What Do You Prefer?

March 18, 2009

100 small house churches, or 1 church of 1,000 people?

$1Million spent on helping the needy in your community, or $1Million building/running a headquarters to reach your community?

...

and why?

33 Comments »

That’s tough.

1 church with 1,000 people is better because there is a reason why corporate worship is more effective in numbers. a 100 people feels like something is missing. I come from a church that’s reaching 300 and hoping to get to 1000. Also there is a certain amount of comfort in anonymity in a bigger crowd - some can express themselves better.
But 3,000 is a limit I think - then it’s just too hard to maintain and cater for.

$1Million building/running a headquarters to reach your community? Because it’s a service that can last and grow to reach people more effectively over the long term.

Phill

Comment by Phillip Gibb - Mar 18, 2009 @ 07:16 AM

What about 100 house churches with 1000 people in each?!

I would take the $1 million and invest in the city by starting 10 business. Hire the most passionate people in the church to staff them, as well as a good mix of people in need, newly immigrated families, and the poor. Each business is now a growing circle of influence, reaching people who would probably never come to a service. Now they’re meeting Jesus at the movies, in the barber shop, the health food store, the coffeeshop, the real estate agency, the car dealership, and the….who’s got some great ideas?!

I love what Francis Chan said…if we don’t change the build-bigger-buildings model, we forfeit the big cities.

Comment by Jay Brock @ The Sex Rev - Mar 18, 2009 @ 07:29 AM

@phillip I think you misunderstood - the 100 house churches would have about 10 people in each, so it’s only 10 people worshiping together, not 100 - kinda like the early church, I think.

That’s a good point about the 1,000 making worship feel better, and I think you’re right: people seem to like the anonymity thing. They don’t like to actually have to hear each others’ voices or know the person who’s standing next to them. Is this a good thing? Should we cater to that?

Comment by Jesse Phillips - Mar 18, 2009 @ 07:43 AM

Statistically the 10 churches with 100 people will end up with more new christians than the 1 church with 1000 people. The rate of new christians to church attenders goes down the larger the church is (on average).

I say this having attended a small church that didn’t reach their community at all and having attended a large church that did a lot.

But statistically I would rather have the small church (especially if they worked well together in the community).

Comment by Adam_S - Mar 18, 2009 @ 07:51 AM

love this question because it reveals so much.

Comment by riddle - Mar 18, 2009 @ 08:11 AM

I like Jesse’s comments. I’m not sure the Church was intended for comfortable worship. I also have difficulty understanding what is meant by worship being more “effective” in larger numbers. Does God get more glory, or do people just feel nicer? The only standard by which I could ever measure worship’s effectiveness is by how much it pleases God.

I have a hard time answering the 100x10 vs. 1000x1 question. If the large church doesn’t have believers “meeting in their homes” then i would prefer the house church model, because I believe the Church was first and foremost meant to be a community, not just a meeting. But I think to function properly as the body of Christ, it really does help to have evangelists, teachers, leaders, encouragers, mercy-givers, etc. etc. That just seems so hard to do in a group of 10 (heck, even the earliest of early churches started with 120 meeting in an upper room).

I also have a really hard time answering the second question about the helping the needy vs. building the headquarters. It says the headquarters is meant to “reach” our community. I imagine this means that its purpose will primarily be evangelistic, meaning “reach them with the Gospel,” but I don’t understand how that’s much different than the first option. If there are physical needs in the community of over $1 million, I think I would love to have a headquarters that spent a good amount of its money feeding or caring for those people. It seems to follow Jesus’ model for spreading the Gospel through healing/explanation. I think to effectively “reach” that neighborhood, you’d have to incorporate the first option anyway. So the two options are largely indistinguishable for me.

Comment by Mikey - Mar 18, 2009 @ 10:13 AM

As a musical worship leader, I love corporate worship. But is that the purpose of the church? Yes, I realize that ultimately worship is our final end. But worshiping who? A God who goes out of his way to enlarge his family, to *seek* out those who are missing. As The Message puts it, “The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood.”

I went off on a bit of a rant (and subsequent correction) in my post,
http://jonreid.blogs.com/oneanother/2009/02/where-does-real-church-happen-big-vs-small.html

But ask yourself: Since when does a big thing go viral?

For an interesting in-between example, see
http://www.tydna.com/2009/03/serving-and-services/
which describes a church which outgrew its rented facility.

And back to the joy of “big worship”: That’s easy. Every so often, gather all the little groups together and go for it!

Comment by Jon Reid - Mar 18, 2009 @ 10:34 AM

Further thoughts as I tweet them:
Small churches can multiply without constraint.
Small churches can reach people who are not interested in attending a church service.
(And from my blog post) Where does the most spiritual growth take place? Isn’t it in small groups?

Comment by Jon Reid - Mar 18, 2009 @ 11:05 AM

Adam_S - I’d be interested to know where you got that information from.

A couple years ago I read on the Orchard Group Church Planting website (http://www.orchardgroup.org/) that in 1970 studies showed that 40 churches of 50 (or 50 of 40, not sure) would reach more new people than 1 church of 2000. .I think it was around the year 2000 that the same study showed just the opposite, with large churches reaching far more new people than 50 or 40 smaller ones totaling the same size.

In order to answer the question posed, we would have to agree on what is “success” and therefore what is “better”. My guess is that you could have examples of both groups doing better once there were common benchmarks. I do think large churches reach more lost people than a bunch of small ones, or house churches, but that’s just my opinion and isn’t supported by facts.

I think multiplying efforts is key to great success but that could be done in either scenario that was mentioned in regards to serving/blessing the community.

Comment by Nick Blevins - Mar 18, 2009 @ 11:40 AM

I was the statistician for a denominational office for about six or seven years. This was for an association of about 250 churches. Every year I was there the smaller churches did proportionally better than the larger churches. It I remember correctly churches that were around 100-150 had the highest attender/new baptism rate. Churches that were smaller had a little lower. We had several churches that went up to the 6000 or so regular attendance. The numbers seemed way low to me but I think that the smaller churches of 100 or so had about 6 baptisms per 100 and the larger churches had around 2.5 baptisms per 100 people.

I currently attend a large church and I believe that our rate of baptisms to attendance was 2.8 baptisms to every 100 attenders.

My experience may not hold for larger studies, but I did a brief web search and come up with this power point that says about the same thing.

http://www.churchplantingvillage.net/atf/cf/{087EF6B4-D6E5-4BBF-BED1-7983D360F394}/NontraditionalChurchPlanting.ppt

Comment by Adam_S - Mar 18, 2009 @ 11:59 AM

Hey Adam_S,

Thanks for the info. It’s good to see some statistics like the ones in that PPT. I have not found that to be true in the local churches around here, and I wonder how many of those large churches are traditional churches that haven’t grown well for a while, versus how many of those small churches are new church plants which always seem to reach more people than existing churches (not sure what the cut off would be between being a church plant and an existing church).

It sounds like you dealt with SBC churches (of which I grew up in) and the Orchard Group I mentioned is part of the Independent Christian Church movement (where I work now). Denominations/movements could make a difference as well. It could be that things are shifting back to smaller churches being more effective once again, like it was almost 40 years ago. I’m not convinced that is happening yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

Comment by Nick Blevins - Mar 18, 2009 @ 12:08 PM

I have heard (I am not a church planter and it isn’t really my area) that most church plants will hit their full growth potential in around 5 to 7 years and will not grow much beyond that point. If I remember our church planting guys correctly they were saying that church plants were about 80 percent more likely to grow through new evangelism than a currently existing church. So church plants are not the same thing as currently existing churches.

Comment by Adam_S - Mar 18, 2009 @ 12:12 PM

Thanks everyone for the discussion!

Adam and Nick you guys have some interesting insights. I apologize for the title of this post. I’m changing it to be “What do you Prefer?” - it’s less adversarial.

From an effectiveness and efficiency standpoint, we’d have to define what does “better” mean, and then determine what methods achieve “better” the most - thru statistics, experimentation, etc.

I must say, I don’t think better is measured by attendance.

Comment by Jesse Phillips - Mar 18, 2009 @ 12:22 PM

We often fall back to simple statistics like baptisms or attendance because everything else is so hard to measure. Attendance doesn’t mean better, but everything is probably an even worse measure.

Comment by Adam_S - Mar 18, 2009 @ 12:27 PM

good point, Adam!

However, the obvious danger with measuring attendance, (which I’m afraid is not being acknowledged at all) - you can attend a church and not be a good follower of Christ. In fact, the larger the church, the easier it is to attend and be the same as you ever were (b/c there’s higher anonymity, lower accountability, more difficult to gain community and be involved).

Would you agree, Adam? Perhaps I’m wrong about this. You have much more experience in this than I will ever have - what do you think of the problem I mentioned?

It seems to me that for much of the Church, attendance is the goal and it’s assumed that great sermons will make attenders become better Christians. But I don’t think this strategy is actually working.

Comment by Jesse Phillips - Mar 18, 2009 @ 12:44 PM

Totally agree with you. This is why some measure attendance in Sunday school or small groups because that is assumed to be a better measure of those that are more deeply ingrained in the church. All measures have their weaknesses. Even deeper belief measures like how Barna counts Evangelicals have their weaknesses because the more specific your questions about believe the more fine points of doctrine that people want to hedge about.

I am all for better measures, and internally at many churches there are different measures that people use as a short cut to spiritual depth. But if Willow Creek’s Reveal study means anything, it means that attendance does not mean depth and spiritual development does not necessarily mean traditional church attendance or even deeper involvement.

Comment by Adam_S - Mar 18, 2009 @ 12:49 PM

Attendance is only one measure and measuring spiritual maturity is much more difficult. Jesse - I think the general assumptions that you mentioned about large church (higher anonymity, lower accountability, more difficult to gain community and be involved) aren’t always true. In fact, I can typically find more small churches where those are more true than large churches. Anonymity is obviously easier the more people there are, but lower accountability, community and involvement all come down to the church’s assimilation. A megachurch with great small groups and great % of people serving could easily be more healthy in those areas than a small church, because church size may have no bearing on it.

Our church is wrestling with the question of how to measure community service to determine effectiveness.

Comment by Nick Blevins - Mar 18, 2009 @ 12:50 PM

Agreed, Nick. Definitely you’re right.

I think I assume, in general, that the assimilation %s are lower for larger churches, that has been my personal experience. But that’s probably an unfair assumption.

However, let me say, I don’t think having someone “assimilated” and serving in a larger church means that much b/c it’s mostly greeters, parking ministry, baby sitting - don’t think that’s what God has in mind when he describes the body using their gifts to build each other up.

I personally do have the gift of serving, which suits itself well with parking ministry, stacking chairs, greeting, etc - but don’t think 90% of the body is using their potential by serving like this, I don’t think it’s fair to count someone serving in the parking ministry as really assimilated and therefore a productive and growing part of the body.

(although, of course, I do affirm that serving in lowly positions (like parking) fits well with the “servant of all” goal that we all should have)

Comment by Jesse Phillips - Mar 18, 2009 @ 01:02 PM

“1 church with 1,000 people is better because there is a reason why corporate worship is more effective in numbers. a 100 people feels like something is missing”

While I enjoy worship with larger numbers now and then, there’s a very different feel with worship in smaller numbers. Our little church meets in a packed house, of around 50-70 worshippers, and the worship is awesome and very profound at times.

How many people would be “sitting on the back row” at the 1000-person church? How many at a house church? There is no “back row”!

100 small house churches can accomplish different things than 1 big 1000-person church. If the 100 small house churches are networked and work together, I bet they can accomplish more, perhaps through more dedicated/involved people. Great question.

On the flip side, how uneffective are 100 house churches that are not connected/networked?

Comment by Allan White - Mar 18, 2009 @ 04:22 PM

I would defiantly choose 100 small house churches. These churches can be spread out over a wide area and cover more ground and influence more people. Eventually each one of those small churches can create a gathering of 1000 people and form a large church. Now there is 100,000 people attending service as opposed to the 1 location which over time we would hope would grow,. but It would need to be in a highly populated area and be very successful in order to reach the following of a 100,000 that the small churches eventually did. These small churches would need to have inspired and visionary leaders in order to accomplish such a task. That alone would not be enough. The big man upstairs would need to step in and move through those leaders to cast the vision among the parishioners. After all, who doesn’t like a challenge? Doesn’t the lord want us to take on tasks bigger than we are capable of handling so we can soon accomplish that task in his name? Because without him it is not possible.

I would choose 1 million to establish a headquarters to help my community. A million is a lot of money, and surely can do wonders for many people in need, but will it last? How thin would that money need to be spread to help everyone? Instead let us establish a facility that would attract those who want to help the needy and then give them means to do so, keeping some of the million to have available to immediately give back. This headquarters could establish fund raisers to make back that additional million. Now we have a community within a community that is ready to hit the ground running and help others. A headquarters may also get government funding. It would also draw attention to the problem at hand. If a facility is established to help/solve an issue, it must be serious and it needs immediate attention. It will also help those truly in need by showing them there is going to be ongoing lasting support. It would give them hope. It could have programs to help them get off their feet and become self supportive instead of relying on such establishments for assistance.

Comment by Josh - Mar 18, 2009 @ 05:27 PM

So, worship only happens in the context of a church building with lights, cameras, videos, and a rock band? This seems to be what the conversation has been about so far as I scanned the comments. And by only worshiping God in our worship services we have turned our eyes away from what God is doing in the everyday all around us.

Back to the original question . . .

The church, according to the New Testament, means being involved with one another in an open, vulnerable, and interactive relationship.

If God had intended the Sunday service to have top priority, he would have commanded the practice in the Bible, but he did not. Instead there are many passages that address what the church should be and what people need in the church.

An interesting phenomenon has developed. In most churches in America, the people are encouraged to join small groups, which are presented as optional. These groups are like small spiritual families where all the “one another’s” of the New Testament are practiced. This is indeed the church. But participating in such groups is usually considered optional, whereas most Christians feel they must attend the Sunday morning worship service. They think it is the biblical mandate.

The truth is that the New Testament clearly makes mandatory participating in the spiritual family, the small group. The larger gathering is, frankly, an optional alternative. This is the very opposite of contemporary practice.

Reggie McNeal, the author of “Missional Renaissance: Changing the Scorecard for the Church”, proposes that we “expand the bandwith” of what we measure in order to determine our success as missional churches. Instead of asking how many people showed up for an event, he suggests asking such questions as:

* How many better marriages do we have in our church today than a year ago?

* How much money did we give away last year? How much did we invest in our community?

* How many members have a presence in a public school and have a genuine relationship with a teacher?

* How many people have figured out a way to show love for their neighbor instead of just coming to support our stuff?

To quote McNeil: “In a missional world, it’s about the size of your vision and impacting your community. A church with 33 people in the inner city that’s about making an impact is making a bigger difference than a big old honking suburban church with 3,000 people who are as busy as can be running the cruise ship.”

So is your church more like a lifeboat that goes out into the stormy seas to rescue drowning people or a cruise ship that seeks to keep the passengers on board entertained?

Comment by Michael - Mar 18, 2009 @ 05:31 PM

I prefer the 1 church of 1000 mainly because I come from a church that has just over that and the corporate worship is awesome. There hasn’t been one time during worship that I have not felt the Holy Spirit’s presence. If you were to stop and listen to everyone else sing with voices and not musical instruments it is a breath taking experience.

I would take the 1,000,000 and help the needy in our community. I believe we tend to forget about our own back yards all to much and often. I am not saying we need to reach out to different countries. I just think we need to do more right where we are.

Comment by Phil Ruiz - Mar 18, 2009 @ 05:40 PM

You know, this is a funny one. Because I asked a friend of mine who is not a “christian” and who does not go to church because it makes no sense to him but who does believe in God and is desperately searching.

His answer was like… “Duh…”

Here’s my conversation with him:
*** Me ***: so… let’s pose this one
*** Me ***: which would you consider more likely to be effective in reaching out to a community with the message of the gospel:
*** Me ***: a) a 1,000 person church meeting every Sunday in a local building…
*** Me ***: or
*** Me ***: b) 100 ten person bible-teaching gatherings meeting wherever and whenever they pleased?
*** Me ***: which is more likely to add to their numbers and be effective at enriching people’s lives?
*** Him ***: well, that’s where the issue of what happens when you succeed comes in.
*** Him ***: there are plenty of 1k member churches that are stagnating
*** Him ***: so as it grows, you increasingly run the risk of becoming that which you’re trying not to be.
*** Him ***: I like the guerilla approach
*** Me ***: I think that’s kinda the point
*** Me ***: many “church planting” visions… are all about plants that create more plants
*** Him ***: I think it’s more likely that with 100 groups, folks would find a group that matched their ‘feel’
*** Him ***: whereas a single 1k congregation is likely to offer little opportunity for that.
*** Him ***: sort of the “homogenization of the message”

So… from the mouth of the “unchurched” which would you rather have to reach him? The one he would go to, or the one he would find “homogenized” or “unfeeling?”

Comment by Jeremy Anderson - Mar 18, 2009 @ 06:19 PM

Interesting points Jeremy. But, that is from the mouth of one unchurched person, not the unchurched. I also find it odd that he stated there are plenty of 1K member churches stagnating. Every unchurched person I know would not know that information. Shoot, they couldn’t even identify a 1,000 person church.

I can tell you that in our city, the most ineffective churches aren’t the large ones, they are the ones 400 and below, particularly under 200.

The advantage of the 1,000 person church is you can have 100 ten person gatherings meeting every week as well (small groups). They can be diverse, too. You get the best of both worlds. I would prefer the 1,000 person church because my unchurched friends would be more likely to attend a place where they can feel anonymous at first, which is impossible in a small group or house church. Plus there are other things the 1,000 church can do that the house churches cannot (children’s ministry, student ministry, etc).

Interesting article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091801703.html

Comment by Nick Blevins - Mar 18, 2009 @ 08:36 PM

Why not both?

Comment by jason salamun - Mar 19, 2009 @ 10:06 AM

interesting. What does that look like, Jason?

I think this is what Jon Tyson is doing: http://trinitygracechurch.com/

Comment by Jesse PHillips - Mar 19, 2009 @ 10:11 AM

I think this is a great question and I love the discussion. I agree with one of the quotes about measuring growth, which can’t all be in numbers. I’m not speaking even as much about spiritual growth, which obviously everyone here is looking for. There are other kinds of growth, that includes numerical growth. A church of 1,000 or even larger can have a tremendous impact on many smaller churches and even Kingdom growth by doing things the smaller churches cannot afford to do, such as provide conferences, resources, etc. At the same time, the smaller church can sometimes reach people who would not be attracted to the larger crowd. This type of impact is hard to measure.

i say both models can be equally effective in terms of reach and Kingdom growth.

Comment by Ron Edmondson - Mar 19, 2009 @ 10:15 AM

I think most of you are painting with two broad of a stroke. I know of many very effective churches under 200 or 400. Of course, these are growing churches that probably won’t remain that small. But I have a friend who pastors a church of 200 in a town of 400. Can you boast a 50% city-wide attendee rate?

I also know many effective large churches and many unhealthy large churches. I don’t think the issue is what do you prefer or what is better. I think the issue is what is your individual church called to be. God can use the large church, the small church, the house church, the multi-site church, and everything in between. These are cosmetic issues. But the church who embraces the great commission and authentic discipleship can be effective in any form.

The real challenge that I think most guys are missing is figuring out what God has called THEM to be. Most guys compare/contrast other ministries and pick the one they want to pattern themselves after. Nothing wrong with learning from each other, but you have to figure out who GOD wants you to be first.

Comment by Jeff Myers - Mar 19, 2009 @ 12:48 PM

Awesome question….I’m a bit of a hypocrite here though probably. I work/attend a large church…but I’m more fascinated with the idea of more, smaller gatherings. Dave Gibbons in The Monkey and the Fish (back of the book interview) talks about verges (small churches/communities consisting of 30-300 people.). They have the ability to adapt more quickly, make changes, enter into communities, geographic locales much more easily and quickly. I think this is a huge advantage in many ways.

So I would say, based on that, 100 small house churches or rather, 100 small communities, gatherings…i would love to see them connected under some group though so there is some leadership among them all, not all on their own.

Also, second question…don’t know…$1,000,000 to help the needy. A headquarters can be based out of a house or something else that is of low cost.

rhett smith

Comment by Rhett Smith - Mar 19, 2009 @ 01:01 PM

One thing we all must remember…It’s all about Him. I believe either large or small if we remember it is all about him and not the numbers God will take care of the little things. We are set out to help the lost and to be an example as believers in Christ. As scripture says Faith can move mountains..

Comment by Phil Ruiz - Mar 19, 2009 @ 09:46 PM

Wow—lots of interest here. I haven’t read all the comments—my husband would like me to come to bed sometime tonight—but I’ve read a sampling of them. Look at the church in China. Why do we see the statistic someone mentioned that new churches grow for 5-6 years and then taper off? I believe that the building is a large part of the problem.

The special dedicated building, designed for large crowds to “worship” in, is conducive to watching a show, not to one-anothering. Churches start out having to “make do” with meeting in the back of a coffee shop or someone’s living room. They’re informal and though they might not have the preferred format of “organic church”, they do foster community much more effectively than a church meeting in a dedicated building could ever do. So people like this. So the church grows. So the people begin to say, “Hey! This thing is really taking off! We need a building.” They save up their money, work together to hang the sheet rock, shingle the roof, paint the nursery, and then they settle into their beautiful new (or renewed) building. And the church dies. Why? No more need for community.

What if, as this church began to grow, instead of incorporating the new people into the existing fellowship, a mature brother or sister said to the seeker, “Hey! Get your friends and family together and let’s have a bible study at your house. Let’s see what the Lord will say to us.” So the mature bro/sis goes to the wrong or the right side of the tracks and hangs out with this new or pre-believer and just talks about Jesus and prays eats, watches sports with him/her and asks and answers questions in his circle of friends and presto—pretty soon you have a brand new church. No need for a building. Now you’re meeting in two living rooms. Soon maybe three living rooms. Then maybe five living rooms, a coffee shop, and a break room.

Maybe this sounds overly optimistic, but this is what happens on a regular basis in places like India and China and other places where they’ll beat and torture you to death for calling on the Name of Jesus. God is shaking our country up, and not only because of judgment, but out of love and a desire to call us back to Him—to show us our need for Him.

I’ll take 10 relational churches with ten members each any day over a 1000 member church with great music. Great music and feeling good in the presence of hundreds singing the same songs is not necessarily worship. The true worship is offering our bodies as a living sacrifice to Him—to do what He has for us to do. How many members of a 1000 member church are really doing that? How much actual discipleship is taking place?

Sure, God works through mega-churches. I’d be a fool to say otherwise. But the wave of the future—the place He’s working now is in the micro-church. Lean, active, can turn on a dime at a word from Him, relational, able to provide one-on-one discipleship in a naturally accountable setting, training up the saints for the work of service (not for sitting passively and occasionally joining in the singing with laudable enthusiasm) able to multiply without buildings in multiple bounds in all directions and to be started without an exploratory committee or the taking out of a single loan. Yeah!

And lots of fun, and guess what? I finally know the people in my church. Praise God from Whom all blessings flow!

Cindy

Comment by Cindy - Mar 20, 2009 @ 01:12 AM

Thanks for the link to Trinity Grace Church. On a cursory glance, that is a model that I am convinced the larger churches need to seriously consider.

I read a newspaper article about five years ago (looked for it, couldn’t find it) about house churches in Seattle that were meeting to better become a part of their neighborhood. Since then I’ve considered the issue, as outreach is my primary focus.

I like the idea in a lot of ways, but I have some reservations regarding theological oversight. My second, and largest concern is that of leadership - not for the house churches, but for the churches such as they are now. We have a lot of churches with a lot of people. We can’t just say ‘this is better, those are bad’ and leave it at that. We have to find what is right about the house churches and help our existing churches adopt those components. Not as add-ons, but as a new way of doing life.

There are components of a larger church that are definitely helpful for outreach. A larger church can become much more of a resource for a community than a house church. Childcare and recovery groups are easier to run in a large church. The most important aspect is harder unless you know how to break it down - teaching people how to be real. That really depends on the leadership of the church.

Big ships steer slowly.

So, in answer to the questions: 100 house churches, provided they were affiliated as one, and $1 million for a headquarters. Can I have both?

Comment by Kim - Mar 21, 2009 @ 11:29 PM

I’ll keep it short and sweet: 100 small house churches and $1Million spent on helping the needy in your community.

Comment by Greg Atkinson - Mar 24, 2009 @ 07:53 PM

Catalyst