About seven years ago, two of my friends became Pastors of two different churches in our area. Both churches were struggling, having less than 100 people.
One church was made up of seniors, a group of people who some time ago had resisted change, and so had lost their subsequent generations to other churches. The other church had a cross section of families, but was struggling to make a go of it in rented facilities in a relatively small town.
In hindsight, both were uniquely and appropriately gifted, to lead their churches into significant growth.
In the case of the seniors’ church. The church had come to recognize that in order to not be closing the doors in ten years that there had to be some change. Change however would come at a snail’s pace. And the pastor had to have the patience of Job in order to keep persevering with small incremental changes that the seniors could tolerate. He had a true “Pastor’s heart” and spent much time visiting with people and caring for them. The church came to love their Pastor, and the church grew, largely from other churches whose seniors had become disenfranchised and were looking for a place to belong. The Pastor told me that his church had done a very good job of welcoming the new people, going so far as to change the language that was spoken in the seniors group, so that the newcomers would feel more welcome. The church is now twice as large as it was, still mainly seniors, but with more of a hope of a future.
In the other church, the new Pastor was quite a different sort. He was a visionary guy, with all kinds of ideas of how they could present and grow the church. His route was to go very contemporary, while not neglecting the importance of things like baptism and communion. Being contemporary, to him did not mean watering down the word, but presenting it in ways that were understandable and communicated to their target audience. They also put a strong emphasis on small groups, which they called “small church”, knowing that this was one of the best ways to see people discipled and grow. The thing that impressed me the most when visiting, was that they scheduled baptisms for every month, trusting that God would be moving in such a way, that people would want to follow Christ in Baptism. This church has now doubled three times in the seven years that he has been there. Half of the growth has been new convert growth.
What strikes me about both situations is this. Both models work. What is needed is the right Pastor for the right church. I would venture to say that if each of these Pastors had been called to the opposite church, that both of the churches would still be struggling along, if not closed.
One thing that the denomination of my previous church does, is require any church that is calling a new senior Pastor to do a extensive church and community analysis. This is done to help clarify and set their mission, vision, and values. Each potential Pastor undergoes corresponding testing. The church then is presented with a list of Pastors who are appropriate for their situation. The church can recommend that certain names be added, but these potential candidates also have to go through a vetting at the district level. The reason for this of course is to get the right Pastor for the right church, and avoid the sort of church blowups and meltdowns that we here about all too frequently.
I have received permission from the denomination to link to their free resources for those who would like to find out more about the process.
Michael Bell
Joshua Hearne
Tim Melton
Joel Black
I understand your heart, I really do. But I do want to challenge with some questions:
Doesn’t this sound more like hiring a new business manager?
Biblically, can you ‘hire’ a pastor?
Isn’t pastor/shepherd a gift, not a title or position?
Does having less than 100 people mean a local church community is struggling? Sounds beautiful to me. Allows us to walk out Christ’s call for the church to be family and body.
Thanks for the post. Just want you to think through some of these things.
Scott,
Wow, so many questions! I’ll start with the last one first.
Thirteen of my last fifteen years have been in churches of under 100. The primary reason we have been in so many churches over the last fifteen years is that two of these churches closed. I have found that about 100 is critical mass and when you have less than that you risk losing a key family or too, and the church collapsing because of no longer having the necessary people to maintain the necessary ministries of the church. I have also found that 100 people is about the minimum necessary to be able to pay a Pastor a reasonable wage.
As to your other questions. “Doesn’t this sound more like hiring a new business manager?” Sure it does, but whether you are bringing in a new business manager, or a new Pastor, you need a process to make sure that the person coming in is the right fit for the position. The difference is that with a Pastor it had better be accompanied by much prayer, etc.
“Hire” is your word, not mine. I much prefer “calling”. It can be from within the congregation or without.
“Isn’t pastor/shepherd a gift, not a title or position?” I think this is a semantic argument, was “prophet” in the OT a gift, title, or position. I think that one has a tendency to infer the other. Most churches have a lead teacher/pastor. Hopefully someone in that position is gifted to teach and/or pastor.
P.S. to Scott,
Both churches mentioned had been or were in danger of closing. So yes, struggling is a word that would aptly apply. I have been involved in other ministries under 100 where struggling definitely would not apply.
Sounds like both of your friends are following God. Both are very successful if seen in that light. Old people need Jesus too. I have been praying about how to be both guys. I am starting a night church Jan 25 and really do not yet have a firm vision. I just know I gotta get on it.
I am missing the old songs and a bit more liturgical experience, the Doxology etc. Maybe I need to go to 3 services. I just don’t know. anyway you have good ,blessed friends! Peace on ya!
Michael (I think it is Michael) -
Thanks for the answers. I’m just trying to get your to think through some important things.
I think you need to get some time outside of America. You will see that 100 is a very good size, if not big size, in a lot of places outside of the good ol’ USA. Matter of fact, the average local church in America is less than 100. Only in America do we get the dream that we, too, can have a mega-church filled with thousands with lights, cameras and action.
Oh, and do church leaders have to be paid? It is a blessing if they are, for I have been blessed to be able to be paid for being in leadership. But where do we get it that it is some kind of God-given right to be paid for ministry? Ministry simply means serving, and that whether or not we get paid to do it.
One thing to consider about seeing new church leadership. I sense this, from reading the NT, that this happens through relationship, not a search committee looking over multiple resumes and doing call-back interviews. This is where I got the word ‘hire’. I just can’t see it in what Jesus initiated through the cross and resurrection and what those first apostles gave their lives for.
It might be semantics with the whole pastor/shepherd thing, but when I consider the great shepherd, I don’t see Him holding a position or carrying a title. I see Him caring for people, spending time with them, teaching them, etc. He never claimed some title and put it on His business card.
Again, please know I am not trying to be rude. Just challenging your thinking.
Hi Scott,
You are not challenging my thinking, just my writing.
I will explain my thought process a little later but I got called into work, so I don’t have time to respond right now, but will do so later on tonight. Check back tomorrow.
By the way, yes, you were right, I was thinking North America when writing. But you probably won’t find a more international family than mine. Various members live, or have lived in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, South Africa, Eastern Europe, Japan, England, Northern Ireland, Pakistan, Indonesia, the U.S. and Canada. With one exception, every member of my immediate family (from my generation up) was born in a different country.
Mike Bell (I should remember to put my name, because I don’t speak for everyone on this blog – some of whom quite likely may disagree with me
)
Hi Scott,
Finally able to give your comment the time it deserves.
As already mentioned I have spent considerable time outside North America. Maybe a bit of semantics here, but the median church size in the U.S. is under hundred (that is, more than half the churches are under a hundred), the average size is 186. I don’t believe anywhere that I was advocating for the mega church, in fact I am most comfortable myself in a church of about 300. I wonder how Peter would have felt though when in Acts 2:41 “Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.” The mega-church is by no means just a North American phenomena, we see it around the world, the largest churches of course being found in South Korea.
Of course church leaders do not have to be paid. In my last church I was an elder, worship leader, search committee member, sunday school teacher, youth leader, all at the same time, and all without pay. This goes back to point about small churches. Small churches tend to burn out those who are willing to be involved in ministry. I spent the first 24 years of my life in a denomination that didn’t have paid Pastors. I found, and eventually they found, that if you don’t have a full time person in ministry, your church will not tend to be very effective in reaching out to your community. As a volunteer you can only put in so many hours. Now there are exceptions to that, my brother for example, over his last seven years in Japan saw about 20 new christians baptized. He was able to do this while working weekends as a wedding minister, and having his wife oversee an ESL school.
Both Jesus (Luke 10:7) and Paul (1 Timothy 5:18) said that someone in work for the Lord was “worthy of his wages.”
To be a Pastor, (and I am not currently one), is a very hard calling. I have met so many who found the road too difficult, and are no longer in full time ministry. I agree that there can be many ways in which one becomes a Pastor, some are called from within, some called from outside an individual church, others are appointed (like Timothy and Titus). If I am in a little church in Dundas (where I live) which needs a Pastor, how do you propose we go about it. I think that if the district superintendant (read bishop) of the area churches says, “I see you are in need of a Pastor. Here is a list of people who are gifted in that area, and would be interested in ministering in your church in that capacity – Choose one.” I don’t see a whole lot of problems with that process. I should note that most denominations that I have been a part of have a significant departure from the business practice in that they only let you decide on one candidate at a time. That makes it much easier for the church to unite behind whoever’s name is put forward to the congregation.
Really? Does anyone have more titles, including self-proclaimed ones that Christ? “Who do men say that I am?” “I am the alpha and omega.” “I am the vine”…. Still, I do understand the need and importance of having a servants heart while in ministry.
There has been a lot written recently about abandoning the institutional church (as if it was some big monolith that always looked the same) in favour of house churches. Institutions develop for a reason, usually because a structure is required to support the ministry that is going on. You see the beginning of it in the New Testament, and the rapid development of it in the very early church. Someone commented to me recently (and I don’t have ready stats to back this up but it does make sense), that when it comes to things like missions, that house churches are woefully inadequate, because it takes a much larger community to provide the support that missionaries need.
Hey Mike. Thanks for the continued interaction.
A few years back, I would have claimed this: big = unhealthy. But I realize that is not necessarily true. I know China has mega churches of multiple hundreds of thousands. It is both beautiful and amazing! But, what I have noticed is that the ‘mega-church’ in China functions a little differently than the mega-church in the US.
They cram 200 people into someone’s living room for eat up the word of God and call on Him. And the ‘mega-church’ that we read about in Acts (with 3000 saved in one day) functioned a little differently than many mega-churches in the US (as we see this in Acts 2:42-47). So, big is not bad. But what I have found is that, usually in the US (and other places), big many times leads to unhealthy because things began to function as audience-type programs rather than something like Acts 2:42-47. I know you know what I mean. I just don’t want Joe (or Mike) on the 14th row to get passed by because there is a ‘staff’ of 50 ‘ministers/pastors’. We need to see all the saints equipped (Eph 4:11-13), and I am not sure that is the testimony of mega-churches in America. They have exciting programs with lights, cameras and action. But, many times, discipleship, equipping, mentoring and maturity is passed over. We must guard against this (as I know you would agree).
I think it’s good to pay leaders, those who can give full-time to the church. Actually, I would highly recommend it for blessing them. I am just encouraging us not to think it is our God-given American right if a church plant of 25-30 people is not able to. Actually, it might give the leader a lot of growth opportunity in ‘real life’ by having a job in the ‘real world’, and also the opportunity to reach others. Again, I think you know my heart.
The situation you described about your denomination actually seems more in line with a relational approach than business approach. When a local church needs some leadership help, and mainly full-time leadership, you won’t always find it within the local church body. I think that is the first place to pray into and consider, but it doesn’t always happen. Thus, you have to consider other alternatives, still keeping in mind relationship. This is my own testimony. I am part of a family of churches throughout different nations. A newer church that has been working with us in Brussels, Belgium, needed some leadership. Thus, I was asked to consider helping. I didn’t know anyone there, they didn’t know me. But the leaders within the family of churches did know the church in Brussels and they knew me. Thus, I was able to be connected there. It was still relationally built. I sense that as most important.
I am not in favor of abandoning anything (although I would never claim the church as institution, but living organism). What I am in favor of is hearing God. Most ‘movements’ are more reactionary than responding to the voice of God. I think having a local church meeting in homes is very valid (Biblical). But our local church has a building we pay a monthly note on in which we meet in on Sundays and have other activities happening in it. So I am not a full-fledged, card-carrying emerger.
I am not even a secret emerger. 
I just want to see things built relationally first, since I believe that is how Jesus built first. Relationship before task. And in our relationship, we build as we hear God, not reacting and abandoning everything.
Oh, and Jesus sure had titles. But, it is interesting that in His incarnation of dwelling with men, He generally avoided any kind of hype about titles and who He was (to keep people from overreacting and thinking He was there to whoop the Romans butts). And He especially never put ‘pastor’ (or shepherd) on His business card. He just got on with shepherding sheep.
Sounds like we are not that far apart on things Scott.
You might find this article on mega-church relationships interesting.
It provides quite a different view of the mega-church.
Mike
You also might be interested in a series I did about church on my blog. Here is the link.
Thanks for the interaction. I’m sure I will visit again.
Eclectic Christian,
I don’t have a problem with most of what you are saying.
However, when any group focuses on growth I believe that is a formula for trouble. The church is in danger of becoming a business. I have first had experience.
Second, I read the link about the mega-church relationships.
There was nothing there that was particularly surprising.
I agree that friends bring friends to some extent but my experience has been that it is the hoopla and circus that attract the huge crowds.
My real concern is why do we need these bloated assemblies at all?
On the rare occasions that I have been forced by circumstance to go back to the mega I once attended there is a lot of emphasis on joining small groups for the greatest spiritual growth.
Why not just have the small groups and spend the millions budgeted for buildings and salaries on more worthwhile endeavors?
I have a lot to say about this and will do so on my own site.
Thank you for your time and for the effort.
Peace out.
RL
Also, just to be a trouble maker, I see the 2 passges sited for wages (Luke 10:7, I Timothy 5:1) as pretty flimsy defenses of a professional clergy.
In both cases the men were visiting in someone elses’ home while evangelizing or planting a local church and were being given food and shelter while there.
Look at the lifestyles of the pastor/leaders of the megas. All the ones I see are opulent but I don’t see them all.
Hi Rob,
Thanks for commenting.
I agree absolutely.
I have thought the opposite when I have been involved with small struggling churches. I have wondered if the money that goes into maintaining a small church might be much more effectively spent if used inside a larger ministry. For example the one church mentioned in the article which has a congregation of about 500. They just took an offering for ministries of compassion (both local and global) and $63,000 was given. I could not have possibly conceived of that in the smaller churches in which I was involved.
Agreed. But I think it laid the foundation of a very rapid development in that area in the early church.
All people need to answer to God for the way they live. To an outsider, all of us in North America live pretty opulent lifestyles. The one mega-church pastor that I do know personally lives in a tiny home a few blocks from mine. I think that Billy Graham treatment of money was a good example for all leaders to follow.
Again, thanks for the interaction.
Mike Bell
Thanks for your thoughtful answers, Mike.
I enjoy the site and have it linked. I hope you don’t mind.
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your comments. I look forward to reading more from your site as it grows. I thought the Frankenstein comic was very funny!
Mike Bell
Hi Eclectic Christian,
I’ve followed this discussion with considerable interest. Perhaps we can all agree that it has been a mistake for evangelicals to measure success by numbers. When a church is numbers-driven; the temptation will be to water down the preaching. The verse from Acts, which was quoted above (Acts 2:41) does not indicate that Peter was successful because of the large numbers of converted; it testifies to God’s work in bringing people to salvation.
A large church may indicate success in God’s eyes or it may not. Ultimately, ministry success means being faithful to God’s Word and obedient to His Spirit. Hopefully the outcome we all want, is to hear the Lord say: “Well done, good and faithful servant.” (Matt. 25:21). Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Mitch
Hi Mitch,
Did you recognize yourself?
Hi again Mitch,
I find it interesting that many of the comments have raised concerns about numbers when that was not part of my original post. My intent was to look at the match between Pastor and church congregation.
I am not sure if I mentioned it here or elsewhere, but while absolute numbers in and of itself is not a sign of church health, neither do I find church numerical growth a sign of church health. However, lack of numerical growth, if sustained over time, means that the church is not doing something that it was called to do, and that is, make disciples. There are exceptions to this rule, like if your church was in a very transient area, with people constantly moving away.
Mike, you stated -
‘I have thought the opposite when I have been involved with small struggling churches. I have wondered if the money that goes into maintaining a small church might be much more effectively spent if used inside a larger ministry. For example the one church mentioned in the article which has a congregation of about 500. They just took an offering for ministries of compassion (both local and global) and $63,000 was given. I could not have possibly conceived of that in the smaller churches in which I was involved.’
But (and I know you know this) what is to negate if a small church of 40-50 is able to contribute, say, $600 to the poor. We have to guard ourselves from looking at things from a white, middle-class perspective. I wonder if the 500-person church is made up mainly of economically and socially well-off people.
Again, if a church is independent in and of itself, no relationship outside of itself for strengthening and accountability, that is unhealthy. Yet, I still would never negate $600 for the poor because it is a ‘small’ church. Who defines small? I would find it hard to hear a church leader say, ‘If we had only had more people, we would have more.’ You hear that enough with church building programs.
We should be blessed to sow what we can sow into the lives of the poor, and being challenged to sow more, whether we are in the lower economic class or higher economic class.
Thus, as an example, in working in relationship with other churches, we can pool resources for effective change by God’s grace. Hence, a family of multiple churches raises almost $200,000 for the poor, while each local church of 50 to 100 sows what they are each able to in God. I share this whole scenario because I actually saw this happen in 2008.
In the end, we have to guard against approaching the numbers thing from a western, middle-class perspective. I know you know my heart.
In all,
Scott,
I appreciate your heart and where you are coming from. While I have a tendency to speak from a western middle-class perspective. I do have other experiences. My mother tells me of a story from when she was growing up in Zambia when a lady would put the equivalent of ten cents in the offering and then fish around in the offering bag to take out five cents in change. I remember living in Africa and been given a chicken as a gift, because the person involved had nothing else of value to give. My parents told me that they got more chickens for their wedding than any other type of gift.
But as far as churches go. Whereever you are, basic laws of economics will tell us that churches will have certain sizes where they are most effective in ministry. Here is anexample from my western middle class perspective (because it is the one I know best). A church with a building and a single Pastor has certain fixed expenses: For example, the Pastor’s salary, and the cost of running the building are two expenses that don’t change much. Let us say that you had two churches of 75 that fit that criteria. Now let us imagine that those two churches merge. You now have one church of 150 that still only has a need for one building, and one pastor. The second building could be sold and the proceeds used for ministry, or could be utilized for some other type of ministry. The money that you save by only having to pay one pastor instead of two could be used for missions, church planting in another community, outreach to youth, or ministry to the poor. The same can be said for money saved from only having to maintain and run one building.
I was privileged to be part of a church in Ottawa that had reached an almost optimum size with two Pastors. The church that year was able to give almost half of its offerings to world missions. (Missions was a large part of its vision.)
Now as far as I know, no one in that church was going around saying we need to grow to this certain size, so that we can maximize our giving to missions. It just happened to happen that way. But after been involved with small churches (under 75) for 13 of the past 15 years, I have had to say to myself, “God has given us resources to use, by trying to maintain a small church we are being so much less efficient with our resources that we could be if we joined up with Church X, and worked together as one church to further the gospel.
I am sure that around the world, in different cultures, numbers are similar for this reason: If you have a full time pastor, it takes about 20 families to ensure that your Pastor has the same level of income as the average of your congregation. In terms of absolute numbers that is about 70 to 80 people. Or in other words, a church about 75 people is able to do little more financially than pay its pastor and run its building.
But what if you had 30 or 40 families instead of 20. You have financial resources available to do all kinds of different things.
Sure there is much to be desired in the intimate fellowship and sense of family in a smaller church. But that same sense can be had in larger churches as well.
Tonight we had four other families over to our house. Five families in total, 27 people in total. We started off by going skating on an outdoor rink, and then everyone came back to our place for chili, soup, and a time of fellowship. How much time did we spend together today? Six hours! These were the families that will be making up the primary part of our small group. Wonderful fellowship, great sense of family, but all in a church that has the size to do some pretty amazing things around the world through its resources.
And what if we didn’t have professional clergy and did not need to maintain buildings?
You raise an excellent point Rob.
Some of my best times of Spiritual growth was while involved in Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship at University. While they strenuously claim not to be a church, they were certainly my church at University. We ate together, worshiped together, lived together, prayed together, and on a couple of occasions had communion together. We did have a staff person, but much of the ministry would have continued on effectively without the staff person in place.
This model can certainly work. It was responsible for the explosive growth of Christianity in China, so I certainly wouldn’t want to discount it.
On the other hand, I used to belong to a denomination that tried an experimental church plant using that model. They took three of their best seminary graduates, and had them form a team to plant a church in a city not far from where I live. They all had full time jobs. Being the responsible young men that they were, their full time employers asked them to take on more and more responsibility. They started finding more and more that their job demands and their ministry demands were coming more and more into conflict, and they were starting to experience burnout. The church never did survive, and all three went on to other ministry positions. (I believe all three went to Russia as ministries, but maybe it was just two of the three.)
Can the model work. Sure it can. I would think that under such a model there would also be an ideal number where ministry was most effective. Perhaps in your experience you have seen numerically what works or doesn’t work for this type of model?
The number is not important nor is whether or not the leader is a trained seminarian.
When the group needs to split a leader, elder, preacher, teacher whatever is chosen and a new group starts.
So what necessitates the splitting of a group? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand the process a little more.
When the group or the leader in the group know that they can no longer effectively lead/minister to more people.
My personal limit is about 6 or 7 couples but I have sometimes lead larger groups and sometimes much smaller.
Even at 6 or 7 couples or say about 21-30 people including children others must step up and use the gifts that God has given.
For example some are evangelists. I’m not.
Some will be very effective at ministering to the poor and needy, specifically widow and orphans.
Some will teach. Me.
On and on.
If people, as happens all over the world every day, are allowed to pay someone to do their work for them then the work:
Never gets done.
Overloads the “professionals” (how many burned out ministers do you know?)
Deprives people of the fullness of God.
You can add to the list.
I actually think that this is not only an easy choice for most churchgoers to make but is encouraged by the leadership.
After all they are professionals and the work of God cannot be left up to amateurs.
Thankfully the Great Rabbi did not believe that not did the first great bishop, Paul. At least the first we could really know a lot about.
BTW, I meant nor instead of not about Paul.
Also, all of this should be local. Your neighborhood, your house, your neighbors house, your place of business, any place that will allow you to meet without charge. If people have to travel further than they can comfortably walk then another group needs to be started. That could be blocks, could be miles.
[mod. edited] These small cells also help prevent the spread of heresy.
How so?
No edicts that are churchwide.
Hi Rob,
I am going to leave your comments about heresy for now, as I have never done a study on how they do or do not spread.
I do now that I prefer church groups that have some sort of hierarchical leadership who can clamp done on individual congregations that get out of line. Leadership in independent groups can become a power unto themselves, and I have seen many cases where that has been very unhealthy verging on cultish. But this is very much another topic, so I would not like to take it any further here.
Getting back to the topic of this post, I do remember writing a thirty page paper, some 15 years ago, about models of church planting. In it I argued that church planting teams (of at least two) were the best way to church plant, and followed the model that Jesus took when he sent out his disciples.
So here, while I have been talking about a sole Pastorate, and in the discussion talking about the optimum size of church in a sole Pastorate, I do want to acknowledge that God chooses to use all kinds of people, and teams, both salaried, and unsalaried, in all kinds of situations, and all sizes of churches, large and small, to further his purposes.
And yes, I realize that that was a run on sentence, but seeing as these comments have been running on for some time, it is probably an appropriate way to end the comments to this post.
Mike,
[mod. edited]
In the end, [a church size of] 300 might be fine, or 200, or 67. I think it is ultimately dependent upon the vision God has given – what that local body is looking to accomplish in God as they hear from Him. And I think you would agree with me on that. Most just get out there and try and do, rather than hearing from Him.
This, I believe, is the bigger thing we need to guard against in the west – not if our numbers are ‘too big’ (or even ‘too small’), but are we hearing the heart of God in the situation. I know too many people who are trying to build something like a business because they think that is the good ol’ American way when it comes to church. Capitalism guides there thinking about church, rather than the Spirit and the Word. Thus, they think, ‘Ok, I need to first reach 100. Then we will go for 150. Then we will go for 250. Then we will start to plan for 400. Then…….’
That is not healthy. The regular question should be, ‘God, what are you saying to us, for that is what we want to walk out?’
At the same time, I know people who are so against having any larger size local body, and they just want to meet in a home with 20 people. There is nothing wrong with that. It is beautiful. But what I have seen is that these leaders are reacting against things, rather than getting back to hearing God and walking out what He is saying. We are in for big problems if we are reacting hastily towards what we don’t like, rather than sitting back and responding to the voice of God.
In all aspects of life, I really love this passage: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise’ (John 5:19). This is truly beautiful and God’s heart.
I think this discussion has run its course. I appreciated everyone’s input on the topic.
I gave Scott the last word.
Comments are now closed.