It’s common for churches to hover around 200 in attendance, bouncing slightly below and slightly above that number recurrently, but not moving beyond that level. Here are some reasons that plateau happens:
- Pastoral leadership style – Pastors who must be involved in every member’s life and who don’t delegate ministry cannot shepherd a congregation larger than 200. Many pastors simply don’t know how to change this leadership style.
- Building space – Many churches build first or second buildings that will hold about 200 worshippers. If space is unavailable for future growth, that growth won’t happen.
- Church expectations – Some congregations simply don’t want to be larger than about 200. They don’t want so many members they can’t know everybody, so outreach slows as the church approaches the 200 barrier.
- Church history – In many cases, a church has a history of hitting 200, bouncing backward for a while, and then growing again up to 200. That’s been their history, so 200 has become the height of “the good old days.”
- Man-sized vision – That is, the church leaders have no vision beyond the 200 barrier. They know they can get to this point, and that becomes their target. Nobody’s thinking about God’s doing something larger than that point.
- Poor preparation – Some leaders don’t think about addressing the 200 barrier until the church is at that level – which means they’ve made no preparation to push through the barrier. Their reactive leadership halts the church’s growth.
- Ecclesiological choice – For those pastors who believe they must know every member of their congregation well, maxing attendance at about 200 is intentional. Others are church planting pastors who’ve determined that anything beyond 200 is a call to send out laborers to start another congregation.
- Burdening bureaucracy – Churches that have numerous meetings, multiple committees, and slow processes often get stuck around 200. They’re not prepared structurally to cross that barrier.
- Pastoral tenure – If pastors don’t stay at their church beyond 3-4 years, it’s hard for the church to move past 200. Pastoral transitions tend to slow down church growth for a while.
- Poor discipleship – Moving beyond 200 requires a church to have trained layleaders to carry on the work of ministry. Churches that don’t intentionally make disciples don’t often have these workers.
What obstacles have you seen? Let us hear your thoughts.
Churches don’t grow that stop sending people out to plant new churches. Churches that restrict their giving to missions and do not have an intentional Acts 1:8 strategy stop growing.
Thanks, Brian.
I have experienced that after 200 ministry becomes hard work. Ministry is work no doubt, but it gets really hard after 200. Typically funds are not quite available for calling more staff, and the current staff, pastor in particular, has to navigate it well and change his own ministry philosophy. Both working through his own change and leading change can be exhausting. Also, the more people, the more crisis and needs. It’s worth the effort, but it does get hard.
True, Ron. Thanks!
Is 200 necessarily a bad number? How many sheep can a good shepherd take care of? My church is over 3000 and I had a role in getting it there. On any normal day we have 1000+ in the house. Access to the shepherd is somewhat limited. He has to delegate and I wonder if that is the best way to minister to his flock. I’m not arguing. It’s a good column with a lot of truth. I’ve just been wondering, for a while, if bigger and bigger is the best way to do church.
That’s a fair question, Jimmy. I do think everybody needs a shepherd, and any number that makes that impossible is problematic. I’m just not convinced that the person who casts the vision and preaches the Word every Sunday must be the most immediate shepherd in a member’s life. Multiple shepherds who are well connected to the primary leader make this possible, in my opinion. Great to hear from you.
What obstacles have I seen? 1. I live in Vermont. 2. In the town I live in, we have a little more or less than 4000 people and we have 4 Christian churches and maybe 2 nonchristian churches (I’m guessing two, I don’t know for a fact.) 3. I think probably the members/attenders are comfortable with the small number. I know, I am, because I like how I know each person and visa versa and the leaders are accessible.
Thanks for your thoughts!
2000 people; I read the number wrongdoing!
I appreciate the reasons and I think every one of the ten reasons listed are valid and important and must be paid attention to. Of the ten I believe there are three that are critically important to any church: leadership, space, and discipleship. Church facilities are vital to the mission of any church. Like it or not, guests who come are evaluating the church by its facilities from the moment they drive on the campus. Church facilities will either be effective tools for ministry or they will be a hindrance. The pastor needs to be aware of those God is sending through the doors of the church. Church leadership must be ready to start, adjust, or cease ministries to meet ministry needs. Discipleship is the key. Discipling those who come is more important than getting more in the door. Yes, the more who come will be more that hear the gospel. But where should the church’s focus be – numbers or ministering to those numbers? I believe if we as pastors and leaders are leading the church God has blessed us with are doing all we can to proclaim the gospel and disciple those who are there, the numbers will take care of themselves. Years ago I heard a great sermon on the church and one statement from that sermon has always stuck with me: “In Matt. 16.18, Jesus said it was His church and He would build it – He didn’t leave that task to anyone else.”
A good word.
Thank you for your continued ministry of teaching and discipling.
Blessings, Benjamin!
In the 90’s, Robin Dunbar proposed that the average number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships is between 100 and 250 people, which averages out to around 150-200. In 2000’s “The Tipping Point”, Malcolm Gladwell uses 150 as the tipping point at which a group must begin to split.
What I have observed in churches is that the 200 number is the 150 plus those who are just attending the church because it is “their church.” As churches push toward the 300 mark, they become basically two congregations, which is why this is also where you normally see the good ole Baptist church split come into play.
In my home church, they fluctuate between just below 200 to about 275+ before about half the congregation feels left out and begins to cycle out. The pastor is strong enough to stop a full blown split, but cannot stop the silent one that happens about every five years (He has been there for over 25). This is partially due to the fact that he is either opposed to hiring associate pastors or he is painfully aware of the fact that he would be unable to maintain a working relationship with an associate pastor that did not agree with him on everything little thing.
In a nutshell, what I am saying is that you need a pastor on staff for about every 150 to 200 people in a church. That, or your church should plan on planting a church every time the 200 mark is approached. Because my home church has been willing to do neither of these, I would estimate that around 1000 people have cycled through it in the 40 years of my life. That could potentially be a large church with 4 to 5 pastors on staff making a big difference in a community that desperately needs it; or 3 to 4 church plants making a big difference in a community that desperately needs it.
Thanks, Curt, for these thoughts.