Poor Growth: 2% per year

Fair Growth: 3 – 5% per year

Good Growth: 6 – 8% per year

Excellent Growth: 9 – 11% per year

Outstanding Growth: 12 – 15% per year

Incredible Growth: 16 – 20% per year

God can and does restore churches to new life, even as he restores individuals. The street-smart ideas and step-by-step instructions found in this book are ones that pastors and church leaders can put to use immediately in their churches to bring about solid growth and renewed hope for the future.

Second, there are Sick Churches.  People who have let a root of bitterness sprout up often populate these churches.  They may be angry, hopeless, and have declined in worship attendance for five years or more.  Sometimes sick churches are plateaued in worship attendance, but this is still an unhealthy situation.  Plateauing in churches is akin to hypertension in humans.  You can live with hypertension for many years, but if it is left untreated, the hypertension may result in a stroke or death.  Churches that have been on a long-term plateau may be okay for decades, but the plateau will usually result in eventual decline and death if left untreated.

Third, there are Healthy Churches.  Health is normally defined as an “absence of disease.”  Thus, a healthy church is one that is unified, loving, and caring.  Worshipers usually know their spiritual gifts and passions, and are found serving in some ministry role. The Word of God is taught with conviction, and children are raised up in the faith.  Missionaries are supported, and prayers are offered for the salvation of souls around the world.  It is good to be healthy, but I suggest there is another level of health, or church, that is best: a Fit Church.

I’m healthy, that is, I have no disease.  However, I am not fit, that is, I could never run a six minute mile. One of my uncles, on the other hand, is both healthy and fit.  He holds state and even a few national records for endurance running.  We are both healthy but my uncle is FIT!  The same is true of churches, that is, some are healthy but not fit.  Others are healthy and FIT!

Thus, a fourth type of church is a Fit Church.  A fit church usually has a five percent conversion rate each year.  Another way to say that is it only takes twenty people in a fit church to see one new person come to faith in Jesus Christ each year.  A healthy church needs thirty-five people to see one person come to faith and a sick church needs around 100 people to bring one new person to faith.  Hospice Churches, by definition, bring no one to faith in Christ.

Fit churches average around ten percent growth each and every year, while healthy churches may grow between two and five percent a year, which means they barely hold onto their own children.  Sick churches rarely grow, but may reach enough new people to remain on a plateau. Hospice churches experience major decline.

Fit churches replace themselves by multiplying daughter churches.  Healthy churches may start one new daughter church, but never start another.  Sick and Hospice churches only contribute to new churches through foreign missions giving or by giving the proceeds from the sale of their property to help plant new churches after they die.

There are, of course, other indicators we could look at to define a fit church, however these are a few key ones.  But, there may be one more type of church in the larger church health paradigm: the World-Class Church.

You may be healthy and fit, but are you world-class?  World-class athletes compete in the Olympic games and other national and world venues.  They are a step above even those who are physically fit.  In a similar way there are churches that go way beyond fitness to being World-Class.  Instead of averaging an annual growth rate of ten percent a year, they average twenty percent or greater. Instead of starting a few daughter churches, they multiply numerous daughter churches.  Instead of seeing five percent of their newcomers each year being new converts to Christ, they see ten percent or more conversion growth rate.  As you might expect, World-Class Churches are rare, but we can all work toward fitness.  If your church is sick, strive to become healthy.  If it is healthy, strive to be fit.  And, if your church is fit, why not strive to be world-class?

I welcome your thought. -Your friend, Gary McIntosh

There are many good reasons for us to focus on the numerical growth of our churches. We should be concerned about numerical growth because . . .

(1) Numbers equal people. Christ’s command to “make disciples” cannot be accomplished without adding people to the church. If we are obedient to the Great Commission—finding, winning, and folding lost people into our congregations— we must be concerned about numerical growth.

(2) There are large numbers of people who need to believe in Christ and connect with His church. A study by David T. Olson,“12 Surprising Facts about the American Church,” reports that only 18.7 percent of people in the United States attended an orthodox Christian church on any given weekend in 2000. That means 81.3 percent of our population is effectively outside the discipling network of any Bible believing church.

If we are not concerned about the numerical growth of our church, are we not neglecting the 81.3 percent who need salvation in Christ?

(3) Church attendance will continue to decline if we do not focus on growth. Olson projects in his study that church attendance will drop to 17.1 percent in 2010, 15.6 percent in 2020, and 11.7 percent in 2050. If we do not focus on the growth of our church, this trend will continue.

(4) Small churches are declining. Most churches with an average attendance between 50 and 299 are declining. This equates to the often quoted number of 85 percent of all churches in the United States.

(5) Older churches are declining. Every decade of churches that were planted between 1840 and 1960 declined in attendance during the last decade (1990-2000). If your church was started over forty years ago, there is a strong possibility your attendance is declining also.

(6) Church planting is not keeping up with population growth. The strong effort at church planting during the decade of the 1990s provided a net gain of 4,600 churches in the United States. This is an outstanding number. Unfortunately, to keep up with the population growth, another 38,802 churches were needed. We must, of course, continue to plant churches. But, we also need to focus on the numerical growth of existing ones at the same time.

(7) The American church is in decline. Protestant churches grew a total of 5.7 percent in the decade of the 1990s, but population growth was 13.2 percent! If we are to keep up with population growth, our churches must focus on numerical growth.

Should we focus on growth? Absolutely! The gospel expects it, the health of our churches demands.

“Church growth is that discipline which investigates the nature, function, and health of Christian churches, as they relate to the effective implementation of the Lord’s Great Commission to make disciples of all peoples (Mt. 28:19-20). It is a spiritual conviction, yet it is practical, combining the eternal principles of God’s Word with the practical insights of social and behavioral sciences.”

I like to say that Church Growth is all about “heart” and “hands.”  Heart relates to the spiritual factors that produce a healthy church environment.  Disciplines such as, prayer, fasting, biblical preaching, faith, and patient waiting on the Holy Spirit are all important aspects of spiritual growth. Hands relate to the practical involvement in the work of the Lord, which are often seen in faith planning, vision casting, developing strategy, and the use of appropriate methods in reaching people for Christ.

God grows His Church, but He uses our heart and hands in the work (1 Cor. 3:6-9).

Some first generation people have a strong attraction to their native culture and have no real desire to be part of a different cultural experience.  They have an assimilation factor of A1, which means they desire to remain a part of their primary culture.

Of course, second generation people quite often feel very comfortable, sometimes even preferring, a multi-cultural experience.  They have an assimilation factor of A2.  Third generation people usually desire to be members of the dominant culture, and thus have an assimilation factor of A3.

Multi-cultural churches normally are comprised of people who have an assimilation factor of A2.  Thus, if you are interested in having a multicultural ministry, it is wise to focus on second generation peoples, as well as others who feel comfortable in multicultural environments.

As the second generation of various peoples becomes larger in the coming two decades, there will be a great opportunity to establish multicultural churches in the United States.  Perhaps your church could work with God to build such a church in the next 20 years.

For many of us, these numbers are conservative.  One study conducted a few years ago found that the average church member knew 60 people by first name.  With in increase of only 10 people to 60 friends, the Rule of Four suggests we have over 12 billion friends of friends of friends of friends!

Theoretically there are enough relationships for the gospel to reach each of the six million plus people in the world with ease.  So, what is the problem?  Why has the gospel not reached the six million?

While the issue is certainly complex, at least a part of the answer is related to our unwillingness to talk to others about Christ.  The average church needs around 80-90 people to win one person to Christ each year.

It is not just how many people we may have potential contact with, but are we willing to speak up and out.

In the 1970s people primarily thought of church growth as a research paradigm.  The idea was to study a church to get the facts and “remove the fog” in an effort to be more faithful in winning people to Christ and bringing them into a church.

By the 1980s people tended to think of church growth as a business paradigm.  Pastors became CEOs with responsibility to cast vision, direct a team, and set the overall direction of a church.

Throughout the 1990s church growth was viewed as a marketing paradigm.  Demographic research was a crucial element in learning how to communicate effectively with the non-churched population.

As we entered the 2000s, the major church growth paradigm was health.  Churches were looking inward in an effort to become healthier communities of faith.

Today’s paradigm is missional engagement with the community. Today’s churches are now seeking to reach out to the non-churched world through social and evangelistic involvement.

Which paradigm do you tend to think of when you hear the term Church Growth?  What are the strengths and weaknesses of each paradigm?  Which one is the most faithful to the Great Commission?

Few farmers I am aware of would claim to be able to grow a crop independently.  However, we all realize that the harvest would not be very profitable if the farmer just sat back to let God do the work alone.  It is when a farmer faithfully plows, fertilizes, plants, and irrigates that God produces a harvest.

In similar fashion, God has chosen to work with earthly leaders to accomplish His purpose of bringing life to a lost world and glory to His name.  As Paul explains, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth” (1 Cor. 3:6).   Church growth pastors realize that God is the ultimate cause of growth and deserves all the glory. However, they also understand they are God’s “fellow workers” (3:9) and work faithfully to fulfill God’s call on their life and work.