;)
tagged: Baptist Life, Church, Church Death, Church Growth, Church Life, Church Membership, Church Planting, Hariette Petersen (SelahV), Missional, SBC IssuesLET THE AX FALL…Upon All the Dead Churches?
Posted by SelahV in Baptist Life
I’m a bit confused today. I’ve been mulling this over for quite some time and have decided to just toss out my thoughts like wood chips off the chopping block. Wherever the chips fall, we’ll gather.
For nearly two years I have been reading about the impending demise of the SBC. I’ve read comments which said things like, “if there is no growth, then we ought to just let the churches die”. “Some churches need to die.” Then I read stuff from the same folks criticizing the “mega churches” for their size.
Which is it?
Do small churches need to die? Or do mega churches need to downsize?
What is the perfect size of a church, anyway? Some say (and I agree) we need more church plants. But how big should these church plants get? Should they simply plateau? What’s the magic number before we tell it to halt? Do we consider it a failure if it only makes it to 25 people who are serving the Lord as a body of believers in their community? Didn’t the Savior say, “Where two or more are gathered, there I am in the midst of them.”?
Think with me for a minute.
Small church pastors aspire to have big churches. Why else do they want more baptisms? It’s not because they want a mega church, but because they want to see kingdom growth. But if their church grows, and their church becomes “mega”, then the same “small church pastor” who stuck with his church through thick and thin and persevered through struggles and difficulties, would be someone we should hold suspect in leadership? I’m scratching my head. “We don’t need presidents to lead our convention who come from these mega churches”? Isn’t this the kind of man who understands “how to grow a church” and thereby been endowed with the gifts to administrate and lead? Isn’t he a pastor who might be considered a man with God-given wisdom to guide and discern a few of the needs we have as a convention?
How do we start churches? With two or more people, right? Why do we place such high regard (and well we should) in the two or three who boldly begin as a body of believers and have so little regard for the two or more people (in an 80-year-old) fellowship who persistently continue as a body of believers? Why are we so ready to euthanize the church which maintains their faith by the heartbeat of Christ and Christ alone?
Is it because we see them as an albatross around our statistical equations? Can we not rejoice in the birth of Christians in another part of the family without pointing fingers at the barren wombs of others? Is God any less concerned about Sarah than He is about Hagar?
Is it the Spirit’s job to convict, convert, and regenerate, or is it mine? Am I responsible for the increase, or is God? Wherein the garden fails repeatedly to produce new fruit from its vine when one has plowed, planted, fertilized, watered and waited, whose responsibility is it to cast it into the fire? Is it mine? Should William Carey have been axed for a fruitless seven years without a single convert in India?
What constitutes a dead church? Who’s responsibility is it to be the executioner and wield the ax? Do we cast lots?
I told you this was a mix of thoughts mulling around in my mind. Speak to any you wish…all are part of the whole conversation as we Baptists join hands in cooperation to labor till the Lord of the harvest returns. I just wonder if we need more shovels and hoes than axes to do the job. selahV
[copyrighted, SelahV Today, 2008]
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Every church in the SBC is too small. As long as there is a lost soul to be won to Christ, your church is too small.
Does the bible say how big a church should be?
I don’t think so. I think we’re wrong to. there are tasks placed before a church, and the body can get together with others to accomplish them where one body really can’t (think IMB et al, ideally).
When man gets involved, it gets messed up because of ambition, pride, etc. And I don’t buy that any churches are “too small” even where there are souls to be won, as there’s nothing IMO to say that when someone gets saved via the actions of a local church, the new believer is supposed to join THAT church.
Mrs. V,
Wow, you ask a lot of questions here!
An initial observation; is there anywhere in the Scriptures that says a church should embrace its death? I don’t think so. The only church that was pronounced as dead was the church in Sardis (Revelation 3:1-6). However, Christ held out to them the opportunity to repent! That suggests that some life was left in them, enough that Christ was ready to resuscitate them to new works.
“I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain.”
I believe it is arrogant, to say the least, to call any church dead. Only Jesus has the authority to declare such. I think we are too quick to pronounce our churches dead and often we do so because they do not match what we want to see as “church life”.
Our attitude should rather be that of the Apostle Paul (2 Corinthians 11:28), “…besides these things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches.”
There are times when God said to His people that He would go away from them until they repent (e.g. Hos 5:6, 15), in other words, unless they repent, their light is going to go out (Rev 2:5). James S. Stewart says, “‘Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world’ — was not unconditional. It was firmly placed in a missionary setting. Only in conection with missionary fidelity is the promise valid. Christ will not remain in the midst of a Church that neglects its missionary calling, nor continue to grant His presence to a Christian who shelves responsibility for evangelism. . . A Church that is content to remain isolated in sanctified seclusion from the world around its doors and the clamorous problems of the age has no right to bear the name of Him who chose to dwell with publicans and sinners” (“Thine is the Kingdom,” 35, 45).
When is a church no longer a church? When When it has departed from Christ and His mission — revealing that He is no longer the head of the body. A church exists for the purpose of mission. If it refuses to be involved in God’s redemptive mission, then it can no longer rightfully be called a “church.” This has nothing to do with size. It has everything to do with purpose.
Selah,
Thank your for the intriguing and thinking post. You have caused me to set and ponder for a while.
I don’t believe that I have been “overly” critical of the large or “mega” church. I have not been desirous necessarily of a “larger” church – just to be in the center of God’s will. I have desired my church to “grow” for the purpose to expand the Kingdom of God, and not my own kingdom.
I have been critical in the past to what I believe is the tendency to creep in to what I have called the “corporate” church whose polity model is not scriptural, but based on the corporation model with hierarchies and little input from the common believer in the pews save to possibly pass a budget once a year.
I do have concerns about “exclusivity of leadership” in Southern Baptist life. It has been assumed that larger church pastors have the benefit of their experience more often than not than small church pastors – therefore they have been delegated the majority of leadership positions. Here are your assumptions: a)all small church pastors do not have experience necessary to lead a convention of churches and b)all small church pastors want to become large church pastors. I believe that these are as false as “there are some churches that are too large.”
Now conversationally I believe that if a Pastor does not know your name, then he is not being a Pastor – and if a church has 5000 members, then that Pastor does not know every name or family. I really do not know a good number – I will propose 300 as a good sized model of both a church able to fulfill her mission of outward reach well, as well as being small enough for Christian community to be effective internally.
I look forward to our conversation.
Rob
SelahV:
Great questions and a lot of them! I think the answers to a lot of those questions falls out of a discussion and answers of the foundational principles of the church. First off, I believe that we must emphatically, unequivocally, loudly, obnoxiously state that it is not about numbers. Kevin is absolutely correct when he states that it is about mission. But do not fall into the trap of making numbers the mission. Numbers may point to God’s Spirit moving (success as we call it) or a good job of marketing in the current local culture. So what is the mission?
The mission is to make disciples. If we are about the business of making disciples then the church is being a church whether it has 2 or 20,000 and whether the growth is very slow, fairly fast or even downward. Therefore I believe that the purpose of the church (other than the standard Sunday school answer “to glorify God”) is for that community or body to be built up by the teaching and obedience to God’s word, so that this community gives its life in ministry to God, to one another and to those around us.
This is my desire…not baptisms, not evangelism, not more members. If we make disciples the rest of those numbers may come and probably will come. But if we put baptisms, evangelism or more members ahead of making disciples, then we wind up with a lot of “missing” believers.
When should a church “get the axe?” That is God’s decision. I suppose that it is about the time that they are no longer about the mission and refuse to repent. A couple of years before I became pastor in our church it was down to five members and no pastor. They talked of closing the doors. Ultimately they did not because they felt led by the Spirit to do otherwise.
I agree with Rob. Large numbers to not necessarily prove “good” leadership in the way we would want or desire leaders in the convention. In fact they may be anything, but good, biblical leaders. Again, this is an area that numbers deceive us. Say for instance that a church has 50 people on a Sunday morning. That guy must not be a good leader. But, that 50 people accounts for 1.5% of the population in a 25 mile radius. Proportionally, that church would have as much influence 15,000 member church in a big city.
Sorry, you struck a cord. I’ll shut up now…
Good article, well said.
We’ve gotten real good at creative, entertaining worship with great music and great preaching, and we can come up with a slick, well-packaged, well marketed program to solve just about any problem we have. We’ve gotten so good at it, as a matter of fact, that we have left out the one element that the scripture teaches us not to leave out–The Holy Spirit. We’re afraid of the change that He brings.
Hello fellas! Great comments thus far. I’ve been out of pocket all morning and apologize for the delay in responding.
Chris Hilliard: AMEN!
Bob: I haven’t found a number in the Bible yet. I’m not quite sure I understand your point on the last sentence though. Are you saying when a person is saved and then baptized that he/she need not join the particular fellowship of believers who baptized them? selahV
Tony~~ well I’m not gonna be arrogant anymore and say a church is dead!
I must confess I have said that of churches in years past. After decades of ministering and fellowshipping with multiple pastors of small and tiny churches that struggled to be what Christ called them to be, I’ve corrected that judgmental kind of thinking. Praise be to God. Would that we all claim the attitude of the Apostle Paul and have “deep concern for ALL churches.” selahV
Hello Kevin~~ Thanks for commenting. Are you addressing me? Just wondering, because there are other commenters in the stream now.
While I do agree with you that “A church exists for the purpose of mission,” I am not sure I’d be comfortable making the call on where it can “rightfully be called a church”. Would you be comfortable informing any particular church that they were not “rightfully a church”?
And I also agree that a church should have as her purpose to reach the lost. selahV
SelahV,
My views on this may be a little hard to grasp from a more traditional point of view, and easy to misinterpret. Actually, I’ve been mulling over a post of my own on this, so I may be preempting myself a bit here. But, here goes…
I think that biblically, in addition to individual congregations that we normally call “local churches,” there is a sense in which all the believers and “local churches” in a city make up the “church” in that city, or the “city church.” I am not saying here merging everyone together in one big happy organization. But I am saying a spirit of fellowship, and mutual cooperation, and recognition of everyone as being part of the same team, working toward the same basic goal.
In this sense, the goal should always be for the “city church” to grow numerically. When Acts 2 says that “3,000 were added to their number that day,” I believe it is referring to the growth of the Jerusalem “city church.” At the same time, the members of the “city church” met separately in smaller groups in their homes. We could argue about whether the home meetings were more “cell groups” that were all under the supervision of a larger “central church” and their “pastoral team,” or if they functioned as separate “house churches.” Since the Bible uses the term “church” for both home meetings, as well as the “city church” as I have described it here, I think it is likely that the home meetings functioned with a certain degree of autonomy, as separate “churches,” if you will, but in close fellowship with all the other “house churches,” much like what we would call a “house church network” today.
Under this paradigm, I think the closest parallel of most Southern Baptist “local churches” is to the individual “house churches.” Though, in another sense, most modern-day congregations are also like an entire “house church network,” with many different smaller groups all coming under the same organizational umbrella.
Looking at it this way, I believe it is important that we are continually multiplying the number of small groups, or evangelistic-discipling units. In our context, these may take the form of Sunday School classes, discipleship groups, cell groups; or new mission points, and house churches.
What is important, as Keith Price alludes to above, is that discipleship is really taking place, and that people, and their individual needs, are not falling through the cracks. There are different ways of grouping together these small groups/evangelistic-discipling units. It is hard to prove that any one is necessarily more biblical than the other. We should be concerned, however, that in the way we group them together, we really are being good stewards with the resources God gives us, in order to make the most strategic contribution to the evangelization of the lost around us, and the effective discipleship of the believers in our midst.
I know this probably opens up a big can of worms. But, that’s the framework from which I see the questions you ask.
Well, good afternoon, Rob! I look forward to this conversation, too. You fit quite nicely into my idea of what a pastor of a smaller or medium church is in the kingdom. While seeking to reach the lost and minister to the saved, your ambition is to serve Jesus. And should He lead you to a larger field, fine. Should He keep you in the field you’re in, you’d be equally fine to labor as He gives you grace to serve Him.
Sorry, don’t know who the “exclusivity” is you are talking about. However, I think any pastor who has started out in a small church and grew his church through obedience to Christ and was blessed by God would be a great inspiration for others within our convention. I am by no means saying–and please understand this clearly–that I think a pastor of a small church is any less capable of leading our convention. Give me the humble man who seeks to honor Christ in all things and is willing to follow Him to the death and he can be a shepherd from the field if the convention so finds him worthy of the privilege.
I sure am grateful the Lord never called us to a 5,000 member church. But those churches definitely have their ministerial purposes in the kingdom, don’t you think? Ever heard of Sagemont in Houston, Texas? Wow, what a story!
TO MY ASSUMPTIONS:
A. BZZZ..wrong. I do not assume that nor did I ever mean to suggest that. Sorry if you got that from my post.
B. Don’t think all small church pastors want large churches (even though I wrote it like that). I really think I worded that a bit clumsily. But I thought I made it clear that it was about the kingdom they seek to enlarge their churches. Not necessarily that they necessarily want a mega church, but to grow their churches.
I think it follows that a church will grow as they make disciples following their conversion though, don’t you? And all the programs, activities and ministries are geared to include as many folks as possible and reach as many as God leads your way, right?
Personally, having ministered in mission church to larger church, I found my greatest ministry was in a smaller church. I felt more a part of it. However, the Lord used my abilities, talents and ideas to help the larger churches develop greater outreach through the experiences I had in my smaller church ministry as a pastor’s wife. And that small church now has two services in the morning. It’s a little country church in the middle of a spot in the road with the nearest grocery about 12 miles away. Their building didn’t grow, but they sure grew. I kinda like knowing everyone’s name too. Never could accomplish that. selahV
Keith, I like what you stated unequivacably! :O) Except for one tiny little thing. I didn’t say and I hope I can make this clear, that ALL pastors of All large churches are the best leaders. I’m saying that we should not hold a pastor of a large church suspect as a leader for our convention just because he is a pastor of a large church. I think there is an odd prejudice that can swing both ways in our beloved convention of churches. And I’ve been reading some of such in comments of late in our little (but rapidly expanding) world of blogland. I agree with much of what my dear Bro. Rob said, also. selahV
Keith…P.S. you don’t have to shut up. I didn’t see your comment as derogatory at all. selahV
Lee, no matter how we package our method of “doing church”, the only catalyst in her life is the Holy Spirit of God Who calls all to acknowledge our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Head. That’s what makes churches so wonderful. There is a place for all in His kingdom when He is Lord. selahV
David:
Good words. But, I think we do and will get a lot of resistance when these “groupings” do not fit into our standard molds.
If you are ever near eastern OR I’d like to take you to dinner to pick your brain (Whoa, that sounds kind of weird! Pick as in an intellectual sort of way and not in a cannibalistic sort of way!
Keith
Well, David, I didn’t know my post had such diverse a framework.
While in part I agree with the idea of your comment, and will look forward to your post in the future (make sure you email me when you do it), I think my emphasis is more on the already established churches we have withing our convention at present. I love the idea of cell groups, and small groups in homes and have seen how they can energize a church. Of course there are pros and cons with those also as they seek to follow their own paths and can get clichish and exclusionary. I was part of a church in New England that used the cell groups in the 70′s, can you believe that? And it worked really well in discipling others. But it was under the wing of the main body of believers i.e. FBC which had her own SBC literature and doctrinal message.
Personally, I think we could incorporate both cell groups and traditional Sunday School in the same working life of a church. I like Sunday School. I like what it does for children and many of the cell group environments have the kiddos in another room and space. Now if all the folks within the cell group would so construct their groups to include an age specific teaching session for children at the same time as the cell groups are meeting, that would be an ideal way to go. This may not be where you were going with your comment, but it’s where your comments chips gathered in my brain. Look forward to when you chop your log. selahV
Keith, what part of David’s suggestion do you feel will meet with resistance. I think his ideas have great merit. And while it may not be the picture for all churches, I think it could work well in some cities and towns alike. There’s always some who will say, “we’ve never done it that way before.”
David, correct me if I’m wrong, but you were considering that all these cell groups and home church groups would originate or be under the arm of a SBC church’s oversight, weren’t you? selahV
SelahV:
I did not read your original post to mean that all pastor of all large churches are good leaders. I agree, the size of the church should not matter in regards to convention leadership.
SelahV:
I like David’s ideas also. I think we will (and maybe have?) gotten resistance when these groups do not look like what we have traditionally seen in SBC churches. I talked to a pastor who was very concerned about a church in their association “going to small groups.” It wasn’t SS and he just could not see how that it would work.
I also like the idea of a combination of Sunday school and cell groups. Each of them offers different things. SS can be especially effective with children and as a draw to families with children.
Keith
What Chris said.
Keith, as I see it, each church is autonomous and is able to conduct these groups as they see most effectively meets the needs of their respective congregations and fellowship of Believers.
I can understand why a person might wonder how it could look to another church for one church to do something different. However, if we answer his doubts with understanding and without defensiveness, I think folks could receive a new method of reaching the lost and discipling the saved without causing division. Then I am a Pollyanna of sorts. selahV
SelahV:
Agreed…and I’m kind of friendly with Pollyanna myself. But, when it comes to putting those folks in convention leadership, are not those that do things a little differently looked at with some suspicion?
Keith
SelahV,
I am giving away even more of the idea of my upcoming post (if indeed I decide to post on this), but here goes again…
In the Bible, I see the overarching description of “church” as the composite of the saints of all the ages. All the other “churches” that exist are essentially reflections and expressions of this “One Church.”
I see basically 5 main expressions of “church.” One is the “Church” down through the ages made up of all the faithful. Another is the “church” made up of all the faithful of all nations, and denominations, currently on earth today. Another is the “city church,” as I described it in the comment above. Another is the congregation, or what we normally call the “local church.” And, finally, the “house church,” or the day-to-day fellowship of people who actually know each other, and interact on a regular basis, carrying out the “one another” admonitions of the NT, holding each other accountable.
As I alluded to in the comment above, the lines between these 5 expressions of “church” are not always clearly spelled out.
Here is what could meet with resistance: I see that we have over-emphasized the congregation or “local church” to the detriment of the other expressions. We have also placed a lot of emphasis on denominations. I don’t consider a denomination per se, as being a true expression of “church,” but rather a grouping of “churches.” This, in and of itself, is not necessarily good or bad, provided that it doesn’t contribute to the division of the Body of Christ.
What has been neglected is the worldwide “church,” the “city church,” and the “house church,” for lack of a better name (the “house church,” as I am describing it here doesn’t necessarily have to meet in a house; it does have to be small enough to maintain a real “one another” accountability relationship among the various members).
“Cell groups” can be a good expression of this. So can “house churches.” Whether each small group remains under the supervision of a “congregation” or “local church” or not depends on the particular situation.
The important thing is that we all together, as Christ’s Body, are working together for the edification of that Body, the evangelization of the lost, and the discipling of believers.
Keith, lately I think anyone in leadership seems to be held with suspicion. Trust is a word we seem to have lost trust in. Everyone is suspect and no one is trusted anymore. It is the saddest thing I’ve ever seen. selahV
David, that doesn’t seem at all like anything my brain was gathering around. It sounds rather “emergent” as I’ve come to understand. So, yes, I’d have to agree with Keith, it could very well be met with resistance. And I can see why, and I think you can too. selahV
Yes, resistance…but Polly and I can see some good things happening…we just have to learn to trust.
SelahV,
I should probably add that the relevance of all this for the actual questions you are posing here on your post is that:
When you think of things from this perspective, the actual size of the “local church” is not all that important, neither whether “local churches” are growing, or declining, or maintaining in membership. What is important is that the “city church” is growing. And that the number of evangelistic-discipleship units are keeping pace with the need for discipling the new believers. This is related to Keith’s last post. If the “church rolls,” at either the “city church” or “local church” level are growing, but the number of people actually being discipled is not keeping pace with this growth, you have an important underlying church health problem that is eventually going to come back and bite you in the foot.
So, should you close down “dead” or “dying” local churches? That all depends if they are getting in the way, or facilitating the overall church health of the “city church,” and the discipling of believers in general. Also, you have to take into consideration the contribution they make the growth of the worldwide church through international missions giving, participation, etc.
Also, you must take into consideration, the actual lives of the individual believers who have much time and emotional energy invested in these local congregations. How will they be affected? We can’t just make pragmatic decisions, without taking into consideration the actual feelings of the people affected.
David, I think there has been a lot of discussions regarding churches that have voiced pragmatic ideas “without taking into consideration the actual feelings of the people affected”. My heart is so heavy with all the voices that my words come out in moans instead of words. Praise God I have an Intercessor.
selahV
I can’t help but think of a quote from the United Methodist church’s Bishop Will Willimon
Oloryn: I like that. thanks. selahV
Oloryn,
Beautiful quotation. Thanks.
One more thought…
I think there are churches that are “big, fat, and self-centered” and also churches that are “small, fat, and self-centered.” Then there are churches that are “big, lean, and missional,” and churches that are “small, lean, and missional.”
That’s what I mean when I say the size of a local church, and whether it is growing, declining, or maintaining, is not so important. I will add, though, that I think the tendency is that churches that are “lean and missional” will tend to grow, and those that are “fat and self-centered” will tend to stagnate. However, many churches that are “lean and missional,” just because they are “lean and missional,” are quick to give away their people and resources, and thus may not grow as much as some “fat and self-centered” churches.
So, if a church finds itself in a stage where it seems like it is “dead” or “dying,” it is important they don’t become content with being “dead, dying, and fat.” They need to seek out ways to be “lean and missional” with the resources and people they have.
This is where the local association, or other churches and pastors in the city, can play a helpful role. While taking into account the emotions, time, and energy the people have invested into their church, they should lovingly challenge them, and assist them in being more “lean and missional.”
First, let me quote this from Kevin in comment 4: “When is a church no longer a church? When When it has departed from Christ and His mission — revealing that He is no longer the head of the body. A church exists for the purpose of mission. If it refuses to be involved in God’s redemptive mission, then it can no longer rightfully be called a “church.” This has nothing to do with size. It has everything to do with purpose.”
Now let me move more toward David’s comments. I disagree that the focus should be on the city church, but agree about the importance of cell groups or house churches or whatever you want to call them.
Traditionally we see that a church grows to a certain size relative to its surroundings and building and a few other factors and that the focus of the ‘church’ moves from reaching the lost to maintaining its membership. Some try to stop this plateau affect through planting other churches or through occasional membership drives. Others just give themselves up to it as an inevitable occurance.
I think the problem comes down to the focus on a building. We try and focus much of the church’s activities in and around the building and that, of course, limits the growth possibilities of the congregation. In the NT, the pattern we see is of the Church meeting in large and small groups wherever it was plausible. This began both in the Temple and in local homes.
I think the church needs to ‘decentralize.’ Basically, we need to focus outward rather than inward. Not every rural church can build a $5+ million building to house a massive congregation, but almost every church can go meet in a park. In the NT, we don’t see discipleship and evangelism being done at the Big level, it was done one-on-one.
I think that if the church decided what its purpose was in light of the NT, it would find less and less purpose for its building. Now we come back to David’s comments-one of the purposes of the ‘city’ church is helping keep the ‘local’ church healthy and growing. I don’t know if you are specifically going inter-denominational here, but the point is that within our Convention, our leaders should be those who have demonstrated the ability to care for the larger body and the smaller one. These should be men who can use their positions to assure the health and growth of the ‘city’ and the ‘local’ church whether they take a mega or rural form.
As to the axe-there are many apostate churches here that I wish God would Divinely axe, but I think our Conventional axe should be a withdraw of fellowship. That axe should be reserved for those churches who refuse to abide by Scripture as understood in light of the 2000 BF&M. I add that part because it is our Convention’s standard for fellowship.
peace and sorry for the book.
Shadrach,
Probably the whole discussion of the “city church” is a bit beyond the scope of this particular discussion here. I brought it up as a way to give some perspective to the main point I was trying to make. Given the reality and context of our churches as we now typically know them, I think your comment here is on target and basically complementary to what I have been saying.
but.. who decides what church should exist or be closed?
I came from a small church that had been troubled with liberalism, and division over many years. The Lord sent Revival and it grew to nearly a thousand.
6 pastors came from that revival.
Should that small church have been closed as not doing Kingdom work?
Steve,
Good point. The book “Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire” by Jim Cymbala is a good example of the same thing. The Brooklyn Tabernacle was down to 26 people, and apparently on its last daying embers, when God moved in, and amazing growth and blessing happend as a result.
[...] can be important. I already wrote a little bit about this on several comments on SelahV’s post, LET THE AX FALL…Upon All the Dead Churches?, the other day. But here is the “official” [...]
I have heard many times in seminars and in seminary that smaller units grow faster than larger units. This is most commonly referring to SS or Bible Study classes, but is this true for churches?
Well, I did some research. Not earth shattering, but real. A few years ago (About 5, I think) I was perusing the Annual Church Report in the Florida Baptist Witness. I decided to analyze my own association’s stats. Santa Rosa association at the time had roughly 11,000 members in 35 churches. The largest 4 had just over 5,500 members. I thought, “Wow! I have a chance to easily check a ‘so-called fact.’” You see, HALF the membership of the association was collected in four churches and the other half was in 31 smaller churches. Which group of 5,500 Southern Baptists baptized more people? The ones who were members of smaller churches! I was blown away. While one large church (my church at the time!) had received recognition in the mid-90s for baptisms, it had actually been less effective per member than the majority of the smaller churches. The numbers weren’t vastly different, but enough to at least defend against the accusation of unhealth among small churches in general. It also busted the myth that large churches are consistently better at reaching people just because their raw baptism numbers are higher.
This was too long of a comment. I could have just said: check the baptism ratio before you judge a church’s health. Also check its ability to send out its members into mission endeavors. But I hope the faithful few who read this enjoyed the anecdotal evidence!