Part One: Why do churches reach a growth ceiling?

By Dr. Jim Osterhaus

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first of a two-part series.

 "How come my church has reached a numerical number, and we are unable to increase that number?" This is a central question we have found with small churches everywhere. Studies have shown that numbers plateau rather predictably – 200, 500, 1000, etc. The most important plateau, and the one that is the biggest barrier, is the 200 plateau (some will put the number at 150).

The average church in the United States has 66 people in Sunday School attendance. They have 87 in worship attendance. That's across the board out of the 350,000 churches in America. That means if you run more than 87 on Sunday morning you're already above average in America. Eighty-five percent of all churches in America average less than 200 in worship attendance. If you run more than 200 in worship attendance you are in the top 15% of churches in the United States. 

Why is it that churches reach this critical plateau, and so often are unable to exceed it? 
The answer is simple, with very complex implications. Breaking the 200 plateau requires a very different way of doing church. And a different way of doing church requires a different way of doing leadership -- The role of the pastor must change as the role of the congregation changes. 

A pastor of a small church, and the congregation that makes up the small church, have a settled sense of what church life should be all about. In these small churches, the pastor personally ministers to virtually everyone in the congregation. And that is precisely the reason that 200 is the magic number. It is the number of people that one pastor can reasonably pastor.

So what’s the usual pattern? The pastor, or someone(s) in the church starts talking about growth. “We need to grow in order to fulfill the great commission.” A committee is then formed with those who seem interested, and suggestions are generated as to next steps. Possibly a standard outreach program is adopted. The committee excites certain members of the congregation who are gung-ho for about six months, when everyone begins to sense that nothing important is really occurring. And the church settles back into its usual patterns with all the same suspects.

This is a common pattern, so let’s take a closer look, beginning with the pastor.

The Starting Point: The Role Must Change From Minister to Leader. 
People go into the ministry because they want to be helpful to people. They don’t necessarily see themselves as leading large congregations, or managing complex multi-functional staffs. As they begin their ministries (either by planting churches, or taking over smaller churches, or serving on staffs of larger churches), their energies usually focus on ministering to people.

More often than not they have had little or no training in best practices of leadership. Problems and issues arise within their congregations, and they go about handling them in an intuitive manner. Unfortunately, intuitive actions are often the wrong actions. Intuitive actions are almost universally tactical actions

As an example, a pastor sees how much is being spent on printed bulletins each week. S/he googles the cost of power point projection systems and realizes s/he can recoup the cost in a year by discontinuing printed bulletins. When s/he offers this to the congregation, people become angry and push back, startling him. Another pastor notes that the young couples’ Sunday School class attendance now exceeds the seniors class attendance. The only problem, the seniors are in a bigger classroom. The next Sunday the pastor announces to the senior and couples classes that they will switch rooms next week. The seniors are outraged. Both pastors take the tactical, intuitive action. Both meet with strong resistance, much to their dismay.

Congregational issues that arise within a church require quite different responses from the pastor – his role must change depending on what is being faced. Unfortunately, most pastors (and leaders generally) have no idea when the situation has actually changed, let alone what new role must be assumed because of it. But as the saying goes, "If you only have a hammer in your toolbox, everything looks like a nail."

Consider this graph taken from The Leadership Triangle

When the problem is tactical
When the problem is tactical, the leader’s role is that of an expert or an expert-finder. His/her tone is confident – “we can apply our current base of knowledge to solve this”. The key question he raises is “What’s wrong here?” and the evident problems are to be solved. As s/he interacts with her/his people s/he functions as a trainer, bringing knowledge to bear. And s/he functions in the present tense – “how can we solve this problem right away so that our today can be better”. A tactical issue: It snowed last night, and someone needs to remove it from the church sidewalks and parking lot.

Unfortunately, we all like to function in the role of expert. We like people to turn to us for answers, and worst of all, we’re more than happy to fuel that belief that we are the go-to people in everything dealing with the church. 

When the problem is strategic
When the problem is strategic, the leader’s role is that of a synthesizer, bringing together knowledge of the internal organization, the external constituency, and the broader climate. His/her tone is that of casting vision, introducing an inspiring picture of the future that takes advantage of and confronts the changing landscape. Her/his key question is “what should be our focus?” and s/he realizes that the key way to tackle problems is through innovation and integration. His/her interaction with his/her followers is best described as inspirational and s/he focuses on the future tense-- the imagined and aspired-to results of careful adherence to a clearly articulated strategy. Strategic issues involve the future direction of the church, and resource allocation that must follow.

When the problem is transformational 
When the problem is transformational (adaptive), the leader’s role is that of a facilitator, inviting dialogue and discovery, particularly in the areas of values and beliefs. The tone s/he strikes is one of creativity– whether in problem-solving or in conflict! S/he knows that the key question now is itself “What’s the question?” and that problems are not so much to be solved or planned for as much as re-framed – considered in an entirely new way. S/he knows that group interaction at this level of leadership needs to be free-flowing and robust – everything on the table – and that his focus is not only on the present but also on the past and the future. Transformational challenges are the very stuff of leadership and require a leader operating at full creative capacity. In the above two examples, of the power point replacing printed bulletins and the switching of classrooms, both issues appear on the surface to be purely tactical. But judging from the reaction of the congregations (both examples actually happened), there’s a great deal of transformational material in the two responses.

Take the issue of growing beyond the 200 plateau. If the pastor is operating as a transformational leader, he will call a town meeting and say something like, 

Several in leadership in the church, along with myself, have considered a concerted effort to reach out into our community and grow our numbers. The value of reaching out is clear to all of us I believe. But competing with that reaching out value is the competing value of maintaining a solid community here at the church, which will inevitably be disrupted as new people enter our doors. My role as your pastor will also need to change. I will no longer be available to do hospital visits, etc. when the need arises. That means that you all will need to more intentionally exercise your various gifts. And that will be exciting and disruptive, all at the same time. So I’ve called you together to discuss this. I can’t make this decision alone. It will affect all of us, so let’s discuss this.

The pastor becomes a facilitator
This can be very difficult for some ministers, because they want to direct the conversation and supply the answers. But the conversation must take on a life of its own as the stakeholders wrestle with the implications of growth, and what they need to do. It should be noted that as the pastor moves into the facilitator role when s/he recognizes the issue to be transformational, there will also be substantial pushback from many in the congregation. The demand will be for the pastor to “take charge” and do the hard decision-making (“Isn’t that your job?”). But the pastor then must realize that transformational work is the work of the stakeholders who will have to navigate the conflicting values and ultimately live with the resultant conclusions.

During this discussion, anxiety will usually grow (the pastor must carefully regulate this). As anxiety grows, there will be an effort on the part of the congregation to have the pastor step in and ‘apply strong leadership,’ and tell them what to do. This seduction must be resisted because the work must be carried on by the congregation. They must wrestle with the implications, even though the struggle is painful.

The pastor must also realize that s/he cannot solve this problem. In fact, no one can solve this problem. It can only be navigated. It will be an ongoing problem (as it is for all churches), the problem of growth vs. building strong community.

Read Part Two in the next issue of the Mid-Atlantic Messenger.

Dr. Jim Osterhaus, Ph.D, is a Senior Partner with TAG Consulting. He also serves as Vice President of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic and is a member of Truro Anglican Church in Fairfax, VA.