I think we all look for validation of our current situation. Mega-pastors affirm the strengths of their churches, but so do mini-pastors. But in my view there is an inherent silliness in declaring any church the “healthiest.” Isn’t it enough to be healthy? Why would I go to the doctor for a check-up and consider my health an arena for competition? “Thanks for the clean bill of health, Doc. But tell me–am I healthier than the guy who came in before me?”

There is one example from the scripture where Jesus gave his opinion of churches–seven times. There are certain commonalities there, but Jesus never once comments on size. These two chapters will reward anyone concerned with church health.

Good observations, Jason.. I’m not a big fan of meg-churches, but based on what you described, aren’t both these churches in fact “missional”? The mega church attracts the mall crowds, while the smaller church attracts the “downtowners”…. The majority culture still believes bigger is better and are attracted to such as evidenced by their choices, while the subculture doesn’t.

Great post. I think it would be a stretch to say that mega-churches are the healthiest of all churches. Certainly one sign of a healthy church is a growth in membership. If the membership of a church is stagnant or declining, it is an indication that something is wrong. There is a choice, however, on how to deal with church growth. A church may decide to grow along with its membership until it is a “mega-church” or it may decide to plant to new churches as it grows. Either choice can work to benefit the cause of Christ (and either path can fail if not followed wisely).

I think the more appropriate way to judge the health of a church is to use Christ’s examples found in the seven churches of the Book of Revelations. Christ gives us several ways to judge the health of our church!

2nd chapter of Acts and all that (as Ray pointed out) Jesus asked/asks from us in His word (and prayer).

**Note – this may very well be one of the shortest comments I’ve ever made**

Anwering the question of what is a healthy church requires first answering some fundamental questions about the purpose of the church. I for one get really stressed out when I try to process these questions because there are so many ideas out there, most of which make sense on some level but at the same time are all so different from each other. I have found that it is useless to try to discuss church health or success with someone who has a different standard of measurement. Certainly attractional churches measure themselves in conversions, but I am not convinced that soul winning is the ultimate end-goal of the church, so I don’t see baptisms as the end-all-be-all for being a healthy church. In discussing the missional mindset with someone of a more attractional mindset, I have found it a helpful starting point to note that there are some people in our culture who (for various reasons that I completely identify with) would never come to follow Christ in the attractional/institutional/programmed church context. One of the missional church’s goals is to find and introduce Christ to these people. In other words, to be missionaries to those who do not identify with and are not attracted to American evangelical church culture.

Kind of a rambling post here, but hopefully something in there is relevant to the discussion.

Roy - Very wise words. But I am very interested in what kind of ecclesial rhythm produces the healthiest life. I may not ask the doctor to compare me, but I do want him to tell me what kind of life is best.

centorian - That’s a valid question, and a source of vigorous debate currently among missional thinkers and practitioners. To be perfectly transparent, I would say no. I think when you offer the gospel as if it were a product to be purchased, you’ve distorted it beyond recognition. This really is the heart of the missional/attractional debate. For those who see missional as “reaching people,” any method that produces converts is missional. But for those who see missional as “incarnating the gospel,” it’s hard to see the mimicking of a mall as a faithful incarnation of gospel of discipleship to Christ. What you win them with is what you win them to. But hey…just my opinion : )

Clark - What is it about mega-churches that makes you doubt this proposition? Just curious.

Julie - Shortest indeed!

Clay - I think you’ve summarized the distinction very nicely, Thank you!

Well…you stumbled upon the great inner debate of my life, so I had best comment. Over the last ten years I have lived in both worlds – and both to the extreme. I tried to function as “Pastor A” for five years. In many ways it was great…except that though our smaller communities grew in depth and community we never saw the full missional impact we desired. (Not just conversions, but city redemption, etc.) Now I am using my “Pastor B” gifts in a mega-church. To be honest, it isn’t as personally freeing. Attractional ministry is emotionally harder for me. My big gamble these days is that a large mega church could become a training center to launch smaller missional communities that may or may not relate back to the organization. As a church planter (who believes that fully functioning “small groups” are churches), I have come to see that maybe I can be a more effective at planting churches while attached to a mega church. At least that’s what I am betting on for this season of my life…

Joe - I’m grateful you’ve opening up about this here. I’m sure it must have been tough to go from being one of the poster children for the Emerging Church to a mega-church teaching pastor, and I suspect you’ve caught a bit of flack for it. So, thank you for being so transparent. Your reflections and experience are valuable for someone like me. I’m struck by your double use of the gambling metaphor as I think that speaks volumes about the uncertainty we are all swimming in. I find much of the vitriol in debates circles around the unspoken inner desires of everyone to find a kind of certainty in a particular approach. I just don’t think that’s ever going to happen.

I see your point, Jason, but I’m not sure size and “rhythms” have a strong causal link. The seven churches Jesus addressed in Revelation 2-3 probably differed significantly in size. Ephesus would’ve been the largest by far, but Acts 20 indicates that the depth and quality of relationships we strong and true. Imagine — a large church enjoying healthy organic relationships!

For my money the rhythms most prized might be best described in Colossians 3: 12 – 17 (or perhaps even through to verse 25!).

Perhaps the Holy Spirit is multi-rhythmic!

Ray - I wasn’t suggesting they do, I was only saying I think there is an important place for identifying what constitutes a healthy lifestyle (to extend your metaphor). I don’t particularly care one way or the other if bigger churches tend to be healthier or smaller churches do – but I suspect there is some correlation, however complex and finely nuanced it might be.

But, in the interests of full disclosure, I should say that even though I wasn’t making that suggestion in my comment, I might as well have been because I actually do believe the healthy rhythms of a church are partly related to population size – or, more accurately, the size of a given oikos (of which there could be many in a given incorporated entity). Still, to be clear, I’m not saying all large churches can’t be healthy, nor am I saying all small churches are – that would be obviously wrong, and there are clearly many factors. Still, in popular evangelicalism population size has generally been assumed to be a positive factor at best and a neutral factor at worst, when I strongly suspect it is a positive factor up to a certain number (somewhere around 100 or so), at which point it starts to become an increasingly negative factor.

Thanks for your comments, I think you’ve touched on some important points for consideration!

I wanted to weigh in on a GREAT discussion… I am a pastor of what I’m hoping is a missional, incarnational and confessional church. We are a very small family and I am a “tentmaker” so-to-speak. That is, I own my business and work ‘outside’ the church during the week. Is Paul’s “body analogy” appropriate here? If the body has healthy lungs but a malfunctioning liver doesn’t the whole body suffer? So we all should be concerned about what is unhealthy. However Paul’s pastoral letters to churches describes four areas where the NT churches were unhealthy: 1)commitment to the Truth of the Gospel/preaching, 2)proper sacramental practices, 3)the discipline of immoral people, 4)faithful and loving unity. I don’t believe that Jesus taught anything different. So when and where did we get the notion that a church which has ‘numerical’ steadiness or decline is experiencing something wrong?

Hi Scott - Thanks for weighing in. I appreciate that you’re looking for indications of health beyond mere growth. I think it’s interesting to note that Jesus’ own ministry was healthiest when it was in severe decline.

Blessings on your missional endeavor!

i definitely have my preferences here, but i do think a mega-church can be missional and healthy, i think it takes a lot of intention – as joe pointed out above.

because i think we need to proclaim and demonstrate the good news as well as embody it, it seems this embodiment issue is what you might be getting at and attaching that to ‘health’? how we medium the message is really important, and i think it would be extremely challenging to help foster incarnational-missional ethos in a church-plant if you are embodying the attractional-evangelistic (both of whom i think can be good news to any community…i agree with ray)…

i really appreciate scott’s comments that focus on something other than “growth” as something to look at in terms of health…i also think it’s sometimes easier to “account” for baptisms and some sort of mentoring/discipleship because you are programming it in a mega-church context, thus easy access to metrics, whereas if this is happening relationally and incarnationally in a missional church context, it’s hard to capture on a monthly report that you aren’t doing in the first place…

[...] original here: Pastoralia » Are Mega-Churches The Healthiest Churches in America? tags: churches, more-effective, strengths, the-doctor, the-strengths, their-churches, view, [...]

[...] see baptisms as the end-all-be-all for being a healthy church. … Go here to read the rest: Pastoralia » Are Mega-Churches The Healthiest Churches in America? Share and [...]

Steve - Yes, what I’m getting at is embodiment, in a sense, but to put a finer point on it I think the health of a church depends on it’s quality of kinships (familial, covenant relationships) and the commerce of kinship can only be maintained at a level of about 100-125. Beyond that level, you must begin to replace the governance of kinship with the governance of law and replace the communication of kinship with the communication of media.

Also, I would say as the church lives out kinship in it’s community, it would naturally blur its own boundaries, based largely on expressions of compassion to the poor. Hence, this embodiment of kinship, would be the church’s primary (though not exclusive) form of proclamation and demonstration.

That’s not to say a very large entity can’t consist of interrelated kinships. Exodus 18 would be the obvious example, and I see Joe’s description above as essentially an expression of that (and I like it very much!). If a mega-church actually pulled this off it would be highly “missional,” but, given our decidedly consumer/entertainment oriented culture, I find it highly unlikely that a church which caters to mediated kinships would be able to cultivate that kind of deep interrelatedness.

But that’s just my own prejudice. To get back to the point of the post, I’d be very interested in seeing some kind of evidence that either one kind of church or another tended toward better health…my suspicion is that nobody has figured it out, and none of us should be making definitive proclamations about what kind of church is objectively better : )

Hey Jason,

I am a vineyard pastor in the South Bay area of SoCal and am part of a multiethnic church. We have decided to launch another church when we get beyond 100-125 and it is definitely because we place a strong value on a sense of kinship and how that is a witness to the culture at large considering our ethnic makeup. This value is based on who we are but it is also a gospel value. At the same time we want as many people as possible to be baptized-although that is not the end of the story-and so we definitely have our sights set on growing larger-just not in a megachurch sort of way. In that sense we believe church was never meant to be a mall in the same way that it was never meant to be a tv studio, an idol temple or a strip club. Contextualization does have its limits and we need to be critical of the culture as well as relate to it.

Nicely put Ramon. It looks like you guys are involved in some great stuff, and I have to say, I’m impressed by how you’ve managed to cultivate a multi-ethnic leadership. We’re too close to not have met before. Maybe we could connect sometime?

You are right Jason. I was just browsing your page looking for some good discussion and your post caught my eye. Then I discovered you were affiliated with the Vineyard so I had to say something Are you on facebook? If so we can connect more there.

I’ve come to rethink a lot of the markers of church health. It may be that mega-churches baptize more – in fact I’d be surprised if that were not the case. But I wonder about the process. I’ve pastored in traditional (larger – there are less mega churches here in Canada) settings and also currently in a deliberate micro-missional setting. And I think there are good and bad points to both. But back to the markers. The markers are traditionally those things we can measure easily – bums in seats, conversions, baptisms, births, etc. But, for my money, I’d take one solidly discipled and convert – actively living out their God-given passions – for any number of converts/baptisms where the folks are not even integrated into the church community in meaningful ways. I think the best of the mega-churches get this and focus on discipleship. I think the best of the emerging churches do too. What I worry about are the churches that are caught up in the numbers game.

I think the thought that this has to do with what we think about church (what is it, how is it healthy, etc.) is the proverbial nail head here. But I wonder if attractional vs. missional is not simply a rabbit trail. I have a hard time imagining a church that isn’t both but with different emphasis. (And what do those words even mean? We have to be cautious as we even use our terminology to play power trips on each other as evangelicals.) I would make a few suggestions:

1) hold our structures lightly – I find frustrating any talk that is naive about its own structures. All churches use structure – even the most fluid looking emerging church. We do this because relationships are structured, it is how we navigate our world. New isn’t always better, nor is old. Structures need to be functional and able to fit the situation. The higher we hold our structures the harder it is for us to shift when we realize they are no longer serving us.

2) seek first God’s Kingdom – and the Church is not the Kingdom. Rather the Church is the community that the Kingdom calls. For me this statement means we need to be a people of prayer – but also a people of wisdom, understanding and action. Wisdom is acting out of a deep place – able to navigate the tensions that life presents. For me wisdom is the product of the rest of these actions. Understanding comes through exploration, study and conversation. I think the blogs are a wonderful means for understanding to happen, the new Socratic experience. But we nee to learn from our rich history too – I find too many evangelicals hardly know their own tradition let alone the history of the Church or any of her theologies. And it can’t stop there. All of this will lead to action. One of my favourite phrases about the Kingdom is that it advances with force in this world and the violent lay ahold of it. I like it because it puzzles the heck out of me, but at the same time it says to seek the Kingdom means I can’t sit on my butt.

3) honour each other – I sometimes talk about a hermeneutic of love. What I mean by that is that we need to honour people, churches, each other. That does not mean we do not raise a critique ever – as if honour is simply a passive stance. Actually it is anything but passive. Honour is getting to know the heart of each other, actually hearing what each of us is saying and why. Only then can a critique be loving. For me love is active.

Frank - You always add good wisdom to these dialogues. Thanks for taking the time. I agree with your points wholeheartedly.

I’ve said a few things on here in the past about defining the terms missional and attractional. Terms are helpful for bracketing meaning and enabling conversation, but they’re also unhelpful when our brackets contain different sets of meaning, as so often occurs when our terms become faddish and trite.

Thanks again!

Interesting to note that most of this conversions has resolved around a simple count of people in the church or who has been baptized. These numbers can be very misleading.

Instead, let us look at percentages. For example, if you are leading a rural church of 40 people in a community of 1000 people – then you have 4% of the population. However, if you are a church of 2000 in a town of 500,000 – then your church only has 0.4% of the population. Which group has the “biggest” impact of the life of the community? The one with 4% of the population or 0.4%?

In the same, you can look at the number of people in the church are actually serving and joining into the community of the church. If you are a mega-church of 2000 and you have 200 volunteers – that is only 10% of the church actually ‘being’ the church. The smaller church of 40 may only have 15 volunteers actively involved in ministry – which while smaller in number, actually represents 37.5% of the church body. Which group is doing the better job making disciples?

How about conversations? A mega-church pastor could boast about ‘saving’ 100 people over the course of the year. While that sounds like a high number, it is only 5% of the church community – meaning that most of the people in the church did NOT have any influence on the conversions. Yet a smaller church could reach the same percentage of influence by only bring 2 people to Christ….

In a nutshell, what I’m saying is that sometimes we need to look at the percentage of people actually living out the Word versus a simple count of people sitting in the pews. By doing so, we will see that sometimes (but not always) the smaller churches are actually doing a better job making disciples then the mega-churches.

Full disclosure:

The numbers listed above – they are based upon real numbers. Well, the attendance count is – the number of volunteers and conversions are made up based up on prior experience within both churches (I am currently helping lead the smaller church based in a rural ranching community while I used to help out with the mega-church before joining the church planting team).

Joshua - (or should I say Ardell?) Thanks for jumping in. You make a good point. Moreover, there are other questions, such as, what else should be we “counting” or measuring in terms of our Christlikeness and missional engagement? These are tough questions when we really think about them because they can lead us to concretize things that can be easily manipulated in improper ways. I there’s much humility that needs to be injected into the conversation at large.

Josh works – I included ‘Ardell” as I’m trying to wean myself off of screen names… a hard habit to break! =P

Hi, I’ve been following this blog via Google Reader for a few weeks or so, and this is my first comment.

As I read, I’d like to throw a couple of questions out there.

1) When we say, “healthy church,” whose health are we talking about? Are we talking about what’s healthiest for leaders? Healthiest for people who are invested but maybe not in a “leadership” role? Healthiest for people who aren’t yet following Jesus but checking things out (realizing this is a very diverse group of people; what might draw an upscale yuppie in an urban context might not draw a soccer mom in the burbs)? Healthiest for transforming a neighborhood? I’m not exactly sure those are all the same.

2) This is less a question and more of a point. I’ve been involved in a couple of different very large churches in the past. Church X had growth that was very much driven by the gifts of the senior pastor, with more people coming for the “show” than involved in some of the very good things that were also happening there. This person left after some of the unhealthy structures (lack of accountability, mostly) yielded scandal as fruit, and the church shrunk dramatically. Yuck. But Church Y, though not perfect by any means and not likely to fit someone’s definition of “missional,” has had a long track record and reputation in its region as being a place that is after people who are far from God, a place that is on a mission to help the broken and the poor. I landed there for a while a few years back. I was very broken, and I experienced a lot of healing there that I’m not sure I would have experienced somewhere that didn’t have the same resources, if that makes sense. It was a very healthy place for me to be. So megachurches aren’t all one in the same.

3) Is it healthy for the church (or for individuals) if people aren’t fully utilizing their gifts? What are those gifts (whether it’s more behind-the-scenes or more up-front) given for if not for the sake of the church? I’m all for “everybody gets to play.” But not for “some people shouldn’t play so hard so it makes others comfortable getting on the field.” Is that even what “Pastor A” is trying to do, or am I getting that wrong? Is there room for excellence and creativity in a missional context?

Hi Candyce - Welcome! And thanks for your very thoughtful contribution.

1) This is a great question. I know that Pastor B has a very comprehensive sense of “church health” (these are real people, BTW) which would include, the growth members spiritually into the image of Christ, the reproduction of leadership, a positive social impact on the neediest populations of the surrounding city, multiplication of church plants, a growing sense of ethnic and socio-economic diversity reflected in the church membership, a hospitable environment for visitors, and, of course, numerical growth. I think most of the commenters here would embrace a similarly holistic definition – even if we disagreed on certain points.

2) I’m so glad you shared this perspective because your story is important, and your point is as well. I hope I’ve written in such a way here as to reflect my profound respect for Pastor B’s church, because, although I do think there are serious problems inherent with an attractional model, I by no means want to disregard the amazing ministry provided by the best of those kinds of churches.

3) That is the million-dollar missional-leadership question as far as I’m concerned : )

I wholeheartedly agree with you that everyone needs the opportunity to fully express their gifts. However, gifts are given and received in a dynamic reciprocity that helps negotiate relationships between people. In such a relational economy it’s vital that we are free to both give and receive. If one person does all the giving (or receiving) then there isn’t really equality. One person may be a great teacher, but if they do all the talking in a class or small group they’ve created a system of dominance by being the most “generous giver.” Most of us have been in groups where this happened.

So…in the interests of transparency I’ll just admit that I’m currently caught in the tension of two beliefs: a) That some gifts really are more important than others (a recent and reluctant conclusion), and b) That gifts can (and usually do) become a means of oppression when they’re allowed to dominate.

I think what Pastor A is trying to do is establish a relational economy of relative equality among the core group before fully expressing those gifts which might otherwise tend to dominate – particularly because they’re the kind of gifts which play upon the passive-consumer tastes of Americans.

Wonderful comments Candyce.I hope you contribute more in the future!

[...] Are Mega-Churches the Healthiest Churches in America? [...]

Coming from a MegaChurch .. that I moved away from last year.. I can def say that the assertion that they are healthier …is quite a disturbing statement to make and smacks of pride.

I think there is some tangible references out there that address’s this very question it’s called the Reveal Survey.. I took it .. and it’s right on..

http://ht.salemweb.net/oneplace/mp3/2819232/wi20081207.mp3?siteid=Podcast