Will most of the mega-churches crumble over the next decade?
We heard about the Me Too movement catching up to Bill Hybels. Mark Driscoll’s ministry had quite an abrupt end. And now, one of the more doctrinally decent leaders, Jame MacDonald, has his potential scandals (though not of the same caliber as the above). Francis Chan has left the mega-church ministry for house churches. Meanwhile, Rick Warren seems to be without scandal, as do a number of other mega-church pastors.
Are these just fender-benders on the mega-church highway, or is the movement itself built upon leaders with issues and inevitably headed toward a crash?
No one (except the Lord) knows the future. But we may have our guesses, hopefully based upon logical inferences. Will most of the mega-churches crumble, or no?
Poll Results
Will most of the mega-churches crumble over the next decade?
Yes, the mega-church movement is a time bomb waiting to explode. Votes: 2
Many of the mega-churches will implode, but most will prosper, perhaps through more compromise. Votes: 4
Some of the mega-churches will implode, some will be left. Could be close to a 50-50. Votes: 5
No, some mega-churches will implode perhaps, nonetheless the movement has reached its apex. Votes: 2
No, some mega-churches will implode perhaps, but the movement will continue to grow. Votes: 4
Other or undecided. Votes: 4
- 42 views
My new church is a “micro-church”:
- About 30 members w
- About 60 in am attendance
A brother in our new members’ class:
- Came from the largest church in Minnesota
- He said it was so impersonal that he never connected with anyone
- But the band was great
My church has about 50 members, with about 70 - 80 in attendance. We attended a special service at a sister church last night; the church which actually planted our church. It’s very small; seven rows of pews which can comfortably fit about 50. It was a wonderful service. There’s nothing wrong with smaller churches!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I’m noticing an interesting trend in churches here in the buckle of the Bible Belt (Greenville. SC). When I was here as a student 30 years ago, large churches were common. Today, for the most part, those churches are considerably smaller and I’m seeing members moving to smaller churches where they are more likely to establish relationships with others (not that that can’t be dome in large churches).
It’s not uncommon to meet people who attend the same large church and don’t know each other.
As long as there are people who go to church just to worship and hear preaching and don’t seem to see “one anothering” as a priority there will be big churches, either fundamental, mega, or mainline.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I think the questions are missing one of the biggest growth area of what is classically defined mega church. That is defined as a church with weekend attendance of 2,000 or more. The multi-Site movement has created many mega churches with locations having attendance of 100, 200, 500 across several locations.
The Giga Churches, which make-up about the top 20 churches of the Outreach magazine’s largest 100 churches list, are what most think of when you think of mega churches.. That’s the group that will make national news when you have issues and in that segment you have healthy and unhealthy churches. Really all segments of churches can be healthy and unhealthy.
In my opinion what will most impact the very large churches will be the change in our culture as it relates to Christians and the church being attractive on some level, this is what will impact the size of weekend attendance. Non-Christian and disconnected Christian can still finding church attractive. It is the hardcore post-christian and those who are anti-religion segments that are growing and if/when they reach a tipping point we might find ourselves in a first century environment here in the states. How churches are structured in that environment would probably be much different but a multi-site model might still be viable.
[Jim]
- Came from the largest church in Minnesota
- He said it was so impersonal that he never connected with anyone
- But the band was great
I’ve come full circle. As a youth my experience was in two large churches (including Minnesota’s Fourth Baptist at its peak, when it had a 2,000 seat auditorium). Next I spent 20 years in a small church that typically ran 30-35, with a record high day of 70. For the past 18 years I have been at a large church that in the past four years has seen very rapid growth, so that average attendance is nearing 4,000.
On Saturday morning, September 22nd of this year my Dad died. (He was 87 and in failing health, but it was still sudden.) I called one of my pastors, who said “Where are you going to be? I’ll be right there.” And he was. He canceled his plans for that day to spend the next several hours with my family and me, doing what pastors do in such circumstances. That same day, my phone soon began to light up with calls & texts from many friends at my church, who were quickly spreading the news. Over the next few days the concentrated outpouring of love and concern from my church was incredible. Calls, texts, visits, invitations to meals or to meet for coffee, hugs, prayers, cards jamming my mailbox, and many other expressions of comfort & support. Many church people came to my Dad’s funeral, including some who used time off from their jobs to attend.
Impersonal? Nope. I have numerous deep relationships with others at my very large church that arguably surpass any I had at the very small church I was at for 20 years.
Can a large church feel impersonal? I suppose it could–but I imagine only if a person neglects to become involved beyond simply attending large worship services. Attend an ABF, join (or better yet host) a small group, attend men’s or women’s ministry meetings, attend Bible studies, serve in one (or several, as I do) ministry position(s), etc., and it’s inevitable that even in the largest of churches one will find it impossible to not develop deep relationships with fellow church members.
It would help me if you briefly compared that smaller church with the one you’re a member of right now:
- What is better now?
- What’s worse, now?
- What are the pros and cons?
- Is the difference the leadership at the respective churches, or the methodology and theology, or both?
I’m not asking about size; I’m asking about spiritual health and mission.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
“Briefly” I’m not sure I could do.
I’ve thought more than once that I should write an article for submission to SI on the topic of smaller churches vs. larger churches. Having fairly long exposure to & experience with both, I believe I could make some valid comparisons.
But then it strikes me that most on SI would reflexively dismiss whatever I would say positively about larger churches, so I simply forget about the idea once again (at least for the time being).
I wouldn’t dismiss it!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Any church that “nails” a response like the one Larry describes is going to have a huge advantage for survival. Any chance that does not, well, the opposite applies. We might infer some rules of thumb for those going into ministry, starting with something like “it’s not all about preaching and authority.”
Doing what Larry describes might be harder in one size church vs. another—I confess my skepticism that what he describes can be/is widespread—but I know from experience that a church as large as 4th is today can provide it. The major factor just might be attitude, not size.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
From Thom Rainer:
“There is no doubt that church health is not synonymous with church size. Indeed, churches can draw a crowd for a season using unbiblical methods. Still, it is instructive to look at the largest churches in America just a few decades ago.
In 1969 Elmer Towns published one of the first books on largest churches in America. In The Ten Largest Sunday Schools, Towns noted the ten churches and took a chapter to suggest reasons for their growth and size. Look at the 1969 list of largest churches:
1. Akron Baptist Temple, Akron, Ohio
2. Highland Park Baptist Church, Chattanooga, Tennessee
3. First Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas
4. First Baptist Church, Hammond, Indiana
5. Canton Baptist Temple, Canton, Ohio
6. Landmark Baptist Temple, Cincinnati, Ohio
7. Temple Baptist Church, Detroit, Michigan
8. First Baptist Church, Van Nuys, California
9. Thomas Road Baptist Church, Lynchburg, Virginia
10. Calvary Temple, Denver, Colorado
This top ten list includes eight independent Baptist churches, one Southern Baptist church, and one independent church.”
https://thomrainer.com/2011/05/where_have_all_the_churches_gone/
––––––––––––
I’m old enough to remember when fundamentalism approved of large churches. More than once, I heard IFB preachers (at least in Minnesota) boast something like this: “The largest church in 32 of the 50 states is an independent Baptist church!”
Somewhere down the line, once fundamentalism could no longer cite such statistics, its collective view on church size did a 180. “Smaller is better” became a virtual maxim espoused by many. Yet how’s that working out? Now, it’s commonplace to hear fundamentalism lament the inability of its churches to even provide a pastor a living wage…..
Some of the local GARBC pastors up in the Pacific Northwest have never heard of the FBFI. It’s nice to be in a place where nobody even knows what the sacred cows are … I never have to worry about Baptist fundamentalist politics up here.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Would be to see a time-average estimate of the size of many churches over the past 20-40 years. As I look over the list Larry presents, let’s just say there are a few where I’m very certain that the size of the congregation derived more from a “cult of personality” than the factors Larry rightly commends in his church. If you do a time average over a period of decades, you probably reduce the “cult of personality” factor simply because people don’t stay around, or stay popular, that long.
Tyler: Jealous!
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]Would be to see a time-average estimate of the size of many churches over the past 20-40 years. As I look over the list Larry presents, let’s just say there are a few where I’m very certain that the size of the congregation derived more from a “cult of personality” than the factors Larry rightly commends in his church. If you do a time average over a period of decades, you probably reduce the “cult of personality” factor simply because people don’t stay around, or stay popular, that long.
Tyler: Jealous!
#4 on the list certainly demonstrates this!
I’ve been on and off this board from the very start and during on of the change-overs in the system got lost and didn’t re-join until this year.
I grew-up in an IFB pastor’s home and had was there as he planted a church and grew it to probably 500 during my youth and college years. Attended Bible college for one year before going to business school. Over the years we’ve been involved in small and large churches, the funny thing our worst experience was in a small church, less then 100.
I think I’ve probably mentioned in a post before, but I’ve been on staff at a very large church for the past 13 years. The church had 4,500 in weekend attendance at one location when I started and now has 12 locations with weekend attendance of 17,000. My experience mirrors Larry’s experience, both before coming on staff and after.
Something that you have to do as you get larger is create process that fill the gaps. If you are like Larry, you have several connections where you are known and cared for. I would say this would account for at least 80% of the congregation. For those who are not connected the process will pick those up typically. We regularly get comment when someone has experienced care that they can’t believe that a large church would care for them this well. So I’m pretty familiar with large churches.
Speaking to the cult of personality, we have have 5 people on the teaching team and use the video format to send the teaching portion via satellite to the gather across all the locations. Though our senior pastor is know he has been very intentional at avoiding that. We chuckle as we are the largest church no one has ever heard of.
I’ve never thought about writing a post like Larry but would be glad to answer questions. :-)
My poll could be better nuanced, but that is not unusual in a poll.
One thing I have noticed in the conversation is:
1. The distinction between mega-churches and “seeker sensitive” (as defined by Hybels, Warrnen, etc.) churches. Not all mega-churches aim for the least common denominator and specialize in 101.
2. The distinction between mega-churches based upon a celebrity pastor of some sort vs. those without a high-profile leader.
I can accept the idea of a large church (of any size) that is doctrinally solid, doctrinally deep, and meets the Biblical criteria for what a church should be, including “one - anothering.”
Personally, I have a real problem with screen pastors.
Since the early church consisted of small (usually “home”) congregations, the New Testament is adapted toward that sort of group. It is, therefore, easier to capture more of the Scriptural approach toward the sheep in a smaller congregation. This is not to say that God wants our churches to be small or meet in homes.
If Timothy had the oversight of a megachurch, Paul’s instructions may have differed in some ways. I don’t think we give enough weight to this thought. This, in turn, means that when we start adding programs (Sunday School, AWANA) or layers of new-fangled roles (Geeks, director of family ministries, etc.) we are — by necessity— at least a step removed from Scripture.
It is more possible to have the “feel” of the early church in a smaller group. Just saying.
But I see no command in Scripture for us to imitate the early church, either.
"The Midrash Detective"
I remember those churches from 1969. I remember
I also remember the big conservative fundamental churches as typified by those in Greenville, SC in the 70’s and 80’s.
I remember Christian Day Schools that were maxed in attendance.
I remember Christian colleges with 4-5 students in a dorm room.
I remember huge crowds at annual meetings like the GARBC, FBF, and the World Congress of Fundamentalists.
We used to call it “Living in the Book of Numbers”, where “how many?” was a common question.
It looks like everything is crumbling and we’re just wondering “why?” Or, if it’s our group, just ignoring it.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I coordinated a recent lunch meeting at my church for some local pastors in our association. We chatted for two hours, and nobody once mentioned the size of the church he pastors. Thank God for that! You know why? Because it doesn’t matter.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
….where all those people Ron’s talking about went. Some went evangelical—the major church in a town I used to live in was about a third populated with refugees from a local IFB church—but I’m guessing many others went to “parts unknown”.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
It is important to remember that many of us on SI never participated with our countenanced the independent Baptist gimmick huge church with busses movement.
I respect that many SI participants have this background, but there were many of us that looked with disfavor upon it at the time. Not that we don’t have our own past ridiculous issues. Just not the same ones :)
"The Midrash Detective"
“There is no “best size” for a church. Each size presents great difficulties and also many
opportunities for ministry that churches of other sizes cannot undertake (at least not as well). Only together can churches of all sizes be all that Christ wants the church to be.”
http://seniorpastorcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Tim-Keller-Size-Dynamics.pdf
––––––––––––
Having been in both very small and very large churches, I readily accept the quote above. Small churches and large churches each have both advantages and disadvantages. I will attest to that firsthand. Yet there is a place for all sizes. They are not in conflict with each other, or adversaries, as some portray.
This quote, from a 2009 post on SI that has stuck with me, rather sums this attitude up:
“What I don’t like is big, big churches. To me, more than 300 is ridiculously large.”
I don’t accept such an attitude. I wonder if that kind of attitude still holds when one stops to realize that Matt Morrell, Dave Doran, and Mark Minnick (just to name a few IFB pastors known to many on SI) all therefore pastor “ridiculously large” churches?
Discussion