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.