Breaking the 200--I mean 150--barrier in churches

[James Nored]

There are whole books and seminars given on how to break the "200 barrier" in church attendance. I'm not necessarily impressed with making attendance the goal. I would prefer for churches to look at missional markers such as the number of people baptized, the number of people served in the community (whether people fed and clothed or people helped in marriage, etc.), or the number of missional small groups and communities started. These things can be prayed for and worked towards, but of course, it is God who gives the increase. Or a church could attempt to measure spiritual growth, such as the Bible reading and prayer habits of its members, ability to forgive, etc. (surveys can be done, but some will view this as invasive.)

 

On a "church growth" side, a better goal than merely increasing attendance would be to try to maximize such things as visitor follow-up, hospitality, greeting, etc. We should seek to make everyone feel welcome who comes our way. If the church is simply missing obvious opportunities to welcome people, working on this will likely result in greater attendance. But simply trying to "pump up" numbers without investment in people is actually counterproductive. People begin to think that a church only wants their money or that they are simply a number. And if a church is just swelling from adding Christians to their ranks, this is not fulfilling the church's mission.

 

There are, however, reasons why many churches that want to break the "200 barrier" (for whatever reason) struggle to do this. Sociologically, it has been shown that people can only hold about 150 relationships in their heads/lives.Read this article about Dunbar's number. People can know pretty much everybody in a church of about 150. A minister can lead this group relationally because he knows them all. But beyond this number, the church will require a different style of leadership. It requires equipping other leaders. It requires organizing the church into various sub-units so that relationships can be maintained. And it requires churches to realize that this growth will cause a loss of intimacy and knowing everyone that is in the church. Some will say that "we are getting too big."

 

I am not hung up on church size. Churches can be less than a hundred, 300, 1000, or 5000. All can be good and effective in God's mission, but there are inherent challenges and advantages for each of these different sizes. But two things are clear. First, the church overall needs to keep growing evangelistically. Anyone who doesn't want the church to get "too big" from this kind of growth needs to be encouraged to remember the church's mission. Second, churches have to be structured and led differently for these different sizes. The 150 relational rule seems to be pretty consistent across various human enterprises, and churches would do well to recognize this and adjust for it. Otherwise, people will definitely be "fall through the cracks." Larger churches have more resources and collectively have the potential to do more, but the reality is that many of them struggle with keeping people relationally connected. And smaller churches may struggle with resources. Again, there are challenges and advantages to each size.

 

What are your thoughts on the 150 or 200 barrier?

[James Nored]

Andy, you mentioned geographic proximity as being important in an organizing structure. I think that this is often true, particularly in regional type of churches. One aspect of true community is that you can see people outside of official, scheduled times. This is difficult to do if you live 45 minutes away, no matter how close the relationship. Plus, missional communities seek to adopt either a particular people group (like single moms) or a geographic area to serve (like a particular neighborhood of school).

[James Nored]

Peter, you think through some good questions. The article shows that factories, army units, etc. organize around 150--even though the people in them surely have family and friends beyond this group, as you mention with churches. But since most people have few close family members and friends, these types of work (or church) relations become, I would assume, a large part of their 150. Obviously, if 150 were absolute (and some think that it is), their family and friends would take up some of this 150.

You mention children and adults being part of the 150 in a church. Interesting. This could be an advantage in a smaller church for kids, for they could be part of the 150 of the adults and thus receive more time, attention, and mentoring. Larger churches have more programming for kids, but kids may receive more adult attention in a smaller church--again, unless the church is highly organized and intentional about having a structure revolved around the 150 rule. 

[James Nored]

The article on Dunbar's number is Don't Believe Facebook - You Only Have 150 Friends.

[Peter Horne]

The link to Dunbars article didn't seem to work for me.

If people's heads explode above 150 relationships, then I'm curious why a church size of 150 is significant.  I would expect members to have family, friends, work colleagues, etc, that eat into the total of 150, leaving considerably less than that for church.

It's possible that in a church of 150 we could discount children and those older/younger than an individual, so that a given member may only have 50 relationships in a church of 150.  Or do these studies expect all 150 church attenders to be in an individuals 150 relationships?

[Andy Catsimanes]

Good food for thought. I've recently been considering the implications of Dunbar's number for our church, which is currently at several times that number and growing. It also seems to me that geographical proximity is important. I firmly believe the "Local Church" and all that connotes is also primary locus of God getting done what he wants done, in the way he wants it done. It's here where I see potential for the "new monastic" movement to complement more traditional church structures in contributing to the flourishing of the cities in which we dwell.