Tuesday, January 20, 2009

148

How big is too big?

This is a question that every growing church or organization has to ask itself. This is especially an issue in churches (like mine) where one of the "growth engines" is relationships or fellowship or community or however you want to describe it. It's kind of ironic that people are drawn to community yet the more people that are drawn the harder it is to maintain; the very thing that draws people to the church is endangered by them being drawn into it.

As I've been thinking about these sorts of things over the past year or so, I keep coming back to Dunbar's Number: 148. Robin Dunbar is a British anthropologist who has stated that 147.8(usually just referred to as 150) is the "cognitive limit to the number of individuals with whom any one person can maintain stable relationships." Of course, he has done a crazy amount of research pointing from primate colonies to hunter/gatherer groups and tribalism, to military organizations (Ancient Rome's military units were 150 strong), etc...

Dunbar has given a pretty large margin of error for his number but has a "95% confidence interval of 100 to 230." As our church attendance nears 200+ I begin to wonder, "what do we do now?" This last year I met a pastor from BC whose church had planted several times. He said that once they got close to 150 they began preparing to split and plant a new church. I have no idea why he chose 150 but it does line up with Dunbar's number.

The fact is that the bigger a church gets the more likely (and maybe even necessary?) it is that cliques form in order for people to maintain a sense of closeness and connectedness with at least some people in the church. After all, if you can't get to know everyone you have to know someone.

Outside of the church there is a movement called "Neo-Tribalism" which is partially based on Dunbar's Number. This is a movement of people who say that, with the increase of globalization, the foundations of society have fallen apart. To combat this they have formed "tribes" of people who live (literally or even virtually) together. They base many of their principles on the teachings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and others.

Christian Anthropologist David W. Shenk describes in his book, "Global Gods" the strengths of African Tribalism. He says that tribalism can be summarized as "'I am because we are, and we are because I am.' The person can exist only in community, and community can thrive only through the harmonious involvement of the person. The relationship between the person and the community is reciprocal, creative, and life enhancing."

I think it is safe to say that life in our contemporary society is far from "reciprocal, creative, and life enhancing."
What do you think?
So where does that leave each one of us?
What about the church?
How big is too big?
What do you think about Dunbar's Number?
What do you think of Neo-Tribalism?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

First off, I like the new look! Second is that I can't help but read between the lines and see the words "church planting at MBC".

Lisa Sawatzky said...

I also like the new look, although the old one was still very nice.

Tim and Annalisa Sawatzky said...

This is an interesting topic. I was in one church where I heard someone say, "I like our church the size it is, I don't want it to grow". Guess what, that church doesn't exist any more. If we are to be reaching people for Jesus, we will grow. And when we grow, what do we do with all the people? I think your right that an average of 150 people is a good size to get to know people. But very large churches have worked well, church plants have worked, church hive-offs have worked (hey even church splits have worked). So I think it comes down to the mentality of people and what the culture of the church is.

In larger churches, if they are to work, there will always be smaller divisions. Sometimes with age or skill set or interests. I think the difference of these groups becoming cliques or "tribal groups", as you call them, is the leaderships ability to maintain an inclusive culture even in these sub groups. But I think these sub-groups are a necessity if a larger church is to thrive. But I don't think there is a right or wrong in regard to size. Only in regard to an inclusive culture. You can't say we want visitors to come only until we reach 150. So you need to choose the inclusive option that best suits your people.

my 2 cents,
Tim S.

I also like the new look.

Michael and Sharlene McDonald said...

The new look is stunning.

I think it partially depends on the leadership skills of the lead pastor and the culture of the area the church is in.

For instance, if you have a lead pastor that has the ability to lead large groups, keep vision focused (and expanding as need be), raise (and lead) other effective leaders- a church can thrive in an ever increasing pattern- to the extent that the leader can lead well the leaders under him- everyone can feel like a part of a smaller body within the larger one (Like Tim S. was saying...)
But HOW large, I believe partially depends on the culture of the community. In S. California people live everyday with 15 million neighbours, work in organizations whose employees number in the thousands, go to baseball and football games with 60,000+ other people regularly. For them- getting together 3000, 10,000 or 20,000+ others for a similar cause is a part of their regular lives. They live in community with groups of that size everyday and have learned how to do community within larger organizations.

For someone in a town of 5000 with many folks who work for themselves or work in small organizations and offices it might be a bit different. The only time they see groups larger than 200 together might be at the occasional hockey or football game in the city. For them, larger might cause a drop-off in "buy-in" to the organization / church and they'll look for something else- or cease to reach out themselves for fear of making it "too large"- Thus a need to plant, hive-off or split.

Again, the new look is like a ray of sunshine after a week of clouds.