Can a Church Be Too Big?

I heard the discussion again recently. A person I respect raised a concern about any church that is larger than the size that an undershepherd can adequately shepherd. Without yet revealing my own position, I’m simply restating these common arguments for your feedback:

  1. The shepherd should know every member. If he does not, how can he genuinely shepherd them? “Shepherding a crowd” is not the same as “shepherding a church.”
  2. The members should also know all the other members. If they don’t, then they really can’t be “iron sharpening iron.” A congregation that does not know one another is not really a New Testament church where the hand knows the foot, etc. (1 Cor. 12).
  3. A congregation should never be larger than one worship service can hold. When they move past that point, they cease to be one church. No church that meets in more than one service or in more than one location can legitimately claim to be a united church.
  4. Large churches give too much opportunity for anonymity and unaccountability. Members fall through the cracks in this kind of system, and we thus allow them to wallow in their faith or walk in disobedience. That’s a risky position to put them in if we truly want them to follow God.
  5. These congregations almost require a pastor to be a CEO leader. How else can a person lead a group of people who number in the several hundreds and thousands? He can’t really be a shepherd who cares for and protects his people.
  6. Larger churches that grow at the expense of smaller churches actually hurt the work of other pastors. Because we are all in this work together, pastors should not be building our own kingdom by draining other churches.
  7. The best kind of growth is churches growing to a certain point and then releasing groups of people to plant new churches. That way, new churches extend the kingdom better than any single church can alone, and no single church gets so large that they don’t know each other.
  8. The larger the church is, the more likely it is that they are drawing from a large geographic distance. That means that they may have members who live so far away that they cannot be deeply involved beyond Sunday morning. That kind of connection is too loose for a strong family of local believers.

Okay – let us hear your thoughts!

9 Comments

  • Josh says:

    I pastor a small church but I wouldn’t say that I am “anti-large church.” There are benefits of attending a larger church and there are benefits to a smaller church. I think larger churches can operate well and some operate not so well. The same thing can certainly be said about smaller churches.

    I do think there is consideration for most every point you mentioned. My greatest conviction would be the final point; living within the geography of the church you attend. I know that community groups/small groups have bridges some gap in this area, but a community group/small group should never take the posture of a church.

    From a small church stand point, it can certainly be discouraging when we lose folks simply because they are drawn to the “extras” that can be found in the larger church.

    I’ve already gone far too long in my reply, but I’ll end with these 2 final thoughts too ponder:
    1) I agree with Dr. Hershael York, in that there is some concern to think that the Holy Spirit leads pastors only from ‘smaller churches’ to ‘larger churches,’ and seldom/never the other direction. I would say the same for membership.

    2) Many would argue that the church in Jerusalem was a pretty large church.

  • Kevin says:

    I am currently living numbers 3 and 5. We are “one church” with 2 services but there is no doubt we are 2 separate churches meeting in one building. I came from a small church plant where 1 and 2 were very true about us into a situation where number 5 is the reality. It has been a very challenging leap to go from shepherd to ceo…and as much as I disdain the thought of being more of a CEO than a shepherd, it is unavoidable as far as I can tell. On the flip side, in our smaller church plant where we all knew one another intimately, it was often hard for guests and new members to really feel a part…so there are plusses and minisus any way you look at it. Do the best you can with what you have to work with and trust the Lord to magnify Himself through it all.

    • Mark says:

      There is a benefit to two separate services. I have seen temples that had a separate service for the young professionals group with a rabbi from that generation. This allowed for people to get to know each other and a different sermon since the 20 and 30s group had different issues than their (grand)parents did. If you take the story of the binding of Isaac and try to preach on it, the older groups could only relate to Abraham and the younger group could only relate to Isaac.

  • My biggest concern is #5 with the pastor being a CEO. If I have a need or concern and have to schedule an appointment 2 months out in advance then that to me is not pastoring/shepherding.

  • Mark says:

    In Exodus 18, Moses was told by his father in law not to try to do everything but to get people to help him. This is the best example I can think of. I hope I am wrong but this sounds like someone is jealous that some other church is growing and stealing members. If you are talking lay leadership, then get some more. If you are talking about clergy, get some associates. This is where you need to know how to scale up. Every church wishes they had this problem.

  • Robin G Jordan says:

    I noted that several of the arguments against large churches are longstanding objections to church growth in general and are actually based upon a number of false presumptions. It is possible to know the name of everyone in a small church but this does not mean everyone knows each other very well. Small churches have their cliques which even long-time members may not join. Because church is small, it does not necessarily mean that it is unified. It is not uncommon for small churches to lack unity of vision, which is one of the most important forms of unity in a church.

    I spent more than half of my childhood in England, for the large part living in rural, farming communities and have some familiarity with the raising of livestock, including sheep. If a farmer has a large flock of sheep and employs a shepherd to tend them, it was often the case that the shepherd was assisted not only by his dog but also by a younger man whom he had taken on as an apprentice. The farmer also might send one of his sons to help the shepherd and to learn about sheep. On the large sheep ranches here in the United States a number of shepherds may be employed to tend the sheep.

    In New Testament a team of elder/overseers led the local church and pastored its members. These elder/overseers were recruited from the membership of the church and not from outside its membership. The practice of a single elder/overseer leading and pastoring a church is a later development.

    I think that 4, 6,7, and 8 are the arguments against large churches that should concern us the most. Some anonymity is not a bad thing — at least initially. But if attendees are going to grow as a followers of Jesus, they need some form of accountability. They need to be a part of a smaller congregation within the larger congregation. In this era of attractional churches and consumer Christianity larger churches do draw attendees away from smaller churches.

    To reach North America’s unchurched population we need a lot more churches which are outward-looking and evangelistic. We need churches that are engaged with the communities in which they are located. A few large churches cannot meet these needs.

    Small churches may also draw from a large geographic area (albeit it is more common for large churches to do so.) A major problem is that the members of such churches are not involved in the communities in which they live as well as the community in which the church is located. Inviting someone to church is also a challenge since most people are not going to drive 30 minutes or more to attend a small church that for them has nothing to offer such as opportunities for leadership, ministry, and so on. .

  • Michael Johnson says:

    First off, I just want to say that I love that we can have this type of conversation – iron sharpening iron if you will, because we are Christian, and because we are part of the big C church. With that said, I think the issue we have on earth is we try to define the church as man sees the church instead of how God sees it. By that I simply mean – we look at the walls, the steeple, the pulpit, and then we see the church. We tend to look at denominations when we look at the church.

    In Matthew 18:20 when Jesus said, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” He didn’t say, but stop at 100 because you won’t know each other.

    When we talk about shepherd, are we only looking to paid pastors to fill that role?
    When you indicate that all members must know each other – where is that biblically? 1 Cor. 12, at least to me, shows us that we each bring different talents, and to use those talents to benefit the church.

    I mean just look. 1 COR. 12 Just as a body, though one, has MANY parts, but all its MANY parts form one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For we were ALL baptized by one Spirit so as to form ONE body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were ALL given the one Spirit to drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of MANY.

    A congregation should never be larger than one worship service can hold.
    So let me ask this. If a church grows larger than it four walls, it field of worship, its stadium, then it should turn people away because it is too big? Why not pour into those people so that they go out into the world, spread the word, and open churches? This makes not sense to me that you would even think of limiting the number of worship services just because you can’t fit everyone into the space you have.

    Large churches give too much opportunity for anonymity and unaccountability.
    Anyone, who wants to be anonymous, or not want people to hold him/her accountable, will find a way to do that – large church or small. I have been in both, and I have seen it happen in both. I have also seen and been part of amazing stories of community in all size churches. My experience has been that God will hold us accountable, and He will place people in our lives to remind He is there and wants us to course correct.

    These congregations almost require a pastor to be a CEO leader.
    Probably the hardest issue of larger churches. But, using 1 Cor. 12 noted about, we, as a church, should use the whole congregation (head, foot, etc.) to lead and care for our brothers and sister. Never was it a requirement, at least that I am aware, that the lead pastor be the sole person responsible for this.

    Larger churches that grow at the expense of smaller churches actually hurt the work of other pastors. Because we are all in this work together, pastors should not be building our own kingdom by draining other churches.

    Totally agree that pastors should not be building their own kingdoms – period. To this I will add that only biblically based church that grow should be growing due to the work of God and God alone. A church that grows relying only on man’s actions will surely die.

    The best kind of growth is churches growing to a certain point and then releasing groups of people to plant new churches.

    I partially agree with this. The church (any size church) should lift people up to leave and plant churches – thus extending the Kingdom.

    The larger the church is, the more likely it is that they are drawing from a large geographic distance.

    I partially agree with this as well. The church, in order to have community, needs to be encouraging those near by to attend church. If people are so far away that they cannot do community together, then are they really part of that church. But, I will add that physical size has nothing to do with it. A church of 5,000 in New York, is different than 5,000 in a church in small town, USA.

    All I am saying is that we as Christian should be encourage each other, growing the Kingdom, and not worrying about the minutiae that can bog us down.

  • perhaps we should clarify what qualifies as a “small” church. Do we talk about 50 and less, or under 200? Some of the stated critiques about “large” churches can be true in small churches. IF Small groups function the right way then the Small Group leaders are the shepherd for these members in his/her group. By the way I’m a member in a 200-250 church, serve for a global mission agency as a regional representative. So I’m in touch with many churches of different sizes in Canada. It is true that larger churches sometime attract people from smaller churches. But look at the reasons for this. I know about a “larger” church in my city. Everybody is required be involved in ministry. That church’s ministry is more outside their four walls and they have several church services per weekend. So #4 could be an issue at any size church.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.