Myth: A big church is a healthy church.
Many organizations, including churches, determine success by metrics. Especially in North American culture, the mantra is “bigger is better.” When it comes to churches, then, the common belief, sometimes unspoken, is that the higher the attendance rate in church on Sunday mornings, the better. And the question always seems to be, “How can we get more people in our doors?”
Today, studies reveal lower attendance rates in church, pairing these statistics with the overall decline in the North American and European churches. But a smaller church is not necessarily a death sentence.
Here’s the truth: healthy churches come in all sizes.
Not all big churches are healthy. Not all small churches are in decline.
Consider a six-foot-four-inch, muscular, fit athlete. Now consider a five-foot-two-inch, trim, lifelong walker and healthy eater. Judging by size alone, one cannot necessarily determine the healthier person. That same logic applies to measuring church health. The bigger church is not always healthier.
Think back to the earliest church: Jesus, his inner circle of disciples, and a few other friends and followers. Shortly thereafter, the house church model was the norm—small groups gathering in a house to break bread, fellowship, and worship together. Likely these gatherings were no more than 30 or so people, certainly not megachurch status. And while hundreds and thousands of people were soon added to the church, those first house churches were healthy (and, in fact, a model that some church planters are striving to follow today).
Smaller churches “often feel like family, and in a world where transience and isolation plague us, that’s no small thing,” writes Andrew Bossardet in this article that celebrates small churches.
“In a so-called small church, you don’t have to hunt for people’s skill sets,” he adds. “When it’s possible to know everyone—at least names and a hobby or two, if not what keeps them up at night—each individual member’s contributions and personality shine through. You can readily identify the best folks to lead the singing. You know the seasoned saint who prays for everyone by name.”
“A church certainly does not have to be a megachurch in order to do incredible things for the kingdom and, at times, smaller churches have the advantage of more easily fostering deeply meaningful community and cultivating rich environments for discipleship,” writes Ed Stetzer in an article about megachurches.
Myth: Revitalization is only needed when a church is struggling or dying.
Many people see a revitalization process as a last-ditch effort at keeping the church doors open—like putting a church on life support and hoping for a miracle that makes things good as new.
Here’s the truth: every church, even a healthy one, needs revitalization.
Revitalization doesn’t only need to happen in declining or dying churches. It doesn’t mean that all is lost or that your church is looking at a death sentence. Rather, every church, including the healthy ones, needs revitalization. As Larry Doornbos, an expert in vibrant church health, says, the “it’s going well” conversation means your church is ready for renewal. (Read the other six conversations that suggest your church is ready for renewal.)
Revitalization can come from building on what’s strong already and what already exists. In fact, perhaps the best time to revitalize your church is when you’re thriving. Consider the Reformed Church in America’s Renovations process, which seeks to take the good bones of a church and build on those for a stronger future. The whole church does not need to be reinvented or rebuilt, but you build on the good bones to remain healthy.
Your church should undergo a revitalization process every two or three years, if not an annual “check-in” or “tune up,” says Sung Kim, a pastor and the director of church ministry for the Reformed Church in America. Routine examinations of ministry strengths will help maintain church health for continued flourishing, much like an annual check-up with the doctor helps you stay on top of your health before a condition gets dire.
Myth: You need a full-time pastor to be a healthy church.
Pastors often log more than the typical 40 hours in a given work week. In many senses, pastors are almost always on call, ready to be present and pray during regular life and emergencies. That level of care for the flock is certainly a full-time commitment. So a full-time pastor is needed to lead a healthy church, right? Wrong.
Here’s the truth: part-time pastors and lay leaders provide excellent leadership in many healthy churches.
It’s a lot to expect one full-time pastor to lead and serve an entire congregation. Instead, a healthy church might have a shared leadership, whether that be among multiple part-time pastors, bivocational pastors (people with multiple jobs), or lay leaders. With shared leadership, your church benefits from empowered lay leaders using their unique gifts and talents.
“We’ve got some scrappy little churches that are out there being salt and light in some very inspiring ways,” says Nandra Perry, director of the Iona Collaborative, in an article about creative church workarounds, particularly as it relates to leadership. “I think bishops are in touch with that, and increasingly, with the importance of elevating the ministry of all the baptized, and strong, well-trained, locally formed leaders. It’s an enormous opportunity.”
A healthy church might even share its pastor with another church. This is great collaboration and utilization of resources. Indeed, one of the advantages of small churches, writes Andrew Bossardet, is that they can cooperate with one another instead of competing with one another.
Case study: Two churches, one pastor: an old model for the present and future church
Myth: Bivocational ministry is second-class compared to full-time ministry.
There exists misperception around bivocational ministry, in which a person or pastor is called to more than one job. Some people think a part-time pastor has failed and couldn’t cut it as a full-time pastor. Others see that second (or third) job—the non-pastor position—as less important, perhaps merely a financial means to support a family or as a “side gig.” Doesn’t that second job take away the person’s time and energy from serving the church? Not necessarily.
Here’s the truth: bivocational ministry is dynamic and strengthens church life.
Bivocational ministry is the present reality in many churches (especially church plants), and it will almost certainly become more common in the future as well.
“Bi-vocational ministry is the leading pathway for pastors serving congregations around the globe,” says Luis Ruiz, supervisor of RCA mission in North America, Latin America, and the Caribbean. “The reasons and benefits are undoubtedly practical: it helps the church financially support the ministry, provides the ability to engage both secular and sacred space, models generosity and sacrifice, and grows the gifts of the body of Christ.”
Bivocational leadership is a shift from recent ministry models (one church, one pastor, one call), but it’s got roots all the way back to the Bible and can be a very dynamic, empowering model of leadership.
Patricia Simmons, herself called to multiple jobs, points to the model set out by the apostle Paul and by Priscilla and Aquila, all tentmakers who worked to support their ministry.
“Today, many pastors follow Paul’s example as a model to support themselves and their ministries by finding employment and work through corporate America or entrepreneurship ventures. I am among these pastors, and I can say that I feel called to this bi-vocational work—in the work of my primary calling but also in the jobs that help pay the bills. In short, it is a calling to ministry,” writes Simmons in this reflection on her call to bivocational work. “My dual roles brought together a singular vision and calling.”
A bivocational church leader in India drives an auto-rickshaw (pictured above) to supplement his income. He has improvised his rickshaw to be a mini study to prepare sermons while he waits on his customers.
In addition to a dynamic, focused calling, Simmons was able to better connect to her communities and be a bridge between her “ministry” job and her “marketplace” job.
“Adding pastoral ministry … gave me the opportunity to know church attendees and members and also to meet many who may not personally know God or have faith,” she says. “Being bi-vocational promotes building relationships and living out my calling, faith, and journey in all areas of my life, which helps others to worship, formulate their faith, grow to love God, and find their own calling to serve God and God’s church.”
The financial framework of bivocational pastors also opens up opportunities for churches. A pastor who has additional income from another job can be called and hired by a church with a smaller budget—like a house church or microchurch, or a traditional church with a smaller congregation—that would not be able to afford a pastor’s full-time salary and benefits. Also, churches that can afford a full-time pastor might opt for a bivocational leader in order to allocate more of their budget toward mission.
Related: Bivocational ministry is on the rise and this pastor is embracing it
Myth: Responsibility for church health belongs to the clergy.
It’s easy for lay people to identify a problem, then sit back in the pews and wait for the clergy or church leadership to fix everything.
Here’s the truth: responsibility for revitalization belongs to the whole church.
Just like no one person is responsible for a decline of a church, no one person is responsible for the work of revitalization. The whole church needs to be on board and involved. Discern and pray together to determine the best path for revitalization, then commit and do the work together.
As the apostle Paul says, the church is one body with many parts, and “we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love” (Ephesians 4:15-16).
Myth: It takes a lot of money to get healthier.
A lot of things worth doing take large amounts of effort and money. And the church budget is almost always tight, especially for a church in decline. Why invest in revitalization when it may be costly and may not take?
Here’s the truth: revitalization can start small and grow organically.
It takes effort to become a healthier church, but it doesn’t have to mean a big financial investment. The common saying, “A little goes a long way,” can apply to church revitalization. One small step toward healthy ministry can have a great effect.
Identifying and adjusting your mental models is a great low-cost way to increase the church’s comfort level with change, for instance. Or your church could try one (or more) of these low-cost or no-cost ways to increase hospitality in your church, welcoming people into authenticity and belonging, and seeing what new life might come through the doors.
You could also invest a little money in a new passion project for a church. The effect might be like this church’s experience with a reverse offering, in which $242 sparked generosity in the whole congregation. Or the parable of the mustard seed, which is the smallest seed that grows into the greatest shrub (Matthew 13:31-32).
“Always try your experiments on the margins,” says Scott Cormode, professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, in this article about church revitalization and innovation. “You don’t want to sign up to make your rookie mistakes in public. And everybody makes rookie mistakes. So find lots of places to try one new idea a week. The ones that go poorly, you learn from. The ones that go well, you keep nurturing.”
One small, faithful step into revitalization can have a long-lasting impact, like a sapling that grows into a towering redwood tree.
Related: Three things to consider when you want to start something new
