Statistics that interest me
by Reed on Feb.15, 2008, under Thoughts
Not sure what to make of these statistics yet, but I thought I’d post them. Comment if you want!
80% of all modern church plants close their doors within their first five years. Of those that remain, only 20% (4 of the original 100) will ever have a weekend where attendance exceeds 200. (Source: a recent sermon by Mark Beeson).
The rest of the statistics come from a recent report church attendance distributions (source). In that report, data from six denominations (some mainline, some not) were compared and yielded the following:
- 40% of all churches in the US average 50 or less in weekend attendance
- 10% of all churches in the US average 350 or more in weekend attendance
Siting these and other statistics the author goes on to suggest:
As groups are able to increase in numerical size they still face relational obstacles to continued expansion… Malcolm Gladwell, drawing on the research of british Anthropologist Robin Dunbar, makes a case for the “Rule of 150.” The channel capacity of human beings, and its extension to social channel capacity, limits the number of social relationship that are a practical possibility to 147.8—or roughly 150. The Rule of 150 has been recognized as useful to a variety of groups including religious sects, businesses, and the military. 150 appears to be the practical size limit of relational based groups/churches. Beyond this point, people simply are unable to maintain expected and satisfying relational connection…
Yet, it is apparent that there are many churches that average attendance beyond the 150 mark. What is different in these cases? The author suggests:
In order for organizations, including churches, to grow larger certain realities must be faced. Sociologist Georg Simmel’s discussion of the impact of size, in terms of absolute numbers, on groups, is based on the fundamental problem of complexity. He states, “A very large number of people can constitute a unit only if there is a complex division of labor.” This is a key insight into the determination of church size, especially growth to a larger size. It basically states that in order for a small group to increase its size, the people must change the nature of their affiliation from small, informal group relationships to a complex division of labor type of organizational connectedness.
One last piece of information from yet another source:
The 200 Barrier is the “Grand daddy of them all.” It is the best known barrier and has received by far the most attention during the 1980’s and 1990’s. Nine out of ten churches average less than 350 per week in attendance. Two reasons seem to be primary: first, people enjoy being with people they know and are comfortable with and, second it becomes increasingly difficult to manage a congregation as it increases in size. In order for a congregation to break the 200 barrier the people must accept, and participate in, a fundamental change in the nature of the congregation. They must permit and support the change from a fellowship to an organization. Of course, this is a simplification of the task but it identifies the primary task.
So what do you think? Should churches grow past 150, our natural “channel capacity” for relationships? If so, why and how? If not, why not?
To add your thoughts or questions, follow this link.
4 Comments for this entry
Leave a Reply
-
Hey there...
I'm Reed Mueller, pastor of Columbia Ridge Community Church. Feel free to read what pops out of my head and onto the web, then join in the discussion if you want.
You can also subscribe by email by filling the field below:
My Recent Weekend Messages- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
February 15th, 2008 on 9:15 pm
Don’t really have a strong opinion on whether or not churches should grow past 150… except to say that a church can be any size that still supports authentic, caring relationships throughout its body of members.
But it’s interesting how Dunbar got his theory: if I remember right he was trying to figure out why our cerebral cortex was so big compared to other mammals. He discovered a direct correlation between the size of this central brain feature and the size of the animals’ normal social group. It was so consistent that Malcolm Gladwell used it in a huge book on marketing called The Tipping Point.
Many experts claim that the number really has no limit, as long as the incentive to remain in a larger group — say, something like faith, the growth of the soul, and our walk with God — is stronger than the difficulties in communicating.
February 16th, 2008 on 10:26 am
Well, not that I’m any expert but I have found that churches that exceed 150 usually have one or more functioning well smaller groups. People don’t mind coming together in a less comfortable/personable environment when it is for a short time to receive mutually beneficial information, entertainment, etc. Look at all the people that will go to a large arena for a sporting event, conference, seminar for a few hours or days. The keys to those events is what happens before or after those events. People will meet at someones house for a big game when they want a connection to the people their with on a personal level. PK relies on good church groups for the continuing connections with the people that go to a rally. Space should also be a consideration. If you can make 300 people feel that they are not in that big of group it would be no issue. Life groups work at a certain level of intimacy that would not work in a larger setting. That being said, some people would like a less personal environment to learn about God and the Bible without feeling they need to fillet their personal lives open for everyone to see. A life group larger than 12-15 people may not be able to sustain itself overtime because the intimacy level is not high enough. A Bible study group would probably not sustain itself if it was that small of a group over time because it was so small. Not enough casual input. People thinking that something must be wrong with the group because of the lack of participation (bodies) attending. I guess you just need groups of people small and not so small that would come together for services to the whole body. That way people could stay comfortable without losing the intimacy at what ever level they were comfortable with.
off my soapbox!
February 17th, 2008 on 5:22 pm
Michael -
The greater context of the quote on “channel capacity” did indeed reference The Tipping Point. I made it part way through it and then left the book somewhere. Bummer… but I suppose I could have gone and got another copy.
I think that the “something bigger,” just like you shared, has to be something bigger than just close relationships – perhaps a mission to share God’s dream?
Kris –
Your thoughts on the subject are also enlightening to me. People do like a crowd, this is for sure. It is interesting to note that while 40% of all churches are 50 or fewer in average weekend attendance, they comprise only 11% of all churchgoers in the US. That suggests that people gravitate toward larger venues for worship times. This is consistent with your thoughts on games, etc., where people go and really enjoy the feel of a crowd. I think that’s true for me… but I still really enjoy meeting people I know and love on a weekly basis.
This is why I think we must, as both you and Michael are suggesting, continue to support authentic relationships along our path of growth. Perhaps this is with small groups. Perhaps it is with multiple smaller services. Perhaps it is with something else entirely.
February 18th, 2008 on 11:44 am
Many of those churches which ’stagnate’ at participation levels of 50> believers do so because of a building that limits growth beyond that mark. They have room for growth via other means (such a multiple venue, church planting, home-fellowship, multi-church crossover), but their paradigm limits their leadership capabilities.
All that to say, I don’t believe its about a magic number as both Michael and Kris allude to. But rather it is about the expansion of the Church, the Body of Christ, and thus the Kingdom of God.
Even if people are ‘limited’ to a social groupings of 150 yet allow people to maintain their ’social-fellowship’ limits.
The conclusions on the “200 Barrier” are ‘of necessity’ faulty as they don’t differentiate the reasons for marking a ceiling at 200, because, as I mentioned above, the actual building size, along with a traditional growth paradigm by the leadership give way to structures that don’t allow churches to pursue ‘membership’ beyond 200 people.
To give a specific example, if a church building can only fit 150 by Fire Marshall statute, that church building cannot grow in group size. However, if the leadership were to pursue a multi-site option or a church/sister plant, or encourage mature groups of people to break off into a home-fellowship embryo (with maternal support of course), then a church located in a building limited to 150 participants at any time could easily break the 150 mark.
If that is coherent…