Worship Attendance Growth Rates
A church is a living organism. It's natural for an organism to grow. And it's natural for a church to grow. When a church is not growing it is quite likely that something is wrong. In the United States a healthy church will see between 5 - 12% growth in worship attendance each year.
There are a number of indicators that could be used to evaluate whether or not a church is healthy. One could analyze the budget. The number of visitors, and visitors who stay, in a church might be a good indicator. How many members read the Bible and have regular devotions could qualify. Perhaps the dollars and hours spent in local community service projects. Or the number of corporate hours in prayer could be measured. Healthy churches usually have a network of small groups with a large percentage of members involved. They have adequate and qualified staff. The number of conversions per year in a church could (and should) be measured. And there are more. So, what is the key indicator of a healthy church? After years of study, it is my contention that the indicator of a church's health is its worship attendance growth rate. A negative rate normally means the church has one or more problems. A positive growth rate indicates that, for the moment, ministry and mission are likely going well. Of course, there will be exceptions in either case. But rules are generalizations of what is the case far more often than not. In general, I suggest the following table of growth rates to be an indicator of health in a local church, a regional, and a national denomination body.
- 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
Comments
charles e whisnant Apr. 17, 2012 at 4:34 PM
I don't agree with the idea that you need to grow in number to be health. Numbers can be a false view of the health of a church.
Randal Kay Apr. 17, 2012 at 5:41 PM
Numbers can be important, like those on a thermometer. But we must also remember good old Gideon and his every-decreasing band of warriors.
Just because a church is growing in numbers does not mean the the real growth of becoming like Jesus is taking place. I do believe that numbers are important, the question is, "what are we counting?"
DennisS Apr. 17, 2012 at 10:19 PM
Attendance numbers fluctuate, and can be influenced by special events such as a major anniversary of the church, a special new program, etc.
For an established congregation I prefer to look at membership growth. Don't look at the net growth, nor the negative side - which is influenced by deaths, transfers out, etc. Look at the positive side of membership for each year - what percentage joined the church compared to the previous year membership?
A congregation needs an average of 5 - 8% membership growth to keep up with loses over the long term. The addition of new members is encouraging, and allows for newer members to serve in leadership capacities and thus bring new ideas and new energy.
However, membership additions of 14% or more on average for several years - well, this generally means significant changes taking place since the addition of so many each year necessitates changes. This can be challenging for a congregation in the long term, and can lead to significant stresses and events which lead to major loses of members.
I like a growth rate of 10% per year on the positive side of membership (probably around 5% net gain on average), with half the growth from those who had been unchurched. This is particularly good in smaller rural environments which are declining in population - as in my context.
In the newer congregations, in higher population contexts, I basically agree with your attendance numbers as the best way to measure. I spent several years in a congregation alternating between attendance growth of 6% and 14%, for an average gain of 10% a year - and this seemed rather good.
Robert Apr. 18, 2012 at 7:01 AM
Though I immensely respect the author of the post, I simply disagree with his point. Numbers (i.e. worship attendance) are a means of understanding health, but a poor one. Health has far more to do with intrinsic valuation than extrinsic ones like counting the people in worship. While we can glean information from worship attendance trends, it is limited.
In the context where I serve we see the average family only 2 times a month (this is for our main generational segment, families 30-49.) While there are some who, because of their group involvement, attend more frequently, many of the less frequent attenders see themselves as being faithful even at a less frequent engagement rate. When we take into account the flux of attenders and consider how many people we see in a month our numbers truly reflect growth. Yet we aren't convinced it is good growth. Anybody can grow a church, that's not hard. What is difficult and our primary mission is to make disciples. That doesn't happen easily, but a church where you have a high percentage of committed disciples is, IMHO, far healthier than a fast growing church of uncommitted attenders.
Joe Hellerman Apr. 18, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Gary, thanks for the post. Though hardly ‘politically correct’ in a culture of churches with declining membership, your conviction is a truism that needs to be heard.
I have become convinced that numerical growth through conversions is a NECESSARY but not SUFFICIENT indicator of church health.
NECESSARY: While I am a bit uncomfortable with generalizations regarding specific yearly percentages, it certainly seems to me that a healthy church will grow numerically. The dichotomy between “making disciples” and “growing a church” (cf., Robert) is a false one. Will a church with genuine disciples really fail to reach the lost for Christ? I think not. To be sure, we must always allow for those socio-cultural settings which prove to be exceptions to the rule. But let’s not use those exceptions as a cop-out in the face of what appears to be biblically normative (cf., Acts and the Pauline mission) for healthy local church ministry.
NOT SUFFICIENT: I am sadly familiar with numbers of local churches that are characterized by relational chaos at the top level of ministry, where emotionally needy, narcissistic senior pastors treat their associate staff like an expendable utilitarian commodity. Yet some of these churches continue to grow in remarkable ways. Perhaps this is what Robert has in mind when he says, “Anyone can grow a church.” Unfortunately, lay leadership boards only exacerbate the dysfunction by affirming such pastors, simply because the church is growing numerically and church finances are robust. It seems to me that if the basic love command of Scripture is betrayed at the highest level of church leadership, we can hardly call such a church “healthy”—regardless of numerical growth. There may be other non-negotiable signs of a healthy church, but for me as least two are (1) numerical growth and (2) healthy, nurturing relationships among church leaders.
My $0.02. What’s yours?
Richard Zuelch Apr. 21, 2012 at 12:17 AM
Assuming the pastor and other leaders are conscientiously performing their God-given tasks, the rate of church growth is determined by God, not man. Not only so, it's quite possible for a church with only a 2% yearly growth rate to be perfectly healthy spiritually, while a church with a 20% yearly growth rate to be spiritually dead (Benny Hinn - call your office).
Gary L. McIntosh Apr. 23, 2012 at 8:31 PM
Wow! I guess I hit a bit of a nerve with this post. Thanks to everyone for great comments. Let me give a small response to some of them.
First, yes, numbers can give (in some cases) a false impression regarding a church's health. However, they are also valuable as an indicator of health. For example, this year I had my yearly physical exam. My doctor took my blood presure, measured my height, checked my weight, and studied my blood sugar levels, among other things that shall go unmentioned. All of these tests resulted in numerical numbers from which the doctor was able to determine my health. I think there is a clear analogy here. Numerical growth rates of worship attendance do give us an indication of a church's health.
Second, yes, sometimes a church on a plateau or in decline MAY be healthy (read Gideon here). However, from my experience this is a very rare occurance, perhaps about five percent of all churches. Ninety-five percent of churches can and should be growing. In most situations that I've observed, church leaders who claim their church is healthy, while it is plateaued or declining, are just using health as an excuse.
Third, in the United States, the average church loses ten percent of its people each year. Thus, it takes at least ten percent growth just to stay plateaued, and it takes twevle or more percent growth each year to see any net growth.
Fourth, I agree with Robert that it is really about making disciples, not mere numbers. However, since each number we count is a person whom Jesus Christ loves, numbers are never "mere." The Great Commission means more than making better Christians out of those who are already Christians. It also means making NEW Christians. Thus, shouldn't a healthy church be able to point to some new disciples? Or at least point out that the church is making a serious effort at evangelism?
Fifth, the context does make a huge difference among churches. A church is a smaller community does not have as much potential as one in a major metropolitan area.
Lastly, as Joe notes, worship attendance is not the only way to meaure health, but it is one way. The percentages I gave in the original post are based on my study of churches over the last three decades. As least they are a place to start evaluating a church's health.
Again, thanks for all the great comments. I appreciate each of you!
TracyJ Dec. 10, 2012 at 12:52 PM
Number are important, if you believe in reaching the unchurched. Every number represents someone who is in need of the life-transforming power of Jesus.
God created plants, animals, people, etc. to grow. When something does not grow we label it as stagnant or retarded (growth-challenged for my politically-correct friends).
It is cute to see a baby grow, but devastating when they have not advanced by ten or twenty years of age. Why would we think that God is any less pleased with churches that have not grown both spiritually and numerically.
Is John 15 only about believers growing in their relationship with the Father? I think not! It is also about the branches adding to the seed-bearing fruit of the vine. He that wins souls is wise (Prov. 11:30)