Ed,

Wow. This is going to take some time to really digest, but after reading the report, it seems to me that a lot of speculation about large vs small churches, particularly by those denigrating megachurches as being "entertaining", simply isn't true. And is, perhaps, a rationalization to defend against criticism of small churches.

Wow again.

(Let the method criticism flow...)

Is is possible, after all these years, and all these methods, it is "the apostle's doctrine" that grows churches, that the gospel really is the power of God unto salvation... who da thunk?

I found it very interesting that only 9-25% considered themselves "Evangelical" as per the definition they provided. i would love to see some more research done to define which of the seven "qualifications" the majority would have disagreed with. I could venture some guesses, but the research would be interesting to see.

I was surprised at how few people in the survey were from mega-churches. There were three times the number of people who were involved in 101-200 member churches.

I also wonder where most of the "small" church results came from, for example ff they were primarily in the NE or West. Where were the large church numbers from? All these factors would help determine the kinds of churches and communities that these folks came from.

I think we need to be very careful about reading too much into these numbers. Until there is further demographic information provided it's very hard to really understand what they "mean".

hey why was the survey given to so few people in large churches compared to the number of people surveyed in small churches. Does that not make this kinda inaccurate?
thank you Daniel Rose for your comment as well.

Chuck Warnock on his blog calls this study into question too. While he has a "pony" in the small church stable, I think he raises some good points. See http://bit.ly/2jsUby for his article.

Also, I think smaller churches are more likely to call themselves "fundamentalist" than "evangelical". Just a thought.

This "poll" reflects the views of 9% evangelical small churches compared to almost three times that percentage of large churches. Apples and oranges. Must have polled mostly Episcopal, Lutheran small churches. Any study that polls so few evangelicals is going to be suspect in the "belief" results.

I took a Statistics course in college. The main text was entitled How to Lie with Statistics. Let's just say it made me very skeptical of these kinds of studies. The wording of the questions, the demographics, and the denominational attributes seem to be things that would make a difference here. I find it doubtful that a study that concludes small=unorthodox is not at least flawed in some way.

BTW, I rarely use statistics, especially from the pulpit, maybe 1% of the time in 14 years. Oh, wait. Never mind.

The other issue is that over 95% of all churches (just made that stat up) are in the small church category. Hmm

Ed, I'd like to see LifeWay conduct a similar survey with better questioning. Although I'm weak in the statistics area, they do seem disproportionate.

I'm not sure that I think this survey is somehow casting a negative light on the small church - our denomination has many and I believe they are for the most part strong theologically. I do think, however, that this survey may help combat the notion that large churches are somehow weak theologically. Key word: help-(not declare)!

I think more and better research is warranted - can we count on some from LifeWay?

Is anybody else disturbed by the fact that 64% of those attend small churches believe that good people can earn a place in heaven.

More disturbing is that the numbers are not much better the bigger the church is.

Why isn't this 100%?

I grew up in a small church that had less than 100 people, then grew to around 300, and now has less than 100 again. I now attend a "mega" church. May not be true for all churches, but these findings match my experience EXACTLY.

Barna reports the methodology and the results, so it is transparent.

You could rightfully ask, "What if all the respondents were evangelical-- from mega and small churches?" Those numbers might be different, but that is not what he found.

So, I think he reports what he finds and in this case it appears that more of the people in smaller churches were non-evangelical. If I had to guess, I would say that those are probably older mainline congregations.

It is what it is.

Ed

The other factor here is that the vast majority of megachurches are evangelical while a greater number of smaller churches would be mainline, thus the results will be skewed because you have one demographic that is disproportionately filled with more evangelicals than the other demographics.

Not a knock on megachurches, but I think that that needs to be considered. It should be noted however, that Barna is not trying to defend megachurches. Based on his recent writings, he is moving toward the house church as the best model, it seems.

Ed,

Perhaps Lifeway Research could conduct such a survey within the SBC for a better picture of evangelical small and large churches.

For people to point to this poll without understanding the flaws within its methodology and make general statements that small church theology is less orthodox than large churches is inaccurate as well as it is unhelpful.

For those who may point to my bias for the small church, I would say that I would very happily accept the results of a survey that measured evangelical churches only. To mix in evangelical churches among mainline denomination non-evangelical churches is begging for skewed results which mean absolutely nothing.

Les

It is a poll of people, not churches.

And, these are the results.

If you get a different group of people (only those going to evangelical churches), you get different results-- and, my guess is that the groups would be more similar.

I see the frustration, but the results are the results-- he tells you what he asked, the persons asked, and their answers.

On the other hand, if someone says, "small churches are less orthodox" based on this study, that would be an inappropriate statement.

I do think (but it is just a guess) that the numbers would be very different if it were just a study of evangelicals or within one evangelical denomination.

Ed

Didn't Barna also find, a few years ago, that non-evangelical born-again adults out-number evangelical born-again adults in the U.S. something like 7 to 1 (71 million to 14 million)? If so, should we be surprised by the numbers in this report assuming that the born-again folks actually attend church somewhere sometime--though it looks like the evangelicals are: [1] grouping themselves in larger churches, or [2] making more evangelical disciples there than are made in/by smaller churches; I'd guess the second)?

Ed,
I agree with Les that for this poll to be helpful to Southern Baptists it needs to be more focused on our situation. You are right in saying this is poll of people not churches but I am not sure how representative the 3,000 + were and how balanced they were as far as region of the country, economic status, etc. It is good to consider these results but I would not use them to justify statements about mega-church or house church vs. small churches. After 30 years of visiting small churches, mega churches and medium churches, this poll does not fit my observations of SBC churches.

Ed is correct, of course, that the poll is a poll of people, not churches. And, he is also correct in his assumption that a more similar denominational or evangelical pairing of large vs small churches would produce different results.

My concern is that this survey gets "short-handed" as it already has, and the conventional wisdom becomes that mega churches are more "orthodox" than small churches.

At best the survey is unhelpful; at worst it misleads. I'm sure Barna et al did not mean to mislead, but the design of the survey sure took them in that direction. That's why I think they bungled this one, but that's just my opinion as a small church pastor.

Chuck,

I find the info to be helpful (as I do almost all new information), but I get what you are saying.

Perhaps a better way to say it is to add, "Non-evangelical churches tend to be smaller, and this probably impacts the results."

However, I get the concern. Just not sure how you change the facts. A bigger sample (probably) won't help.

You basically have to change the sampling methodology to get different results-- and that can lead to some agenda-driven research.

I get that the small church gets hit a lot. I am a frequent defender.

But, I also think researchers must be able to do studies and look at the facts and/or challenges without being criticized for not adding variables to make certain groups look better.

And, I should add that Barna is a competitor of sorts, so I don't have any reason to defend his approach. I just think it is a bit of a catch-22 for researchers.

Ed

Joseph,

Why would you want the number of people who believe that good people can earn a place in heaven to be 100%? I don't get it.

I agree with Chuck that survey results are prone to get evaluated in a drive-by fashion that can mislead. And, I always appreciate Ed's work and insights...

Although I am more than aware that churches can grow by diluting the gospel, etc...could it be possible that God is simply honoring the churches and pastors who faithfully proclaim his Word in a way that is intelligible to the culture in which they exist. Thus, some of those large churches got that way because they are more "conservative" theologically than some might like to admit.

Just a thought...

It's interesting that just last week my wife found a website that enables one to put all the 'stuff' in the cupboard in a field and it will produce all the possible recipes. Seems like that's what everyone is doing. Studies, surveys, stats, etc...

"How can we get the right growth?" "How are we going to reach these people?" "Why don't people like to 'come' to church?"

I read it all and love it just the same, however, at the end of the day, saying you are a Christian and profession Jesus as Savior no more makes you fit for eternity than shoving straws up your nose makes you a walrus at Denny's. (My kid's favorite)

The bottom line is that unless people are truly confronted with the Gospel, they are lost. They are powerless and there is no evangelism.

Jesus came to die first for God the Father, to make His glory known and His righteousness clear. Then, Jesus died for sinners. As the stakes raise, the return reduces. We must be very careful in putting too much into the hands of man for growing Christ's church. And to be honest, (not that I was lying before) it's too often that churches produce a sharing of faith and serving faith that is not a fruit of a true saving faith.

I know in my congregation, there are many who love the institution, services, preaching, people and still love these things far above the greatest treasure - Jesus.

God is the Gospel, let's keep it that way. - I love Barna's work though, great to peruse.

Soli Deo Gloria,

James

One thing that I would point out is if you look at the number of people surveyed you see got smaller as the churches got bigger. Only 114 people who attend a church of more than 1000 where surveyed vs 547 who attend a church of 100 or less. That would cause inaccurate statistics, you must have proportionality equal sampling to get a true results. I would as any statistician would challenge their findings.

Would not put much stock in this survey at all.

I'm less concerned with small vs. large as I am with the actual results from the questions; especially these two:

45%-66% of "Christians" believe someone can earn their way to heaven?

26%-51% of "Christians" think Jesus committed sins?

I mean, I knew the American church was dying; but ... seriously?

O how weak our theology has become. If this is near true, this is a disgrace.

Jr,

I would agree. The TRUTH is no longer the hunger of the saints - ahem.

These numbers show a good portion of what I was speaking of before in my first comment. We, the church, need to be about the Gospel, the centrality of Christ and His power as God!

Making much of Him is our only reason for living... let's share the God we know saves.

Ed-

I would imagine that this research is accurate. Many of the churches in our area are small, liberal, dead or dying churches. Additionally, you don't find too many "Liberal" mega-churches. I cannot name one within 50 miles.

The problem I have with this study is that in my experience, it is misleading. Some of the mega-churches that I have encountered do proclaim a "watered-down" faith. I spoke with one mega-church pastor and asked him how often they talk of repentance at their church. He responded that in his tenure there, not once. Another mega-church in our area had a pastor say from the pulpit that calvinists are similar to Mormons, and that the problem with calvinists is that they don't read their Bibles. That was at least humorous for me! Another mega-church pastor once told me in reference to the biggest church in America, "They must be doing something right, look at how God is blessing them in their numbers!"

I think you will find push-back from some pastors of smaller churches with this post because it appears (appears is the key word) to be saying that mega-churches preach the Bible, and small churches do not. I know many small church pastors who seek to proclaim the whole counsel of God, they preach on repentance and faith week in and week out, and they push their people towards growth in Biblical holiness, and honestly that doesn't sell with many Americans. Meanwhile, a mega-church down the street preaches on "Life in High Definition" without ever mentioning sin, hell or repentance, the cross is afterthought and yet 4000 people attend on a Sunday.

I'm not anti-mega church. My living mentors and heroes are almost all pastors of mega-churches. I just fear that all too often we equate numbers with success. And the way this study is worded could perpetuate that mentality. That's why this "small church" pastor has some problems with Barna's research.

Thanks for posting and for being a defender of the "small church".

Ed,

I think I have a problem with the sample.

In a previous survey Barna indicated that the balance of church goers was skewed more to the middle of the size chart. Yet his sample here is so disporportional that it renders a relationship of believers to church size unreliable.

I am really a Barna fan, but this seems like it may not of been his best work.

If this were a political survey of americans and only 20% of respondents were republican, we would not believe that a majority of voting republicans were catholic or black or green or whatever may be indicated. We would require that the sample be reflective of the population pool, which this does not appear to be.

In Him,
JMb >
Bishop James I Feel God Brown
aka Tha Internet's Favorite Pastor
Fort Worth, TX

Correlation does not equal causation. Megachurches are far more likely to be evangelical (I can't think of an Anglican megachurch for example) and so it's not a surprise that people in evangelical churches know the evangelical answers to faith questions. This survey says nothing about the efficacy of different sizes of churches.

Consider this: Large organizations are, and by their structure, need to be, far less tolerant of dissent, and dissenters are more quick to leave: in a small organization, personal and social bonds can overcome doctrinal differences as a divisive force. Being valued for your individuality plays a greater part in a small church, and the importance of orthodoxy is a greater asset in a large church. (I am a Roman Catholic.) I believe this distinction is what the poll discovered, making interpolations from these results very risky.