What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

ARE Big Churches Better?

I went out to http://TinyUrl.com and "shortened" the link. :)

Here's the link to the article: The Smaller the Church, the Fewer the Christians by Bill Tenny-Brittian.


~Sparrowhawke

PS --Haven't read the article yet but I like smaller churches too. Better accountability because "we" know each other and aren't a stranger lost in a crowd. Other reasons too, but I'll go read the article before commenting too much. Thanks for posting it!

~Sparrow

[*EDIT #1 - The Barna Group article]:
Okay, I've read the article that this was based on. The Barna Group posted the results of a survey and their "findings" are basically stated as: "Mega Church" is better than "Small Congregation Size".

On a personal level one of the things that I noticed was the definition for "saved" or "born again" that the people who designed the survey used: "
“Born again Christians†were defined as people who said they had made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that was still important in their life today and who also indicated they believed that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior."
Click to expand...

:idea

Of interest to me was that per the definition used above, a mere "confession" of sin was required, and "repentance" was not mentioned. Perhaps this was an oversight? Denial of self is indeed required in my Ol' Time Religion and it would be wrong for me to conclude that the "mega churches" failed to teach this foundational principle based on the article alone. It wouldn't be wrong though for me to conclude that bias was introduced into the survey because that is indeed the case. Perhaps there are mega-churches that do more than lip service to Holiness doctrine but this certainly was not indicated by those who designed the survey.

Sociologists define methods that are conscientiously followed in order to avoid bias by most pollsters. Certainly, the Barna Group could have done better when they designed their selection criterion. What other critical foundational doctrines are all at once so clearly defined, so carefully crafted and so abominably wrong?

One man's opinion,
~Sparrowhawke
 
Sparrowhawke said:
Here's the link to the article: The Smaller the Church, the Fewer the Christians by Bill Tenny-Brittian.
Click to expand...
[*Not an EDIT but another comment instead]

Jesus didn’t seem to be too concerned about correcting most of the finer points of the Sadducee’s and Pharisee’s theology, but he got hot-and-bothered about right behavior towards others. In fact, a close reading of what Jesus taught reveals, surprise-surprise, that he was very concerned about how his followers should behave towards God, one another, their neighbors, their enemies, and even how they treated themselves. He kept talking about things like bearing fruit, witnessing, doing good works, and love. Especially love.
Click to expand...

Another point of interest (to me) was that the article was completely opposed in its findings to my original thought. Remember when I spoke of "accountability" and how smaller churches should be able to hold their members to a stricter accountability? My thought was that in the large "mega church" members could "hide" easier and "get lost in the crowd", remember?

  • Here's what the article said (in brief) about that:
Smaller membership churches not only have low membership and leadership expectations, they seldom practice accountability among the membership.
Click to expand...

The article disagrees with my experience. No clue why. My personal findings are not scientifically backed up with any survey so maybe they should be discounted. The small assemblies that I've attended were all focused on the family and I selected them with my own bias. If they didn't believe in the literal accuracy of the Word of God? Not for me. If they didn't confess that Jesus was born of a virgin and lived a sinless life? Again, not for me. If they taught heresy? Not for me. You get the picture. My comparison wasn't held to the highest sociological standards (neither was the survey) but I did demand that the smaller congregations I attended were at least "Christian". Again, my view is that this same demand was not met by those who designed the survey.

God searches hearts and does not rely on "scientific surveys". I wanna be like our Father! That includes Holiness and I hate churches that fleece the sheep by misquoting scripture as they attain their financial corporate goals.

But then, and again, that's just one mans opinion,
!Sparhawk
 
Sparrowhawke, thanks for improving the links. I feel that the article definitely deserves reading. Back when independent Baptists were in their heyday (about 1965 to 1975) they often taught that small churches had something wrong with them if they remained small. As cruel as that controversial statement sounds, I have found over the decades that there is something to it.

Of course it isn't always true. When I first got saved, a small independent Baptist church took me in and worked hard to help me. I owe those people a lot.
 
Smaller churches can feed the flock more efficiently, IMO. People often get lost and feel alienated in larger congregations. What can happen then is too many unsupervised small groups get started and who knows what is being taught.

Mat 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
Mat 13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

Now, are those birds beneficial to that tree or not? (hint, read the surrounding parables)
 
Bigger churches can prove unwelcoming even intimidating.
 
The author of the article runs a web site called 21st centuary strategies The article is a promotional strategie to try and get smaller churches to seek their counsel. He made a comment that America is losing 3000 Christians a day (or the west) ?????
I don't buy the authors arguments, he places a lot of emphasis on Jesus teachings about love only, Thereby opening the door for a diluted Gospel. Jesus also taught about the narrow way, that he was not here to bring peace, that we must not be decieved. Sorry, I don't buy it.
 
Vince said:
Sparrowhawke, thanks for improving the links. I feel that the article definitely deserves reading. Back when independent Baptists were in their heyday (about 1965 to 1975) they often taught that small churches had something wrong with them if they remained small. As cruel as that controversial statement sounds, I have found over the decades that there is something to it.

Of course it isn't always true. When I first got saved, a small independent Baptist church took me in and worked hard to help me. I owe those people a lot.
Click to expand...
I do believe very much that any church that is following closely after God will have the witness of sheep that birth sheep. If the church is dry and there is zero growth --I'm wondering if it is stagnant. Not to say this is necessarily the case but that's where my mind goes.

I don't want to mix metaphors too much but Christians who follow Jesus will bear fruit.

Still, there was one time when I was praying about a specific body, a small church and my prayer was that it grow. The Lord showed me that this would happen but it wouldn't be fast and monumental growth. That type of "blessing" where we say, "godliness is gain" is false. Consider what the term "neoplasm" or "neoplasia" (meaning "new growth" in Greek) typically means these days. It's a medical term. Extremely fast and uncontrolled growth that is accomplished by man's effort alone is cancerous.

Not just one man's opinion anymore,
~Sparrow
 
I belong to a large church, and the new building is almost finished to hold even more folks. And I think that you can get more of a closer relationship with people in a smaller a church. We got like 20 minsters in my church, because it is to many people for one pastor, plus he is the pastor of 2 other churches. And sometimes I don't want to talk to the other ministers, I want to talk to him, but he tries hard to give us his time, and if I go to him he will talk to me. But I will tell you, I don't care what church it is, if you have a Holy Ghost filled pastor, that body of Christ will reflect that, which is the people of that church.
 
I think God can work in any church large or small. However, it's been my own personal observation that smaller churches tend to have a larger percentage of strong, well-equipped, Christian warrior types. I believe that is because in a small church, there is simply much more accountability because everything is much more personal.

I really don't want to derail this thread, but I was just having a conversation with my pastor earlier today and thought about something I said to her and it relates to this:

Numbers aren't any kind of an indication of either God's blessings or God's disapproval. For instance, our denomination just voted to approve gay and lesbians for clergy. OK, already in some area's they are seeing an increase in Sunday attendees. In other areas, the impact is causing people to leave. I'm not a prophet, but I do have a gut feeling that when all is said and done, the ELCA just might have more people become members, not less. Here is why: Folks who hold hard to the Word of God and to Biblical standards have already left the ELCA by and large. However, there has been any number of very liberal types who do not hold to the inerrancy of the Scriptures that were deliberately holding off on becoming members of the ELCA, until the ELCA made this stand. The thing is, whether the ELCA gets more members or less, the lampstand is most likely due to be removed.

Regarding numerical church growth, let's keep in mind that what needs to grow isn't necessarily the local congregation, but the Church! Let me share with you a personal testimony: I went to a small church in California. It had about 50 members when it started almost 60 years ago, and today it has about 90. Not much growth, right? WRONG!!!!! That little church is one strong little church. Many of the members have gone out into the world and have made disciples where ever they have lived. Almost all of the kids who grew up in that church are now raising their own very solid Christian children, and are active in other churches. While the little church only grew in numbers by about 40 folks in 60 years, if one looks at all the people who are now part of the Church (the Body of Christ) due to the witness, testimony and ambassadorship of those 90 people, the number would probably be closer to 1000 if not more.
 
There are always exceptions, but my own experience is that the pastors of large churches preach better sermons.
 
I haven't had time to read the link, but I don't mind. I think both big and small churches have their place. I belong to a big church, and we have a massive church service, then I go to a large youth service. I find those times - singing, praying, being preached the Word to - with heaps of fellow Christians really encouraging and challenging, and our year has a tight friendship (even though it is large) and so I feel like the 'large church thing' is going pretty well, however for a new non-Christian member it could be a bit intimidating.

I also go to a Bible Study, just for my yeargroup (guys) and that is a smaller group, and I like that as well, becasue of the more personal feel and accountability and the chance to get to know each other more.

So I come from a 'mix', and I believe that's good.

I don't think any is 'bad'. It's probably a personal preference.
 
The study showed that attenders of large churches were more likely to believe fundamental Bible doctrines, such as the Deity of Christ, a literal Satan, Heaven and Hell, etc. That wasn't too surprising. Modernists have little to offer, and their churches have been dying away for decades. They wouldn't be as large as they are now if born-again Christians hadn't started and grown those denominations. So it's no surprise to learn that most mega-churches got that way because God is blessing them.

While the study focused on the differences between churches running over 1,000 and less than 100, they found that when a church reaches 500 adults, it tends to act the same regardless of additional growth.
 
I think big churches are "better" in that they have more resources to perform in reach and outreach ministries that help people. Also, I think larger churches make more effort to reach new members and the unbelievers (that's how they got to be large in the first place). Basically, they actively grow the congregation and spread the gospel.

To address the criticism that people become "lost" in large churches, I put the blame on the individual member. It's not up to the pastor to spoon feed you every Sunday and then expect to grow in any measurable way. People need to get up and get involved. I attend a large church and there are small groups, short and long term missions, men's groups, women's group, singles groups, children's ministries, and on and on. There are plenty of ways to get connected and you have nobody to blame but yourself if you are sitting on the sidelines doing nothing.

Small churches seem too much like "clubs" and maintaining the status quo and making the members comfortable is the primary goal. That kind of atmosphere promotes what I call spiritual "dry rot". Gossip seems to be more of an issue as well. I'm not saying they are all like that because I'm sure there are exceptions. But those are my observations.
 
Studies and polls usually are conducted with a predetermined slant in mind. They do this by focusing in on the demographics that will give them the results desired.

I belong to a small congregation; about 200 or so members. Our church's growth resembles that which Handy described. Parents move, but their offspring stay. Or the children move and the parents stay behind. Or, they start "sister" churches. Or they are in the mission field. We are a SBC congregation and many of the SBC churches are small, especially in the north and overseas.

But, guess who is the largest of the non-orthodox denominations? The SBC. There is strength in numbers, especially when those numbers are spread out throughout the world. I'll take 100 smaller and spread out churches over one that equals them in numbers.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
 
Small communities of faith are biblical. Meeting in a non-sacred building like a home is biblical. So meeting in sacred buidings with the masses is twice removed from biblical practice. :study
 
The meeting place is irrelevant and the size of the congregation is irrelevant. Big churches can do things that smaller churches cannot and smaller churches typically allow for better relationships. They both have positives negatives. Personally, I prefer smaller churches of 100-500 members.
 
Actually a smaller church would be from 10 to 50 people! Intimacy is key to discipleship. Have many here realized that Jesus' community composed of only 12? Why do so many Christians seek to do the opposite of the practice found in the biblical text? We must rank as the only faith in history that ignores the teaching of their own scriptures. And we claim it is more authoritive than any other teaching. Why do we not seek to practice it's contents? :shrug
 
Having bigger churches has nothing to do with "practicing the truth" of the Bible. No where in Scripture is it mentioned that a house is the place to "do church" nor is it mentioned that a small group of 13 is to be the model for how large a church is to be.

No one is ignoring Scripture since it says nothing of the matter. I can guarantee you that if 3000 were added in a single day with more believing each day, they didn't break it all down into tiny groups. They were Jews so why would they suddenly do things completely different than what they had always done?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top