The 200 Barrier needs to be retired.
We have to erase it from our church leadership lexicon before it does any more harm to good churches and their pastors.
Yes, there is a difference in the way churches behave administratively under and over 200 (give or take 50).
It would be foolish not to acknowledge and teach that reality. But that’s not a barrier. It’s an adjustment.
Calling it the 200 Barrier carries some dangerous implications – starting with the implication that a church over 200 is better than a church under 200.
What evidence is there, either biblical or analytical, that churches over 200 have greater value than churches under 200? Do they automatically have a greater impact on their community because of their size? Are they better at discipleship? Evangelism? Worship? No, no, no and no.
As I’ve outlined in many posts on this site, larger churches do some things better than smaller ones, but Small Churches do other things better than bigger ones. Keep reading
Also see
Karl Vaters; The Surprising Reason 80% of Churches Will Never Break the 200 Barrier
People are Talking about The Grasshopper Myth
No comments:
Post a Comment