving can be strong with a key/sending group. One key ideal/vision is the reason for this group to have developed. 6 months in is a tricky season at this level … stagnation can hit around this mark.
- 300 – This group of people essentially are the typical church. 2 to 3 staff. Duct tape systems & processes. Not everyone in the church knows each other. Typically, I see a pastor change here … after one or two attempts of trying to grow the church but unsuccessful. Churches that grow out of this stage … change their mindset on scaling … and start to really believe in the power of small groups AND volunteerism.
- 600 to 800 – This church is now a small organization. 3 to 5 staff. Volunteers emphasis is imperative. Church goes from church of 300 to 600/700 by developing (maybe for 1st time) systems & processes. Refinement of ministries tied to mission/goals likely happens. This is where people who attend are challenged with church not being about them – and an attack on consumerism by attendees. Churches often make the mistake of building something here as THE solution to growth.
What category is YOUR church currently in? Was Bryan spot-on with his description of your church size?
What would you add or dispute?
Todd
44 Responses to “ “Attendance Ceilings”
Leave a Reply
Of course my question is, where did we get this idea/concept that there are barriers to be broken? Why do we want to “break the 100 barrier, or the 300?” What if “attendance-barrier-breaking” is an unhealthy focus for pastors and their leaders? What if?
Good question Dave. Growth should not be the main focus. Jesus is the focus and growth should be the outcome (John 15:1-8). Yet, as one who provides coaching to churches, I will tell you that a great many congregations “limit themselves.” Their unwillingness to deal with basic pragmatic growth issues, means that they are a bottleneck to what God wants to do. In Acts 6 and Acts 15 the church had to deal with practical issues related to growth. They had to address “how” they did ministry differently in order to reach more people. Too often leaders are intimidated by this and as a result they would rather spiritualize growth barriers than address the fact that maybe they are part of the reason the church is stagnate.
Hey Jim, great to hear that you coach pastors. I’m entering into my sixth year of full time pastoral coaching. Any coach to pastors is a friend of mine.
I think the questionable assumption is found in your statement:”Jesus is the focus and growth should be the outcome.” Certainly we should focus on Jesus, remove growth barriers, etc. but this is still no guarantee that attendance will go up. My experience has been that you can have a healthy church and it not grow. And you can have an unhealthy church and it grow. I’m not against church growth. I just don’t want to burden pastors with responsibility to break some barrier, i.e. a certain size. Our Christian culture is fascinated by size and numbers and we need to be freed from this without becoming complacent in regard to our mission.
First of all… absolutely agree that numeric growth is not the only or even the primary indicator of church health. And I agree that unhealthy churches do grow. Growth can be manipulated. I feel that one day many of our so-called “successful” churches might get the same kind of greeting that Sardis got in Revelation 3 “You have the reputation of being alive but you are dead.” (this includes my church btw).
Second, I love your last sentence… there needs to be mission without pressure and the burden to only view success based on measurable outcomes.
Yet, with all that being said, Jesus did say that if we “abide in Him” we would see fruit… more fruit… much fruit. Fruit does not always manifest itself in numeric growth, but health does result in some fruit outside of Bible studies and sending money to foreign missionaries. Perhaps we are medicating ourselves and spiritualizing in order to convince ourselves that we’re ok and that the only churches that are growing are “selling out?”
Perhaps we are medicating ourselves and spiritualizing in order to convince ourselves that we’re ok and that the only churches that are growing are “selling out?”
Uh… yeah, I think that happens sometimes (but not all the time). Again, it’s the unhealthy and unrealistic thought that larger churches are all gimicky, or have sold out, or have all the resources, or take people from the small church, or… you name it.
Most large churches used to be small churches. (In fact, all were at one time).
One sign of health for me would be vibrancy and growth. (Notice, I said “one” sign).
That doesn’t mean that you need to be a church of 1000 in a community of 500.
Todd
You said, “Perhaps we are medicating ourselves and spiritualizing in order to convince ourselves that we’re ok and that the only churches that are growing are “selling out?”" You could be right, I certainly hope not. And I certainly am not suggesting that growing churches are selling out. I’m not against numerical growth or large churches. I am, however, against the way our culture has made pastors of smaller churches feel insignificant and failures.
@Todd agree. wasn’t trying to use a broad-brush. love the more subjective measurement such as “vibrancy” in accordance with growth.
@Dave i share your heart for small churches and pastors. couldn’t agree more with your sentence “I am, however, against the way our culture has made pastors of smaller churches feel insignificant and failures.” i think we’re on the same page, your just your reacting to the pressures you see small churches facing, and i’m reacting to the complacency I see churches justifying.
Excellent. Spot on.
The only comment I would add is that the 300 number varies widely depending upon how well and how many people the senior pastor can shepherd. My experience is that these churches usually cap out prior to 250, but some do hit 300-350.
Dave,
You state that “My experience has been that you can have a healthy church and it not grow.”
How so?
No growth numerically?
Shouldn’t something ‘healthy’ see at least some growth?
(BTW, totally agree on your second statement that unhealthy sometimes DOES grow.)
Todd
The church growth movement of the 80′s and 90′s told us, “All healthy things grow and reproduce.” The logic that then follows is: If your church is not growing, then it must not be healthy. The action that follows is: Let’s find our where you are not healthy, correct that, and then attendance will go up. But the problem is, not all healthy things grow and reproduce. I’m healthy, and I’m no longer growing. A woman who goes through menopause is healthy even though she can no longer reproduce. Healthy churches often grow and reproduce numerically…and often times not. The question is: what are the signs of a healthy church? Can we come up with a definition that is not limited to numbers? Can we come up with a definition that does not even include numbers?
Can we come up with a definition that is not limited to numbers?
ABSOLUTELY! There are a lot of components to church health.
Can we come up with a definition that does not even include numbers?
Why would you “not even” include numbers? That seems off the other end of the spectrum. I think most would say that numbers absolutely are a window into health. Numbers can count many things other than weekend attendance.
Todd
I agree with your statement:”I think most would say that numbers absolutely are a window into health.” But there is a small and growing number of pastors that are rethinking statements like that and I find this interesting.
Dave, I’m not sure I agree with your analogy that you’re (or a woman in menopause) no longer growing. Ironically as a consultant to smaller churches your impact has grown quite a bit. I think the analogy of human reproduction may somewhat flawed for this discussion. A woman in menopause continues to grow in influence, wisdom, grace, etc. I think there is merit in the statement that healthy things grow and reproduce and the analogy you used seems to actually support that idea.
I did not say a woman after menopause no longer grows, I said she know longer reproduces. She can be healthy, but not reproduce.
She no longer physically reproduces. She does, however, reproduce in many other significant ways.
Todd, both you and I stopped growing many years ago when we reached the size God intended for us. Does that mean we are unhealthy? (I’m not discussing girth here, so please don’t go there!!)
While I agree in general that healthy churches typically see some growth, I’d hesitate to call it a “should.” Especially now that I’m located in rural Kentucky I can imagine circumstances in which a local body could be healthy but not experiencing growth.
Yeah, I’m glad you excluded girth (at least for me) in your expectations of growth.
So, Brian… seems you are saying 1 of 2 things:
1. In your region of Kentucky, there are not people who don’t know Christ? Is there a shortage of people to reach?
2. Because your community is small, there is no room for growth. If your church is 50 people, is it unreasonable to grow to 52 or 55?
We talk church growth numbers and think about adding hundreds. We always look to the big boys. But reality is… most churches are 75 to 200. And most aren’t growing. And, truth be told… most are NOT healthy.
Just sayin’.
Todd
By the way, I feel comfortable with your statement that ‘in general that healthy churches typically see some growth’. I’m good with that.
I’m certainly not saying that there aren’t people who don’t know Christ, but I do think there are areas in which smaller churches may have carried (and continue to carry) the message to all those within reasonable reach. Jesus warns us in Matthew 7:13-14 that not everyone we take the message of Christ to will accept it. Therefore I don’t think it’s fair to assume that all people around a healthy church will eventually become Christians.
Changes of 5% either way such as you indicated are a natural part of transience, birth, and mortality, so I don’t really consider them indicative of growth.
Having said all that, I do agree that in most cases health can and should result in church growth. I just threw up a small barrier to “shouldn’t” since it implied that’s true in *all* cases, and I resist that absolute.
Todd, when you say “[s]houldn’t something ‘healthy’ see at least some growth?”
I agree. A healthy church should be marked by spiritual growth and transformation in those who are members of the community. One of the results of spiritual growth should be more people being witnesses where every they are. However that may or may not result in church attendance growth for various reasons.
Dave, I agree with what you say here:
”Jesus is the focus and growth should be the outcome.” Certainly we should focus on Jesus, remove growth barriers, etc. but this is still no guarantee that attendance will go up.”
Churches need to have a plan to reach out to the local community in various ways. They also need to make sure that they are monitoring the attendance so that as growth does happen they are planning on how to accommodate that (seating, parking, another service etc). Full parking lots and seats should never be the goal – we need to make sure there is always room.
MikeB
@g1antfan
MikeB, I like your balance.
Enjoying the discussion between Dave Jacobs and Todd Rhoades. Though I believe that in many cases a healthy church will grow, there are some situations when it does not.
For example, I live in Vermont, which has many small villages. We have a number of healthy small churches with fine pastors. Those churches will never get much bigger than 50-75 people because of the tiny villages they serve. We have two churches in our fellowship that primarily serve college communities. They loose 25% of their congregation each year to graduation. So they have find 25% NEW people each year just to maintain their size. Though they may grow a little, most of the time they are just “maintaining.” But the impact they are having is global as students leave their churches to be on mission with a variety of evangelical organizations around the world.
Growth is good. But non-growth is not always bad. It depends on the context.
Agree, Terry. There are always exceptions to the rule.
Don’t get me wrong… there are always other ways to gauge health, other than numbers… but to define health and totally disregard numbers seems way on the other end of the spectrum for me.
Todd
Bingo!
Excellent Terry.
We could also give specific examples from missionaries where there is not dynamic numeric growth, yet good things are happening.
Dave said:
“I’m not against numerical growth or large churches. I am, however, against the way our culture has made pastors of smaller churches feel insignificant and failures.”
Yeah, me too. Seriously, I do. Pastor is a difficult job. Pastoring a small church is probably much more difficult than pastoring a large one. (I’m sure I’ll hear comments on that one!)
But it seems like you may be overcompensating the other way out of love for these pastors of smaller churches when you say things like “Can we come up with a definition [of health] that does not even include numbers?”
Just sayin’.
Todd
I would say many things grow that are not necessarily healthy (our waistlines, personal desires, etc.). We have to be careful what we use as the “growing or not growing” factor. Numerical attendance is not necessarily a growth indicator or a sign of a healthy church. I’ve been in churches that seemed to do all the right things that didn’t grow numerically. However, they were some of the healthiest churches I’ve ever seen. Spiritual growth, servant hearts and attitudes, and reaching out missionally to the community are also growth indicators.
Let’s also be careful to not put too much faith in what we do as leaders to spurt growth. Last time I checked, God is in control and He has ultimate control. If it’s His desire for a church to grow numerically and be unhealthy, then that’s what will happen. On the flipside, if it’s His desire for a church to not grow numerically in Sunday attendance no matter what “right” things are being done, then so be it. How can we fail IF we are seeking Him and doing what He says? We win every time that way – numerical growth or not. Don’t let yourself get blinded by the idea that you (we) have the ability to control numerical growth by what we do. If we trust God with our lives, why don’t we trust Him with the Sunday morning attendance numbers?
Last thought – Do we really think and believe that God cares about what we do to increase our Sunday morning attendance? He brings people there – we don’t. He transforms lives – we don’t. If we think we somehow control that number, I believe we’re wrong. If you are following God and your church is growing numerically, it’s God. If you are following God and it’s not, it’s God. To God be the glory.
Jim said to Dave:
“i think we’re on the same page, your just your reacting to the pressures you see small churches facing, and i’m reacting to the complacency I see churches justifying.”
Could not have said it better myself.
Todd
Dang – I got snared! I just wanted to say that recently my thinking has shifted some concerning healthy churches. I believe that a strong tangible measure of the health of a church is the answer to the question: “are people tithing?”.
I appreciate the discussion that is taking place.
Ouch. You had to go there (re: tithing)
BTW: Not sure why but I am not getting email updates on new comments.
Good point on the tithing thing. For us, that’s an important piece of data we consider. We have pretty good givers. In a recent conversation with another local church planter, I realized that our church, which is 1/2 the size of his, has almost exactly the same amount of giving. Encouraging.
Ouch, now there you go getting after my pocketbook. Who do you think you are? The man of God or something????
(lol, I do think giving can be an evidence of health, but that’s for another blog post…..)
Excellent conversation–entering so late, I’m going to resist the urge to comment on about 10 different things already mentioned above. As a blanket statement, let me just give 3 cheers for the balance hear you all trying to bring to the table.
I was encouraged to finally read Terry’s comment regarding average church size being between 75-200. (It seems like I recently read somewhere that the average in America is 96. Right?) That’s to say, until Terry’s comment I kind of felt like my 40 person church was simply outside of the discussion.
Yes, pastoring a small church is hard. And yes, there are many factors involved in church size (big or small) that often get ignored and blame/praise is heaped on the pastor instead. For us, in a college town, we actually lose closer to 1/3 of our membership each year. Our town is also somewhat small (80-90k). And although we’re in the Bible Belt, our town is sort of “a hole” in the belt–it’s intensely NOT cool to be Christian here. Considering all that (plus my youth and relative inexperience), perhaps growing from 3-40 in 4 years isn’t such a bad thing.
The difficulty for me is precisely what this conversation seems to be revolving around–not so much “how can I do things better so we’ll grow” but “how can I let my passion and sense of success be defined in broader terms than raw numbers.” Not an easy task. What the Church needs, in my opinion is less church growth experts pushing their advice, and more cheerleaders for “the little guys” slugging it out in the trenches even though very few may ever notice.
“how can I let my passion and sense of success be defined in broader terms than raw numbers.”
Amen, Amen, and once again Amen. May God bless you as you seek to impact the next generation, regardless of how “big” your church becomes. Be passionate in Christ and you can change the world.
This is a great discussion. I am a wildlife biologist by training, as well as a pastor (of a small church). I like the analogy of the church as a biological system. When I think of individuals or populations of wildlife, I think of a few different ways to describe their health. First I think of growth. Individuals that are healthy grow larger until they physically mature. Individuals also develop. They have numerous physiological systems that develop. You can have a large child (large growth) whose various systems have not fully developed. At some point, the individual grows AND develops to a point where they are able to successfully reproduce, which is the end goal of all organisms. You can apply the same concepts to a population.
So how can we use all three terms (growth, development, reproduction) to measure the health of a given church?
BTW, my church is small, but developing and growing. Not ready to reproduce yet, but as in all organisms reproduction is the primary goal!
One thing to think about… If your church is not growing numerically (at least a little bit) and people aren’t “sticking” to it, then I think there’s a problem… because, the number of people who don’t know Jesus or attend church is growing dramatically and that’s not being reflected in new people coming to church or in getting to know Jesus.
It’s only 1 measurement, but we should keep it – helps to keep us honest.
Agreed. Maybe a good, balancing question could be, “20 people moved on from our church last year–have at least 20 new people stuck?” That’s growth. If the answer is no, there certainly might be something that needs tending to.
Agreed.
Great discussion guys.
Ten years ago I started a church that has grown dynamically, seen scores saved and baptized, planted one daughter church, affected our community, written worship music that has been nationally published, and more. But I also believe this:
Perhaps, as in John chapter 6, “the more strictly you adhere to the teachings of Jesus, the smaller the church will ‘grow’. Evangelicals have become the unmatched experts in church growth, but often end up with a truncated gospel. If we are to live into the full counsel of God in the years to come, I believe we’ll need a few experts in church shrink.” (Mark Galli)
Not saying growth is bad. But it is possible to be faithful to God and have most everyone leave you. Just look at two of God’s favorites – John the Baptist, and Jesus. I have learned to temper my excitement to grow with an awareness of some other things that may be deeper and sweeter.
Great dialogue guys & gals. My concern with “doing church” primarily by the numbers takes our eyes as pastors & shepherds of God’s people off the ball. If we’re gonna be truly biblical, let’s be honest and say that Jesus was a failure as a church planter if we measure His success by the numbers. He started with 12, grew it to 72, and eventually had thousands following Him. Yet He seems to say and do things that we Americanized church-goers would not define as “seeker sensitive or numbers-oriented” (i.e. unless you drink my blood & eat my flesh). When He dies on the cross, His ‘numbers’ are way down and on the day of His departure, He hands a church of 120 over to His successors. Apparently, not even Jesus was able grow a church that could break the 200-barrier. I’m just sayin’
great insight.
In my experience, the larger a church grows, the more it seems to rely on a catalytic leader/preacher to a fault. That is one of the big “issues”, if not the biggest.
They say they are not a “cult of personality”, but because of the mindless consumerism of otherwise very good healthy Christians, that is a hard fact.
Think how many of these really big churches are known by their leader. Willow, Saddleback, Northpoint… it’s a long list.
How do you avoid that? I have an inkling that those leaders would really like to know the answer to that question, because some of them would probably like to retire some day without the church that has been built around them starting to crumble…
I think a possible solution is have a rotation of good men (elders for churches led by elders) doing the pulpit teaching. This would minimize the cult of personality a bit and help more grow in the role of pastor/preacher.
Just a thought.
MikeB
A great thought that won’t take root in a lot of churches. In some cases the Board would say, “No, we have to have our best guy up there every weekend”…
Have you ever wanted to see God instead of trying to increase your Church attendance numbers? In other words, are you a successful Christian by finding God or by increasing your church attendance?